capt_oats

It's definitely a fair point from a cash flow point of view however it'd be genuinely interesting to find out from a market research stance whether they'd actually sell any more by having an earlier on sale date or whether they'd just sell the same number over a longer period. Would people buying shirts to go on holiday be extra sales or would they just buy them anyway through the season and the summer is viewed as a period to try and shift the discounted dead stock. Edit: didn't see something else's post when I was writing that. ^^^^

I'd rather Dom Thomas or Ross Maclean got a game tbh.

Which will be unveiled once we've decided which sponsor we're going with.

I wouldn't go as far as to call it pathetic but given ICT and Ross County fans are making these journeys every other week through an entire season, regardless of whether they're travelling in small numbers or not, for other member clubs to be singling them out and moaning seems to lack a bit of empathy and self-awareness.

I've not really got much to add beyond what I posted in the other thread however my main issue here is that the club are, in my opinion, arguing simply to deflect from their own shortcomings and the manner they've gone about it. Yes there is a financial case that could be addressed as a result of the fixture anomalies but that would surely been better to have been raised privately and discussed between member clubs rather than publicly in a manner that makes the club's attitude to OF fixtures look like one big cash-grab. Let's be clear about what appears to have happened: - The club appears to have made an incorrect assumption about how the fixtures will be weighted. - That apparent assumption was based, not on an actual rule, but on an unwritten understanding last invoked some five years or so ago under a previous league body. - Given that they say they had no communication from SPFL it appears they did not check that the assumption was indeed correct. - They then proceeded to increase the price of and (mis-?)sell season books off the back of their version of events and budget for the coming season based on an assumption that they had not verified. - The SPFL have scheduled fixtures in the same way they did last year and the club have thrown their toys out the pram because it has become apparent that their assumption was misjudged. On the whole appears to have been the club's error. I understand the financial argument completely, yes there is an unfortunate knock-on in financial terms with some clubs benefiting against others however unless MFC (& PTFC) have some sort of correspondence with the SPFL that even remotely suggests that the had a valid reason to make an assumption that the fixture scheduling would fundamentally change from last season or that there is evidence that there was a broad understanding between all member clubs that the fixtures would be altered in such a way and that the SPFL simply haven't implemented it then they really don't have a case. If all MFC have to their argument is "but that's not how it was 5 years ago", "but we we thought it would change", "...because Rangers", "...it's no' fair" then they need to take it on the chin and move on because unless they can point to a written rule that backs up their claim then the SPFL are quite entitled to simply tell the club, in no uncertain terms, to sit down. If their argument boils down to "we thought it'd be the same as the last time there was a Rangers in the league" then that is just weak. MFC's statement is an embarrassing piece of bluster. It's a cringeworthy knee-jerk piece of prose, seemingly written whilst looking in blind panic at a hole in their budget the club hadn't anticipated. Ill advised is the best I can say about it. The part that I take most exception to though is this statement: "There was no hint to this fundamental change" I'm sorry but there appears to have been no fundamental change between this year and last. The SPFL have handled the promotion/relegation issue in the same way they did last year, and presumably the year before that. A fundamental change would have been a change from the status quo, that hasn't happened. A fundamental change would be to revert to a fixture manipulation from 5 years ago that focuses on the basis of the size of fanbase of two clubs, that hasn't happened. In short, there has been no fundamental change which is presumably why the SPFL didn't feel the need to hint at any change. In my opinion if any assumption was being made it's that the SPFL fixtures would be handled the same way they were last season. That would be a reasonable assumption, it's not just saying that in 20/20 hindsight it's just a reasonable approach to planning ie: that unless told otherwise the process will be the same as the year prior. Even more so given we're being told there had been no communication from the SPFL that there will be any change to the way they planned to go about things. To then proceed in the way that it appears MFC have, to budget based on their own unconfirmed assumption, to raise ST prices and draft ST copy based on an assumption that hasn't been checked or verified but is simply because "that's how it was before"...naive doesn't ever cover it. Rather than stamping their feet, posting statements and demanding that immediate action be taken the MFC board would have been better served taking a moment looking at what has actually happened: they have misjudged the situation, SPFL have processed the fixtures in the same way they have in recent years and crucially Rangers have been treated as any other promoted club. The next questions they should have been asking were: "is criticising the SPFL for treating the fixtures the same as they have the year before a valid argument?", "is being seen to argue publicly that Rangers and Celtic should be viewed as special cases really a credible line for us to take?" the answer to both those question is "No", it's really not a good look at all. For a club whose COO is normally pretty savvy and in tune with how they're perceived in a PR sense the whole episode was a really disappointing misjudgement. In my opinion, it really would be best for the club to just draw a line under this and move on. By all means raise questions privately but the way Friday played out was utterly embarrassing.

Fair point. Error on my part. I won't let it happen again.

I wouldn't assume. I'd ask for clarification. "Hi lads, I see that's The Rangers back in the top division. what's the script with the fixtures? Same as last time or nah? K thx."

To be honest, as much as I understand the club/board's point of view they're on to plums with this one and quite frankly the tone of the latest statement is pretty desperate and unedifying. It's difficult to read their position in the way it's presented (and that of Thistle's) as anything other than a misjudgement on their part. I'll admit I've not really looked into sequences of fixtures but going by last season we played Celtic at home twice (having played them away twice the season before) and United at home twice. Rangers replaced United so that's been reversed. We play Celtic away twice and United's replacement away twice. If it is the case (as it seems to be) that Rangers have simply replaced United in the same relegation/promotion sequence that has been ongoing in years prior then why would anyone expect the SPFL to mind-read some clubs deciding that they'd revert to "how it used to be"? It's a pretty massive leap to take and in truth if any club (not just MFC) is making an assumption for £120k+ worth of income then they should have made the relevant enquiries and sought confirmation (which going by their statements it seems clear they didn't). As much as I'd like to have sympathy for the position, it's difficult if their argument is simply "aye but we thought it'd be the same as it was before. it's no' fair." That, I'm afraid is just fucking weak. Stamping your feet, shouting and chucking your toys out the pram because you made an assumption that proved to be incorrect and by extension has had a negative impact on your budget, sorry but that's on the person making the assumption. Unless of course they did ask for clarification from the SPFL however the fact that the club have explicitly said there was no communication from the SPFL would suggest they didn't, that's not the SPFL's fault.

Well seeing we've reportedly taken £200k for Ben Hall and drawn Rangers at home in the league cup then. If it's the case that we were/are budgeting for 10th with no player sales and no cup runs then that's income from a sale & cup fixture that we wouldn't have included in our basic budget.

I'm into that, reminds me of the Matchwinner shirt from 89-90 which was the first 'Well shirt I ever bought. Much prefer claret shorts over white too.

Thistle have just posted a statement on the matter: http://ptfc.co.uk/news/2016-2017/june_2016/club_statement_about_fixture_list

He's the one on the left

That's yer Ben Hall to Brighton official. http://www.seagulls.co.uk/news/article/ben-hall-joins-brighton-and-hove-albion-from-motherwell-3139366.aspx

I'm inclined to agree. Even if Hall goes I got the impression that Ferguson would likely take his space. Playing devil's advocate you could make an arguement that Laing might be earmarked for the right back berth and flag up the point McGhee made after the absolute shoeing we got in Dingwall without McManus at centre half that we were exposed without an experienced player in and the fact that we had to go with Laing and Kennedy. Hutchinson might be a very decent fit in that respect, though I'd imagine it'd be difficult to fit his wage into the budget given the other areas of the park we're having to address. Either way, I doubt centre half is a priority for us.

It's all about balance though. Some will stay some will move on. It's kind of how it works. It's obviously disappointing if players with potential move on but equally if they're moving to clubs that are viewed as a step up it's a positive as long as we're being compensated (and a club in the English Premier League is exactly that). OK it may be disappointing if Robbie Leitch and Ben Hall move under freedom of contract but the balance is surely that we get the development fee and we've kept Cadden, Campbell's signed a new deal as has MacLean. We've heard all the chat about how the club is trying to position itself as a platform for youth development and most folk are on board with that, some players moving on earlier than expected is something people will have to get used to. Some will stay, some will go and if those moving on are stepping up to clubs such as Leeds (in the case of Erwin) and Burnley then it's placing MFC as a decent platform and pathway. Thistle moved Jack Hendry on to Wigan last season having only played 8 games and brought in a couple of hundred grand, Falkirk moved Ryan Blair to Swansea on a 3.5 year deal and he had only played 7 games for them. In that respect it's by no means a Motherwell thing that a young player with little first team experience might be profited on, especially if an English club at a certain level is willing to take a punt. It's not a case of the players not being viewed as good enough or not rated, it's about both club and player taking an opportunity when it presents itself.

F4 If a Club wishes to re-engage a Professional Player and/or preserve any right that it may wish to assert to Compensation, such Club must have sent to the Player, to his last known home address or delivered to him personally, and copied to the Secretary, not later than fourteen days prior to the expiry of the term of the Players Contract of Service, a written offer of re-engagement in accordance with Rule F5. http://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__therulesofthespfl_1375800603.pdf Club announced squad update of those who had been released and those who they were discussing new deals with (of whom Robbie Leitch is one) on 16th of May. http://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2016/05/16/squad-update-may-2016/ Edit: Of course it'd be a different story if it was Jack Leitch we were talking about seeing as he wasn't offered a new deal.

Section F - Pages 43 - 49 (clause F32) if you have the time or inclination. http://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__therulesofthespfl_1375800603.pdf Here's the English League's charter (page 3 details classification for those interested): http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/other/academy-players-parents-charter-2015-2016.pdf

I'd have said left back, right back and possibly 2 CMs. Alternatively a full back who can cover left/right, 2 CM & a 'different option' striker.

Dundee have already signed another striker as well (http://www.dundeefc.co.uk/news/yordi-is-a-dee). So unless they're thinking someone will come in with the sort of money they want for Stewart I doubt he'll be a realistic option for them since they've already got a pretty full complement of strikers and as superward says, McGhee's on record saying we've dropped our interest. Reading between the lines (given McGhee said that we couldn't afford both he and McDonald) it sounds like El Bakhtaoui's agent is pricing him out of the Scottish market. No one really seems convinced enough to take a chance on him, which is understandable seeing as so far he's only scored goals in League 1.

A couple of links here that are pretty comprehensive in breakdown of price and what you get: http://www.newyorkjets.com/tickets-and-stadium/new-stadium/psl-owners.html http://www.newyorkjets.com/tickets-and-stadium/new-stadium/seating-chart.html

He was done for hitting a lassie and headbutting another in 2013. http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-united-player-guilty-of-assault-1-6220127

Good news as far as I'm concerned.

Akinfenwa's after £3600 a week apparently. Managers can hit him up on whatsapp if they want though.

It's maybe wishful thinking on my part but if we're looking at moving Ainsworth and Law on then given he's never really seemed a particularly good fit under McGhee I wouldn't be surprised if Chalmers was in a similar boat as them. Unless of course his wage is such that it makes no real difference whether he stays on for a year or goes. I think I said earlier in this thread but it's a step in the right direction if we're able to trim players from the squad rather than simply accept they're under contract and let the deal wind down. Agree on McManus & McDonald though. Those are the 2 priorities for me. I'd be happy enough for Hammell and Lasley to stay on as they both clearly have something to offer but at the same time a broader freshening of the squad would be welcome and I dare say could be achieved if players like Ainsworth, Law and a few other fringe players move on.

For what it's worth, the 12/13 fee Plymouth paid was a compensation fee for Paris Cowan-Hall an out of contract player from Woking. http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Plymouth-Argyle-sign-new-striker-Paris-Cowan-Hall/story-16217002-detail/story.html The 14/15 fee was for Anthony O'Connor who had 6 months left on his deal at Blackburn and had been out on loan at Plymouth previously. http://www.pafc.co.uk/news/article/pilgrim-anto-2244036.aspx