capt_oats

From the way it's being reported McDonald's not one of those being offered reduced terms. The question for him is whether or not he wants to take up the option of a 2nd year. You'd think that any 2nd year option would be on par with the first year of his deal otherwise really, what is the point in the option? Seems to be Hammell (34), Lasley (36), McManus (33), Samson (32) & McFadden (33) who are being offered deals on reduced terms.

I think McGhee had all but said they'd be likely to make Samson and McFadden an offer. In fairness Onthefringes called it on here the other week about Samson being offered reduced terms. Sensible approach from the club with regards Lasley, Hammell et al tbh. In the case of McManus I suppose it depends on the make-up of the offer. A reduced basic with a slightly bumped appearance bonus would still be him being asked to take a 'wage cut' I guess.

Agreed. What would make sense though would be if both parties had to mutually agree which would avoid a conflict of either a player being retained against their will or the scenario you highlight above where a player can activate the clause regardless of the wishes of the club which would obviously be potentially problematic in a relegation scenario.

Same. It really does beg the question of what's the point in having an option clause in a contract if it's not under the control of the club whether they take it up or not? Who knows? Maybe we're just being amicable about the whole thing and opening a dialogue along the lines of: "we want to take up your option. are you OK with that?"

The statement from the club is fair enough IMO. It's clearly a political issue (which should be obvious to everyone) and there's an clear emphasis that they had to be seen to be acting. Given the amount the club have been going on about it this week I honestly didn't expect anything other than an OTT presence today. If there are complaints to be made then they should probably be directed at the SPFL tbh. Hopefully the club can go to the SPFL and highlight just how ridiculous the measures they were obliged to put in place were.

Perhaps he was just showing a bit of manager solidarity with Mixu but having read McGhee's comments about United's squad from the other day I think it's fair to say he doesn't really rate many of them.

Did McGhee not say that Ofere was someone he'd looked at in January but personal terms ruled him out? Either way you'd think he'd be much less limited in terms of targets in the Summer window than the stop gap options in the January window. Given his record at United Ofere probably looks more like a bullet dodged now. http://www.motherwelltimes.co.uk/sport/local-sport/mcghee-was-thwarted-in-michael-higdon-bid-1-4025448

Given the obvious left back issue I wondered if Spark might be one we'd look at rather than Dixon seeing as he's not being offered new terms either. He was one of that group alongside Gauld, Souttar et al who were being tipped to go on to good things. At 19 you'd think it'd maybe make a bit more sense to bring someone like that in if we're retaining Hammell.

He is but he's also been playing centre half for the 20s and I'm pretty sure he filled in at left back under Baraclough before we brought in the bold Tony Straker.

I'd imagine it'll be Chalmers at left back and probably Leitch or Gomis in place of Lasley rather than Campbell, possibly see him getting 15 mins at the end though. Similarly I'd think Laing will get another run out at right back. Will be interesting to see if we stick with Ainsworth for this one given how ineffective he seemed to be on Saturday and the fact that Cadden seems to offer much more balance to the side. Ripley Laing Hall McManus Chalmers Cadden Leitch Pearson Johnson Moult McDonald

That was Matt scored for Plymouth again yesterday in their 2-2 draw with Cambridge. His goal is at around 25 seconds in the video below.

Saw Alan Burrows tweet earlier that it has been resolved & the club are now allowed to publish their own highlights from midnight. They were making them live at 10pm previously. The midnight thing seems to be a general rule so it doesn't seem to have anything to do with their broadcast partners airing. I'd hope that everyone concerned has just agreed that in the grand scheme of things 7 mins of highlights on YouTube probably isn't worth going 12 rounds over so they've reached a compromise.

Unrelated to the game itself but worth mentioning that the club have their highlights up on YouTube now after last week's SPFL-related 'issues'. Hopefully they've managed to resolve the matter. Either that or they've just decided whatever the SPFL's objection was it isn't worth giving a fuck about.

If Google is anything to go by (and often it's not) it's the date the club was founded. If I was looking to market a largely unnecessary 3rd kit on the premise that it's an anniversary tribute then that's probably the sort of thing I'd be looking to incorporate into the roll out.

Folk love an angle so could we see a possible 3rd kit with white & blue for 130th Anniversary and a reveal on May 17th?

Having read a couple of interviews re: Samson I'm still not quite sure what to make of the situation. The whole deal has been weird since it was announced. On one hand you've McGhee saying that they'll speak to him and let him know "he's wanted at the club" and that he'll get another game before the season's done on the other you've got Samson himself suggesting along the lines of he's only interested in sticking around if he's first choice, which is fair enough and totally understandable. The flip of it for me is that Ripley could have gone back to Boro in January as his deal was up and Samson was already here. Samson has indicated himself that that would have been the "ideal scenario" but as it was we actively sought to extend Ripley's loan and release Twardzik. You'd think that would suggest that Ripley was/is viewed as a better option so maybe it's just me but I'd say at the very least it raises something of a doubt over Samson. Edit: Onthefringes there with a much more succinct post.

That's the question for Moore though isn't it? Whether he's happy to stick around and sit on the bench maybe getting 20 mins or the occasional start and wait to see if someone dips in form or picks up a knock or whether it's better for him to look for a move somewhere that he knows he's going to be a first pick every week. I'd be more than happy for him to stick around but equally I don't think you could argue if he opted to drop a level and be guaranteed first team starts. Personally I'm of the view that he's categorically done what was asked of him at Ayr so it's fair enough if we offer him a new deal.

I'd suggest that the fact Fletcher's out of contract yet hasn't made the bench in the past couple of games suggests he won't be getting his option taken up. In fairness to him he looked a decent player but the injury in the United game (and subsequent injuries) has pretty much written off his season. He played 130 mins of football then missed the next 7 games. The fact that he's been kept out the team by two players who have scored 30+ goals between them this season hasn't done him any favours either. Similarly with *touch wood* both Moult and McDonald having had largely injury free seasons that has really limited his opportunities too. He's 25 and you'd think would want to be a first choice striker, he's started 5 games for us this season. I don't think you can reasonably make any sort of judgement on him as a player based on that other than to say it just hasn't worked out for him. Beyond that I wouldn't be surprised to see Mackin getting an extension but being out on another development loan next year. I think Craigan touched on him having benefitted physically from having been at Airdrie the past few months when he was interviewed the other night. The fact that Moore was essentially asked to go and show what he can do and has ended up with Ayr's young player of the year and a goal every other game would suggest he's done his bit and is more than worth us offering a deal however for me it's a question of whether he'd be better off moving on and getting a starting position with a team in the Championship since assuming we keep hold of McDonald, Moult and Johnson then it's difficult to see that being anything other than our first choice front 3 next season.

Development loan rules allow them to play with their parent clubs 20s I think.

That was an enjoyable evening. Beyond Thomas and Cadden I thought Campbell had an assured game in the middle of the park and Leitch made a difference off the bench. In truth though they all put in a performance. A couple of smashing goals too. Credit to the team, Craigan and Lasley. A completely deserved win.

Both McDonald & Fletcher have +1 options (as does Clarkson). So I'd imagine it's up to the club whether they exercise that option as per the terms of their existing agreement.

Nope. The deal is until Summer 2018. http://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2016/03/11/cadden-signs-contract-extension/

Cadden's was a 2 year extension was it not? Most folk were fairly positive about that so in that respect I'd have thought we'd be offering Hall a deal along the same lines as that.

Also this from the man himself: "It's ongoing at the minute. I have played a lot and I'm happy here and settled so I would be happy to stay here." http://www.clyde1.com/sport/news/hall-not-focusing-on-motherwell-contract-talks/

This was their team for the semi-final, 2-0 win vs Dundee United. Hearts: Mason, Jones, L. Henderson, Baur, McGhee, Beith, Morrison, Buchanan, Roy (I. Smith, 61'), Zanatta, Moore. Subs: Fisher, Baxter, Howlett-Mundle, Cochrane.