dennyc

Good money. But the rumour is McGinn went to Villa for £28k a week. A bit more advanced in his career admittedly but shows what can be achieved. And guess who missed out there! If Turnbull’s Agent can get strong interest from Championship or Premier League Clubs there is no reason David cannot get more than Celtic are offering. I do get the feeling with David though that money is not everything. He is looking for the right fit for his ambitions. If he is strong he can get both

I actually meant negotiation wise. Of course Alan Burrows should not have been open about the plans for spending the cash. I do thinkhowever he only did that to try and justify the sale and appease fans like us.

Put simply nobody has done anything wrong. Motherwell agreed whatever terms with Celtic. David said “No thanks I think I can do better”. He might still end up there if those terms are improved but the seethe at present is marvellous. Celtic always try it on so this might not be the end of it. The Club have their valuation and if somebody else meets that valuation then he can speak to them. If nobody meets that valuation, then he stays. David did his bit for us by signing a new contract, perhaps against his Agent’s wishes. Think Hastie. He owes us no more. No way should anybody at Motherwell, fan or Official, give him a hard time for now looking after his own best interests. I would be disgusted if anybody tried to force him out the door to a Club offering him terms he was not happy with. Even for £3m. I do think his Agent must have spoken to other Clubs and all this publicity regarding the Celtic offer can only help. In any case, when he eventually does go the overall package to Motherwell might be better long term even if the initial fee is under £3m. Not that I’m suggesting it but £2.5m plus a 20% sell on will bring in far more long than £3.25m that has been quoted for the Celtic offer. Now, who is taking donations for that statue.

That is the concern I have. Could we really turn down a bid of £3m from anybody? No, even from Celtic. But in David’s case a sell on clause could well net us the same amount again in a few year’s time. And selling on at a vast profit is the way Celtic operate. VVD, Armstrong and soon to be Ntcham and Mcgregor as examples. And they rake it in as well through their own sell on clauses... again VVD and soon to be Dembele as examples. But Celtic also have a policy of refusing sell-on clauses when they buy from the Scottish market. Given that both Alan Burrows and Andrew Wilson ( who chipped in with his reasons why it was a great deal) actively respond to questions via Twitterland I contacted both with the question “ Is there a sell on clause? Never mind %, just a straight yes or no”. Despite them answering other questions before and after mine, I have had no response. The silence is deafening and I fear Celtic may well have stuck to their Policy. But I just don’t know for sure. In the past any transfer , particularly unpopular ones, has been accompanied by a Club Statement along the lines of “ We have ensured the Club is protected in the event of ??? being sold on”. Maybe I have missed it, but in all the Club comments regarding this potential sale I have seen no such reassurance. Even though Terms have been fully agreed. I believe it is a legitimate question to pose. To clarify, I think the Club acted correctly in accepting a negotiated fee of £3m, but it does hurt that he will likely be heading to Celtic. He has been a delight to watch and I wish him well in his future career, which will undoubtedly include Scotland and an EPL Club. I just hope we are not selling ourselves short when he moves on from Celtic. If a decent sell on clause is included, then I think a good deal turns into a great deal.

Oh, I think they have confirmed quite a lot.......Deal or no deal They have confirmed that Celtic met the Club's valuation. They have confirmed they have given Turnbull permission to speak to Celtic. They have confirmed they turned down unacceptable offers of around £2m. They have confirmed "achievable" add ons totalling £250k. They have confirmed that the sale is with a view to securing a future without debt . They have confirmed funds will be utilised to create a stronger base for development under fan ownership. . Confirmation that the deal would also provide additional income if Celtic cash in would not be amiss. And if it is all just about geeing up other interested parties, then suggesting add ons including a sell on clause had been agreed with Celtic would be a good move.

Thanks Superward. A good sell on % could make a decent deal exceptional and make a transfer to Celtic a bit more palatable. It would be nice to hear confirmation officially though, rather than via media outlets which speculate almost as much as folk on football forums.. I'm certain the Club have confirmed sell on clauses being part of other recent transfers even if they do not quote % level.. And unlike the initial fee paid that is something that will not be confirmed in our next set of Annual Accounts. My concern is that Celtic are often reported as unwilling to include such agreements in purchases from Scottish teams. Different story when they are selling of course. I have no doubt they will move him on in a few years for a massive profit. Just like they are about to do with NtCham and McGregor. That's their operating model. Same as us but on a bigger scale.

Can someone just clarify once and for all whether the proposed deal includes a sell on %? To me that is almost as critical as the fee agreed. Seems to be mixed info out there. Celtic have benefited massively from such agreements so I see no reason why we should not have insisted on the same type of protective arrangement.

£3m is a decent price for a player who could quite easily have done a "Hastie" resulting in us getting much less via a Tribunal/Development Fee. Credit to Turnbull for that. Gutted its Celtic , but it sounds like we have been negotiating with various clubs for weeks and this is the highest offer. My worry is that Sky are quoting add ons totalling only £250k. And no mention at all of a sell on % which is even more concerning . Like us, Celtic have a strategy of buying low and selling high, just on a bigger scale. So lets hope that when they cash in we get a nice wee pay off. To me that is the issue that needs clarified as Celtic are usually resistant to such an arrangement. If we have no sell on Agreement, I would not rate the agreed package as a good deal

It's a huge assumption to take a fee of £600k as a given . That would only apply if Cadden headed to England or overseas. Is an English club going to see such a fee as good business? More likely, if he goes, he will move to the likes of Hearts or Aberdeen with no fee being agreed and then it's in the hands of a Tribunal. And that's a whole new ball game. Also the timing of any payment could possibly leave little or no time left in this transfer window. And we cannot spend money we don't have. There is also the possibility Cadden's agent will advise him to sign on for only one further year, in which case he could leave at the end of that year with no Development Fee due. Financially it might be to his benefit to go down that route as he would then be in a position to seek a large signing on fee elsewhere. We appear to have offered him a long term deal in an attempt to avoid that situation. Time will tell but in reality MFC have little say in how it pans out.

So a danish striker playing in the National League....at Boreham Wood perhaps.......That is if it was meant as a wee clue ?

I also think Burrows and the Board will have a figure in mind and no doubt that figure will be revised upwards when Turnbull continues to perform and develop as he has. With that in mind, and taking into account monies to be received from Hastie and McKinstrey moving on, I hope there is currently no pressure to sell and those in charge have the determination and strength to resist any attempt in the summer to buy him on the cheap. Perhaps from a media loved club like Celtic who will have players to offload (Hendry, Ralston as examples) and who are most reluctant to include "add ons" when dealing with Scottish clubs. Turnbull has signed on for another two years so we must remember we are currently in a position of strength. However, if a Club does come in with a fantastic offer that includes the potential for a future windfall then of course we have to be realistic. I understand the attraction of once and for all clearing our obligations to previous owners. But as we appear to be managing that issue well and reducing the debt at an acceptable rate, I don't believe the existence of that debt should encourage us to sell ourselves short with regards to Turnbull, particularly as that would also result in limited funds being available for reinvestment on the playing side. And since we like to play the game of comparisons with earlier Scottish transfer deals.... Andrew Robertson. Age 20. Defender. 70 League appearances combined for Queens Park(34) and Dundee Utd(36). 5 goals in total. Well regarded and first full cap a few months before his transfer to Hull City. Nowhere near the profile or hype of David Turnbull. Fee £2.75m plus lucrative sell on clause. I genuinely believe that if we are brave and stick to our guns, in 8 months to a year from now there is no reason we cannot at least match the deal secured by Utd. We must not miss this rare opportunity. I would rather hold on for now and resist the temptation to "Cash Out".

It’s quite simple really. If it’s not cross border then you can forget any Uefa or Fifa guidelines. Hopefully any amount decided upon takes into account all the factors folk are bringing up but we are unlikely to ever know for certain. It is not guaranteed and is up to how the panel in each particular case views things. And any decision arrived at is likely to be clouded in secrecy as per the Ferguson to Aberdeen example where a gagging order was placed on both Clubs. So if it is Rangers, they will offer a low figure, we will demand a higher figure and then barring agreement it’s in the hands of others. That’s how it works and any Club, including ourselves, would sensibly bid low if they were in Rangers position as buyer. The procedures are clear as day in the SFL procedures. And no mention of following Uefa guidelines from what I can see.

Posted full Tribunal stuff on previous rebuild thread on 12 March. In short, as per the most recent regulations I can find. When Clubs do not agree fee............ 1. 50% of the maximum offer from the "buyer" must be paid to the "selling " club when the player is first registered with the "buying" Club. So if Rangers offer £100k we get £50k at registration. Then 2. Tribunal process starts immediately and within 28 days of the Authorities arriving at a Fee Amount, the full balance must be paid by the buyer to the seller. Or the full difference returned to the buyer if that is the outcome. So no partial payments over a number of years it seems. Interest and penalties apply if full payment not made as instructed. So there is no reason the process should take any great length of time as it commences at Registration with the new Club. Ferguson from Accies to Aberdeen was settled within a few months. Aberdeen paid £50000 up front followed by the balance of the allocated fee of £237950 within 28 days of the finding. Figures taken from Aberdeen's Audited Accounts. The ridiculous part is that the reasons for any award are not made public and in the Accies v Aberdeen case both Clubs were banned from disclosing full details of how the fee was calculated. Unlike cross border transfers the calculation of the fee is not as laid out by Uefa. So we are at the mercy of the Blazers in Hampden. Its a lottery and any award does not appear to include "add ons". I really wish Hastie had headed anywhere but Scotland. Much more straightforward.

Have Motherwell issued any sort of public statement condemning the idiot or idiots who have shamed the Club and promised to take action when they are identified? I would have thought such a declaration would have been almost immediate. I can find no mention of the incident anywhere on the official site.

The quality of player in the MLS is improving every year. South and Central Americans see it as a route to Europe so the technical ability within the teams is of a good quality. Certainly higher than here. If, and it is an IF, Hastie does go there for a few years then he will have a great opportunity to develop further amongst quality players whilst enjoying a great lifestyle. He is young enough to return to the UK in a few years, financially secure and with the liklihood of joining a decent side. If he does well, who knows where he could end up? Newcastle's recent record signing came from Atlanta and has fitted in well to the EPL despite playing for a struggling team. It is too good an opportunity to miss. And it's not Rangers.

At least two big differences off the top of my head. Attendances of over 50.000 and Atlanta win Championships. Admittedly towards the bottom now after four games, but do you think they will remain there? Think they now have Frank De Boer as their new Manager .

Atlanta. Free to say now as revealed elsewhere. Seems a huge step to me, but that is what I was told

I was told last night that an MLS Club had outbid Rangers and that Rangers were not prepared to match the offer. In fact they were pissed off as they thought a deal had been agreed for Hastie to go to Ibrox. So they stepped away. Good for us if true. They guy has usually been spot on with his Scottish info so I tend to believe him....and it ties in with the comments now out in the press. He did mention a Club but I was a bit dubious at first given who it was. And then I saw Steelboy's update. But its definitely not to team up with Rose. A much more established team than that.

Hearing from a Rangers contact that Hastie is off to join Weeyin, for more money than on offer from Ibrox.

Think that was in summer 2017 per newspaper interview with Craigen in Feb 2019. "But former Well Under-20s coach Stephen Craigan reckons seeing just how BAD his fitness was gave the Fir Park winger with the wake-up call he needed. Craigan said: “When the young Motherwell players came back in the summer of 2017 we did weight and fitness tests on them all. “Jake was bottom of the pile. I think he’d been on holiday with one of his mates during the summer and it showed. “Compare that with last summer. He started the season flying in training and I asked him what he’d done different. “He said he hadn’t gone away on holiday, he’d just trained. “That was nothing to do with me or any of the coaches at Motherwell. I think the penny had dropped with him that he had responsibility for his own life. That he could be a football player or a beach boy. “We sent him on loan to Alloa. Jim Goodwin probably didn’t know it, but we knew he’d done all right in League One on loan at Airdrie and now we wanted to see how he got on in the Championship. “But while he was there he was able to play for our Under-20s and a couple of the games were at Fir Park, so the coaching staff got to watch him. “It was quite funny. The staff had a chat around October and we were discussing what we wanted in a wide player. "The identikit was someone fast, physically strong, who would get you a goal or two. “I said, ‘We’ve got one like that, but he’s out on loan at Alloa!’. “But although he was on a season-long loan with Alloa, there was a clause allowing Motherwell to bring him back in January and we knew pretty early on we’d be doing that." “But the way Jake has developed is down to the coaches he’s had and the way he’s applied himself.” So in the summer of 2018 he was earmarked for return in January 2019, having got his fitness and attitude sorted out as the penny had dropped. Also regular updates from Craigen confirmed Hastie was making progress at Alloa and Jim Goodwin was delighted with him. He was also doing all that was being asked of him when he played for our youth team. We knew last year he was close to breaking into the first team, in fact that was the plan. Hastie's attitude and fitness was a huge part of that intention.

Yet again you completely ignore what people are saying about the timing of making a contract extension offer. You conveniently turn the discussion to January when releasing players freed up some cash . How about about last summer when money was available but wasted on the likes of Sammon and Taylor-Sinclair.... and others. That is BEFORE he came to the attention of Clubs such as Rangers, and the cash they can offer. We had clearly marked him as one for the future at that time, as stated by Craigen and Robinson way back then. So I'll repeat the direct question I asked you over a week ago. Third time of asking. Do you think Hastie might just have signed a new contract last Summer had he been offered one? Even a one year extension would have protected us at relatively minor cost. Last summer, when he had already been earmarked as a player with a better chance than most of making it. And at a time when their was a buzz about the place having reached two Cup Finals. That is the point some people are making and which you seem to ignore. Of course we can't make players sign. We all know that. Even if we had made an offer, he might have stalled. But the timing of any offer can make a huge difference and the Club may well have got it wrong with Hastie. I wonder what you would be saying if Turnbull had opted to leave as well..........and McGuire, and Scott,....... also belatedly offered extended contracts. Talent like Turnbull and Hastie possess is a rarity, particularly at a relatively small Club like Motherwell. For what it's worth I hear the offer is nowhere near the £15k PW quoted but it is way above what we can offer. Like others, I heard the figure was £4k PW on a 4 Year deal . By comparison (from a family member) David Bates left Rangers for Hamburg because Rangers were not prepared to go anywhere near the £7K on offer in Germany, even though Bates was in their first team and wanted to stay at Ibrox. Why on earth would they gamble £15k per week on a youngster with very limited first team experience. But if he goes, good luck to the boy. And if he is getting £15k PW even better. i wish him well. He might have a familiar face joining him very soon.

I'm just glad that there are options and we can actually choose someone. Several months ago the thought of picking Players of the year would have been laughable. Unless it was based on the least disappointing. I agree Turnbull had an amazing impact by way of goals, chances created,composure..... but I think his biggest impact was that he brought hope and belief and lifted a group of fans and players who had all but given up on avoiding a relegation battle. So I can see the argument for him winning both awards. But for his heart, desire and will to win no matter what, my player of the season is Aldred, with Turnbull as young player. Special mention to Gillespie also.

I agree to a great extent. It is a balancing act. I just wonder if we are being as smart as we could be. Perhaps we have also been victims of our own success, or more accurately the success of our recruitment and youth development strategy. To produce such a group of outstanding youngsters at the same time is fantastic, but it is exceptional and does have financial implications. My argument is that I think a further investment in Turnbull, McGuire, Scott and Hastie......all players who had passed every test with flying colours, had featured in first team squads and and were clearly thought by our coaches to have a better chance than most.....would have given us a better return and been less of a risk than some of the decisions that were made last summer. Even if only two of the four actually went on to higher and greater things, the income from that would more than offset the cost of the two that did not move on ( £20/25k as a guesstimate). And how often are we likely to be lucky enough to have four exceptional youth players emerge at the same time? Two would be great but in reality zero is also a possibility. If Hastie does move on, how much more would we have received if he were on a higher wage with a year to run on his contract? We would be in a much stronger position. Even if he sat out that contract and then moved on, we would be entitled to a greater Development Fee. I think it was a risk worth taking last summer with him (and the others). Yes Weeyin, that is subject to us persuading him to sign . But I honestly believe we had a greater chance then than we have now. On that note, can anyone who watches the current Reserve Team on a regular basis honestly say they witness players of the quality of Turnbull etc etc? From what I've seen, only Semple might be approaching that level with Livingstone another possibility. Beyond that I am struggling but it is a time of transition, player and coach wise. Semple was approached by several other Clubs when he joined us at age 14 and I know of one at least who are keeping an eye on his situation. As you say he is out of Contract in May and he will have a decision to make. Despite what some folk are suggesting on here, I'm not talking about huge wage increases or four year deals with the potential of bankrupting the Club. A 12 month (18 months max) contract, to be reviewed if the player graduated to the first team seems reasonable . A mini Hibs deal if you like. Also not every player will tick all the boxes like the four I mentioned . So , again contrary to what some folk are suggesting, I am not proposing that every youngster who has a couple of good games should be regarded as the next Lionel Messi and offered mega bucks. I am talking about players who have arrived at Reserve level having passed all the quality lines and who are....just about...first team ready. I can understand us losing younger players , McKinstrey to Leeds and Miller to Rangers as examples. Tom Leighton, who opted for Watford and went on to Captain Northern Ireland U19s is another, He is currently doing well in Watfford's U20s. There can be many reasons why players such as those move elsewhere at a young age, and not all under the control of the parent club. And different Contract Laws apply. It's the outstanding kids that are almost there that I think we need to be more clever with. They are our future both on the pitch and financially. Particularly if Project Brave is still a factor (seems to have gone all quiet on that front) and we get highly rated youngsters placed with us for development.

Until Easter Road I would have agreed with you, particularly with Grimshaw doing well on the right. But I thought Tait had his poorest game for a while on Saturday and Grimshaw was also a bit below par. Hopefully a "one off" as that formation has worked extremely well of late. But it did get me thinking again about players being set up in their best positions. Hibs certainly seemed to get in behind both on a regular basis, perhaps because both of them naturally were drawn inside? But as I say, that set up has worked well of late.

Good questions. Only thing I would add is that the Club may intentionally run down contracts for those players they wish to manage out. You would need to filter those out to achieve a true measure but how you do it I don't know. And maybe the rules are different the younger the player? I do recall that Robinson (and Burrows I think) indicated that they had opened discussions with Hastie and Turnbull when they broke into the first team, following the media highlighting that both were at Pre Contract Agreement stage. After that we also signed up McGuire and Scott. Maybe they had all been in discussion previously but it casts doubt in my mind. It probably did not help our case to be saying things like"We've made our best offer and now it is up to XXX". Even if that was the case.