capt_oats

Well...he's just tweeted saying he had a good first 45 mins of pre-season. Doesn't say who it was with though. https://twitter.com/Saaaam92/status/883768711915741184

That's Dembele. He said in his interview yesterday he expected to hear from him one way or another on Monday.

Nah, the Ayr twitter feed wasn't forthcoming with info. It posted Ayr's line up and that was it. Only mentioned Motherwell goals no detail beyond that. Going by the photos up on the Ayr FB page I've clocked Hastie, Agyeman, Brown, Gordon and possibly Campbell and Scott. A boy on P&B has said McManus was playing but there's no indication of who the scorers were that I can find. Also, quite remarkable colour clash in the first half with us wearing last season's denim away kit and Ayr in purple.

That's the u20s beat Ayr United 2-0 at Somerset Park.

Robinson covered Dembele in his interview yesterday. He's back in London as he's got personal business to attend to. He indicated he expected to hear one way or another from him on Monday. Tuton, I'd imagine we've passed on. I don't think Robinson mentioned him post-game during the week whereas he indicated both Kipré and Dembele would be offered deals. He also spoke about how he felt we needed another type of forward with a bit of pace up front and again there was no reference to Tuton. Robinson was pretty non-committal about him after the Stirling Albion game too. Given that he's still under contract with Barnsley his trial period seemed a bit odd, unless of course they willing to just let him walk.

Depends what you mean by "injury prone". He played the majority of the 13/14 season, didn't miss a game in the entire 14/15 season. He seems to have missed games at the start of 15/16 but then played every game from 17th October through to the end of season. He missed a fair amount of last season but up until that injury the only games he missed were for international matches. By all accounts it looks like he's picked up a couple of injuries but nothing to suggest that he's "injury prone" or for that matter, a gamble.

STV reporting Aberdeen bid was £250k and that the new contract on offer to Moult would make him highest paid player at the club. https://twitter.com/STVSport/status/883288490296954880

They've still got Storey as well. Edit: Scott Mullen reporting that we have indeed knocked Aberdeen back. http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/15397214.EXCLUSIVE__Motherwell_reject_Aberdeen_bid_for_Louis_Moult/?ref=twtrec

Aberdeen have just signed a striker anyway (Nicky Maynard) so unless they're planning on signing more I think that rumour's pretty much put to bed.

Nah, they're "reported" to have had a 2nd bid of £300k for him knocked back and that was prior to Alex Neil being appointed as their new manager. Given he worked with May at Accies and PNE are reported to have paid £800k for May in the first place I can't really see them having much luck getting him. Not if they're only offering £300k anyway. The Sun (who had us in for Willo Flood lest we forget) have picked up the rumour and are running it as an "exclusive" however it's all unsubstantiated: if they don't get May they could turn to Moult-type thing. Also, I seem to remember reading somewhere (it may have been P&B so hardly concrete fact) that what was reported as being paid for McLean was inflated. The actual figure was supposedly closer to £175k. Having said that Aberdeen have just taken £1.5k for Hayes and they've got fresh investment at board level. Given McInnes knocked Sunderland back to stick around you'd think he'd be expecting to be backed by the club in recruiting players. In honesty I still think that if Moult was to move then it'd be down south as the majority of our transfer business seems to be cross border.

Preston were supposed to want £500k or as close to what they paid for him. I seem to remember reading Aberdeen weren't able to go higher than £300k.

The only mention I've seen of that is on a clearly not #ITK, #ITK twitter account (456 followers). https://twitter.com/Scotfootball17

On Bowman, I get the impression that we're probably somewhere in between two states with him. I don't think he's necessarily in the same category as say, Blyth who's offered nothing, doesn't look like he wants to be here, is eating a wage and will be released at the end of next season if not sooner nor is he a "sellable asset" in the Heneghan mould ie: someone who we've recruited and there is apparently active interest around. I could see us touting Bowman's name around the sort of level that a striker with 81 goals in 253 games at National League level might be tempting to but beyond that I'd imagine we're pretty *shrug* about it. If he stays he stays, if someone's interested in chucking us a small fee to allow us to recoup what we paid and he's willing to move then great. There are others around the squad I could imagine is being more active in trying to move on.

Yeah, I agree that Dembele looks the more accomplished player and there's a legitimate question there as to whether we should have prioritised getting him on board before Kipré. It's one of those scenarios where you're asking whether we should hold off signing a player we've decided we want and can get to focus on a player who might need a bit of discussion to secure or whether we just get the straightforward deal done and see where the other discussion goes. If we decide to wait and see re: Dembele before sorting out Kipré you run the risk of missing out on both. Though it seems the case that it's Dembele who has other options and is more in demand, I don't imagine Kipré would hang about forever waiting on us to offer him a deal, though by the same token he'd probably be easier to find a replacement for. For me the upshot of this is that it's clear we're in for 2 centre backs, one of whom we've now secured and with regards the 2nd then regardless of whether it's Dembele or someone else it looks like it'll be a more experienced and first team ready player as competition for McManus as opposed to a Zak Jules-a-like. For me it's a positive that someone, somewhere at the club has realised that having Mick as the only experienced centre back and relying on him to play every game is probably not a great idea. Similarly if we are able to move Heneghan on to Hull, Sheffield United or Burnley then I'd imagine we'll be looking at someone equally suited to replace him.

I'm not sure it's as drastic as that tbh. My interpretation is that Robinson's trying to replace the bodies that were released and try and improve the depth of the squad. I don't necessarily think we've jumped at Kipré's signing. Rather I think we've had him in and decided he fits for the squad role that's needing filled. The fact that we've offered deals to both Dembele and Kipré suggests that even if the former elects to move to a better paying gig we'll still be in the market for a 2nd centre back who's similar to Dembele's profile. Again, it's just my interpretation but looking at the business we've done so far defensively I'd say we've been making like for like changes with (hopefully) better quality coming in; Chalmers (out) - Dunne (in) Ferguson (out) - Kipré (in) Jules (out) - Dembele? A.N Other... The point of the Kipré signing for me is the hope that he's an improvement on Ferguson and that he's more first team ready than the u20s centre backs like Maguire, King and Armstrong. I don't imagine that he's been signed in preference to Dembele more that he's been signed because we have 2 spare centre back berths both with certain squad roles and wage budgets. I may be miles out with that but I'd be surprised if he's chucked straight in as a direct replacement for Heneghan or something like that.

That's yer Daily Star reporting Hull are interested in Heneghan. http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/627530/Chelsea-Transfer-News-Hull-Leonid-Slutskiy-Premier-League-Roman-Abramovich-Loan-Deals

Classic Samson... http://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/10937673/pre-season-st-mirren-1-3-dundee

I'd have thought it'd be Heneghan tbh. Not based on anything other than the fact we've chosen to offer deals to Moult and McHugh just now whereas Heneghan's a "sellable asset" that we've not made an offer to extend AFAIK. I get that we've said we can only offer new deals a couple at a time so there's obviously prioritising involved but it seems significant that we've got deals on the table for 2 but not him. Apart from that I saw a couple of mentions of Sheffield United being in for him the other day as well. He's been one of the players that there seems to have been consistent chatter about. How much of it is credible IDK but given we're actively looking to sell then not offering him a new deal right now seems telling IMO.

To add to that, Craigan said in one of his post-match interviews at the end of the January window that he felt that he'd have liked to have got more of the u20 group out on loan but was limited by the situation with the first team squad. IIRC he specifically said he felt both Hastie and Turnbull would benefit from loan spells playing competitive games. Much like you, it wouldn't be a huge surprise if that was a view that was shared with regards McMillan (who had a bit of a tough spell last season) etc.

Why would we offer a striker a deal if a central defender knocks us back? Surely we'd be looking for an alternative centre back in that scenario. He also said he'd like to add a "pacy" striker, by omission I'd say we're probably not going to follow up on Tuton. Who knows? We might if as you say, we get bodies out the door, but there was nothing in Robinson's interview last night to suggest that we'd be making an offer. He was similarly non-committal at the weekend.

Jack McMillan's on the bench as well. So 2 right backs there.

Yeah, I get that and my post genuinely wasn't meant as a dig btw. I had thought the same myself initially so it was something that had been crossing my mind when I replied. I agree it seemed an obvious area that we'd need strengthening and was acknowledged by pretty much everyone including the manager. Maybe the other targets were viewed as being more attainable early doors or we felt we needed to move quicker to get them? Who knows? It may even be the case that there are more options available in defensive areas that we feel we can look about for options. The more I thought about it the more I wondered about the emphasis on the process and how that's interpreted and how much of a difference it actually makes given the market we seem to be shopping in. Almost all of our signings, a couple of notable exceptions excluded are out of contract and free agents, the key part really should be the outcome rather than the process. It's a curious notion that somehow signing a trialist is perceived as being less considered or are more an afterthought than someone we've went out and signed straight away and they're simply there to plug a gap or fill a jersey. Either way I'll be quite interested to see how the trialist players get on tonight and whether we make some sort of decision on them soon.

It is, aye.

Sound strategy IMO.