dennyc

I agree every signing is a gamble. So all any Club can do is minimise the chances of failure. But I think in this case it was as close as you are going to get to guaranteeing success. I think there is no similarity in any way to the Hendry signing or the risk attached. With Biereth we signed a player who not only scored goals but was physically suited to the Scottish game.....as demonstrated in his first appearance (I think) when as a sub he bullied us into a home win over Hibs. I think that lack of physicality and determination is what Hendry was lacking, We did not discover those negatives until the deal was done. .So score one for lessening the risk factor re Biereth. He was suited to our game and had the correct mentality.. Arsenal were adamant Biereth was not for sale as he was viewed as one for their future. Just not right then. Spurs wanted shot of Hendry. Another plus point on the Biereth risk assessment. For once the hype of 'Even short term, we are fortunate to get a player of this calibre' was pretty accurate. Clearly when he did well for us and in Austria, the offer of a few million up front was something Arsenal saw as too good to miss given he still had no route into their first team. A big mistake by them as it turned out. No injury record of note or a rehabilitation/career rebuild in mind. Not a player looking to top up his pension. Like so many we have taken a much greater risk with. Now referred to as 'The Kettlewell Signing Policy'. Biereth was a Loan deal (sadly). Risk minimised. We had an out if it was a disaster. Unlike Henry who we signed on a permanent deal.......for £200k? So, in respect of signing a youngster whether permanently or on Loan, I think the Biereth deal was as guaranteed as any Club could hope for. We were fortunate to get him but it was not luck that it worked out as well as it did. Just all too brief a stay sadly.

Talking of history, did you look at his goals per match record in the U18 Premier League? 23 in 33 games......and 15 assists... in case you missed it. He was loaned out because he was far too good for that age level and his route into the first team was blocked by players who cost millions. If that is taking a risk then can we please find more risks of that kind.

I guess Miller chooses which he prefers. The deal being we allow to let him to go if we receive the release figure which we signed up to. So we would have little choice but to accept his decision. I am certain other players at other clubs have faced that very situation. No obligation on him to take the higher offer. Effectively in that situation the player has the power. What’s the option? We refuse to sell to the lower bidder, he digs in and stays until contract end? Joins the Club he wanted to anyway. Goes for a development fee? Thankfully not with us, but others have gone down that route. Sitting tight I mean. Say Celtic offer 5.5 but Napoli offer 4.5 with longer term and better wages. I assume, as fans, we would be supportive if he chose Italy. As long as we get the release figure which was agreed. But being a good guy he would take the Celtic deal to get us more cash? Or perhaps not. But as I said, all speculation. Miller and his Dad will decide and we’ll go along with whatever they choose. Hopefully he has a long list to choose from. Then we put the cheque in the Bank. At the end of the day that is what really matters to MFC. Much as we all want what is best for Lennon Miller money talks. Certainly when it runs into millions.

Apparently Celtic are about to get £16m for Kuhn having already raked in £4m following Frimpong's move to Liverpool. And some lesser amounts from other departures. So no surprise they are back in for Miller with an increased offer compared to January. But they will still want him on the cheap with a crap sell on clause. That's the transfer model they insist upon and usually get away with in Scotland. John McGinn being the exception and well played Hibs on that one. Following his Scotland appearances, the talk was that Miller and his advisers preferred a move overseas. Hopefully that is still the intention. SPECULATION ALERT! 🙁 What I find a bit concerning is the comment that Celtic are aware of the price Motherwell have set. Hopefully purely media talk as they do Celtic's bidding. But it makes me wonder if the Board agreed a release clause of £4.5m when Miller extended his contract? An amount that seemed a good figure back then. IF they did, then then we would have little option if Celtic offered the agreed amount AND Miller wanted to join them. Perhaps in the absence of an overseas/English team meeting or exceeding the release figure. At the end of the day Miller and his family will decide where he ends up. Motherwell will be delighted take the money from whoever offers it. That's the reality of the situation . Best we can hope for is that Celtic start a bidding war, with Miller opting to join whoever offers the most. I also hope he makes a choice that works out best for him long term. And I doubt that would be Celtic. He seems more ambitious than that.

I'm really not interested in how Twente played, good or bad, this season or last. And I could not care less about Falkirk or Edinburgh City. All of whom were, like us, playing their first game of the season. So all the same qualifications apply. What I am interested in is Motherwell and I expected more from them yesterday, even with all those valid comments about first game, new Manager, opposition, new tactics etc etc. And that's fair comment. Or am I and others not allowed to say we were disappointed in what we saw? Not overly concerned, but disappointed. Rightly or wrongly I expected more. The performance of our experienced defenders was poor and they looked far from comfortable at being asked to play out from the back, with Ward also struggling supporting as sweeper. Midfield and up front we looked ponderous, with little link up play. Lack of pace all over the pitch. Little threat up front. I challenge anyone who watched the game to say my assessment was wrong. . The youngsters that came on performed well, which also highlighted how off it the first choices were. But for me those youngsters were the only positive yesterday. Again that fact raises questions. And the budget available to the opposition is irrelevant. At times last season those same players performed well against opposition with far greater resources than us. Even when playing against superior opposition, I came away from some games feeling we had did ourselves justice., despite losing. Not yesterday. Will we improve? Most definitely. Am I saying we will struggle this season? No . Did I expect more from our established players? Yes. Will the new Manager be more aware now of the challenges he faces? Undoubtedly. The criticism posters are getting for raising valid points is nonsense.

You did say you had not seen any of the game. Given the playing out from the back pantomime I think the comments were pretty mooted and I wonder what you would have thought watching it. . And most folk did qualify it being first game etc etc. I guess folk just expected a bit more encouragement having been starved of proper football for a wee while..

I think the main thing we learned from tonight was the style our new Manager wants to play. The heat probably made that a hard ask. Hopefully he learned what we all already knew. This set of players do not have the ability to play out from the back and pace is an issue, both defensively and offensively. It was interesting watching Ward being asked to play outside his penalty area though. That did not work either and he looked a bag of nerves to me. Although that may have been down to the quality of back passes he got, mainly from Gordon. Is that really the guy that led St J to two trophies? For me the only positive was the performance of the youngsters. But let's not ask too much of them too soon. Early days but uninspiring. Possibly unfair but I did expect better. Hopefully by the time we finish the League Cup group games we have a lot more to get excited about.

In truth, although I much prefer grass, I am not 100% against artificial if it is good quality and maintained properly. In Falkirk’s defence they have just about the best non grass surface I have seen and it plays true. The real crime has been the authorities ignoring sub standard surfaces which are a danger to players and also ruin games. Killie, Livi and Accies as prime examples. If Livi have been told to upgrade then it’s not before time. Hopefully the criteria change will be enforced. Time will tell. Anyway, back to former employees, I still hope SK crashes and burns no matter what surface his new charges end up playing on. His bring in as many new players, including crocks, policy appears to be in full flow. I give him until Christmas.

We’re pleased to confirm that we’ll have a new artificial playing surface installed here at the Home of the Set Fare Arena ahead of the 2025/26 season. The club has been working hard behind the scenes over the last few weeks and months to put the planning in place and source the funds to make this possible. The new surface itself is the latest generation of MX Elite – a high-tech woven system offering the very best performance characteristics for professional football, the same currently used by a number of other sides at all levels of the SPFL. We’re hopeful that this will be completed and ready ahead of the Premier Sports Cup group stage matches starting in mid-July but should that change, we’ll update you all accordingly with any change of venue for those opening home ties. Our thanks to Sportex and for their assistance in getting to this stage and we look forward to starting the new season with a new surface in place. Seems a lot of expense to ditch it after one season. This cost will be part of the masterplan to cancel the requirement. And remember that Killie were meant to go grass this season, but opted out. And since season end there have already been meetings with the powers that be involving several 'plastic' clubs. Will the PL stand firm? Don't hold your breath.

Just checked. They will have a new ARTIFICIAL surface in place for season 25/26. So a switch to grass the following season seems even more unlikely given that news.

Oh I hope so. But then tarmac would be an upgrade. Maybe they are looking for a surface that suits their new silky football approach. Apparently we are about to be treated to a new LIvi.

I fully expect the Authorities to renege on the agreement to have only grass pitches in the top division after this season. Pressured by Killie, Livi and Falkirk. And supported by a number of lower league teams with hopes of eventually reaching the top level. Would they actually have the balls to throw those three out if they refused to change? I'm far from convinced. In fairness Falkirk look after their pitch and it is as decent a mostly grass pitch as I have seen. Theirs and Kelty. Livingstone and Kilmarnock should be ashamed at what they offer as acceptable. As for SK, he will already be preparing his ' it's not my fault' excuses and I'm sure the surfaces at Kilmarnock will be high on his list. Oh I so hope he makes an arse of it and the fans express their displeasure.................. But like grizzlyg I am over it and not bitter.

Minutes towards the end of the second half in a match at Fir Park. Had a few decent touches but immediately got injured. Never featured again. My recollection anyway.

Maybe. I can’t remember what I did yesterday, never mind in 2013. Thanks

I wonder how I got to £400 then as that is not one of the levels covered? And Sally confirmed I was sitting at £400. I certainly paid a lump sum and not monthly subscriptions. And from what you suggest, it was the top up benefits that folk paid an annual fee for and not a membership renewal? So initially a member for life with benefits being a yearly option? Whatever they were. I do recall that what was on offerseemed to be very changeable depending who chaired the presentations. Very much adapting on the hoof early doors. Anyway, clear as mud all these years on.

Cheers. So I must have been Claret or Amber then. There was also a junior membership I think and even one aimed at Businesses. I think that kicked in at a few thousand? and involved picking POTM, entertaining clients on match day and use of FP for meetings. All a bit hazy though. Securing those business members was seen as the ultimate but I think we struck out on that front. Even more difficult nowadays.

Apparently I paid £400 up front so I don't suppose you have details of what that level was or meant? I have not kept any paperwork. Probably lost during various house moves.

I think those are valid issues you raise. Firstly, I don't believe you can now just join up for life with a one off payment. That is purely a historical situation. A Board member can perhaps confirm that? I suppose those who signed up earlier are reducing in number in any event, as time takes it's toll? I wonder how many we are actually talking about? Less than folk imagine perhaps? Secondly, as for signing up purelyto vote on a specific issue, I recall that for the Barmack situation, the signing up purely to vote was addressed and avoided. But yes, maybe you should be a member for a certain length of time to qualify for a vote. And if that requires a NEW member to contribute for, say, 12 months before qualifying then so be it. Again perhaps the Board need to clarify that. Maybe they already have. I know for a fact that this discussion has been noted by the Board and will be on their agenda.

I was not referring to you when I commented that some might be upset. If you took it that than way, then apologies. I was really trying to just explain the logic at the time. Red or white?

I can only tell you what I was told at the initial meetings I attended and what I understood to be the case when I made my payment. Same as other folk who attended their presentations. Hopefully their are official records/minutes from those meetings although given the time that has passed that might be a stretch. Also, let's be honest, the WS record keeping was not the best. The current Board appear to believe that such a deal was made, otherwise why ratify it now? But if you have documents that prove life membership was not the intention, then by all means make them public.

Some paid more than £300. Some folk also bought more than one Membership....for kids and partners etc. The WS Board were looking to gather in funds quickly to get things started. Others opted to pay monthly as that was more affordable for them. I know I paid more than £300 as I checked with Sally. From memory there were various levels but records are held to confirm who paid what. But yes you are correct in that Life Membership was the agreement. Might upset some newer Members but that was the deal back then. Different if someone joins now under revised terms. fair enough, they know what they are signing up to. Hope that explains things a wee bit. You might need some of that Isle of Wight wine to help though.

No doubt how many feel. And I get that. But way back then those folk purchased a life membership for whatever lump sum they were asked to pay. You may not like it but that is the deal the Society willingly entered into. And it provided a much needed boost to the funds ingathered on day one. I suspect that is why the route you suggest has not been tried. And also why, when these new proposals were first looked at. so called Legacy Members were protected. To the annoyance of some it appears. But if you seriously want to cancel the contract that was legally agreed, then how do you feel about refunding them the sum paid? Not a serious suggestion by the way but appropriate. After all, it is not as if those Members really get anything tangible from being a Member..... other than the feeling of helping their football Club. Any monies paid are effectively donations. Perhaps the real challenge should be to try and encourage those Legacy Members to start up a regular payment. Rather than threatening them that is. Some already do contribute monthly and I know a good few...myself included....who are considering doing so given the progress we have seen of late Board wise and operationally. Also, setting aside the Society, if you entered into an agreement to purchase something outright, be it a pair of football boots or a house...... or a Membership, would you react positively to being asked to pay again several years later? For something you already own. I think not. If the Society adopt a rule from now on that future contributors must make regular monthly payments or pay an annual fee then that is a different matter as those signing up accept those terms when joining. But it is an issue that deserves discussion. If only to clear the air.

I agree and there is still hope. A good few teams around the globe ...and top teams at that....often line up 4-3-3. I think it just comes down to whether you have a Manager who wants to win more than he wants to avoid losing. And it appears our new man is fairly attack minded given the right blend of players. The opposite of Kettlewell in other words. I guess Killie will switch from 4-3-3 to 3-5-1-1 or 4-5-1 this season. Their fans will love it. Hearts on the other hand might be looking at 4-3-3.

Even if he was out of contract and no negotiation agreed, I think Uefa brought in a rule following Bosman that might help us. Up until the season of a player's 23rd Birthday (in the absence of a negotiated agreement) every club that trained a player from ages 12-23 is due a proportionate share of 5% of any future transfer fee. But only if it is a cross country transfer, such as Austria to Italy. That is over and above any compensation due when he first signed for Sturm Graz. MJ is 23 in December 1926 so I think we are covered. It's a heavy read, but Uefa have a full section on Training and also Solidarity compensation (2 different schemes} which confirms the parent Club is compensated right up to age 23 in the absence of any agreement at the outset. I think. Fingers crossed.

I think that is a decent suggestion. Subject to them having contributed funds in line with others moved to the 1886....or whatever level is seen as sufficient. There hase to be safeguards but there are options. Just needs to be a willing. At least it is being discussed now and the Board are aware of concerns....from either viewpoint.