David

I think that's probably fair to a point but I'm not all that convinced it was simply a case of Jens looking at the squad and deciding he had no strikers available. A lot of what we did structurally pointed towards that being a deliberate choice rather than any kind of compromise. The front player was asked to press aggressively, pull centre-backs out of position, run channels and create space for runners from deeper areas rather than act as a traditional penalty-box focal point. The fact that goals came from all over the pitch rather than through one player feels more like design than necessity to me. That said, I do agree with the argument that we occasionally lacked somebody to turn good attacking play into goals. There were definitely games where we'd get into excellent positions, deliver dangerous balls into the box and simply not have that natural six-yard predator attacking the right spaces at the right time. The question for me isn't so much if we need a striker, because every team can make use of a striker. It's whether we need a traditional focal-point number nine. Looking at modern Scandinavian football and the sort of systems both Askou and Johansson favour, I'm not all that convinced that's the direction we'll go. My suspicion is that Johansson's version of the role probably sits somewhere in the middle. Maybe more of a recognised central striker than Askou used at times, but still somebody expected to press, run, link play and contribute to the overall structure rather than simply stand between the posts waiting for service.

More than likely. There will be certain segments of the media and Scottish football community that will be itching to see if the way we play blows up in our face, so they can say last season was a fluke, you can't play football that way, and we should have hired one of the usual suspects as manager instead of trying to be different.

I think the style and approach to the game will be quite similar, but the end results maybe not, which I'm sure will see the obligatory pile-on from the Scottish media and talking heads who grudgingly had to admit that there's another way of playing the game last season. If we're pushing for top six and hopefully get a decent cup run it should be considered a successful season.

Who knows? You may be a modern managers dream!

Hendry, if he was able to stay fit, actually ticks a lot of the boxes that are required for how Jens set us up to play. A quick look at his stats suggest a channel runner, a pressing forward, a link player, a creator of space, a facilitator for runners around him. It's clear why Jens wanted him. I doubt he looked on him as a first choice starter, but as a backup or player coming on from the bench, he ticked the boxes of what our style needed.

I don't think Jens used a system that required an out & out striker, and depending on your definition of an out & out striker, the new manager likely won't either. It's just not how we're set up to play these days. I have a feeling that we'll be looking for forward players who can press consistently, initiate the first line of pressure, link play, occupy both centre-backs, attack crosses, and run channels. My gut tells me that we'll see RCC given a chance, along with Vogt replacing TJ and Stama getting a chance early on if he can stay fit until we can get a Just replacement. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a regular selection of three across the front line, and not one of them being a traditional out & out style of striker.

It'll come down to what the manager wants I guess. Maybe he'll look at Connolly and see a starter in him? I think if we're all honest, we likely never saw Ward as the clear number 1 for Jens last year at this time, and it worked out that way.

The problem is, we don't play like an old fashioned team. If the new manager has been brought in based on continuity around how we play, as we've been told, then an old fashioned shot-stopper isn't going to cut the mustard.

It depends, really. From your post, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, it sounded like you thought we should be getting £4.5m cash as a basic fee. I figure we're likely to get around £3.5m as a basic fee, maybe a little more if there are more than a few teams interested and he's happy to go to either. If there's one particular team that he's really keen on, and they're offering £3.5m basic fee, and are open to add-ons as I detailed above, I'd take that. would you?

Fair question, and at the risk of writing too many words for some people, I'll give it a go. I’d probably value it by separating the player from the deal structure. As far as the player goes, I think Just is excellent. He’s 26, coming off a very strong Premiership season, has World Cup visibility, plays in a valuable attacking role, and we are not under immediate pressure because he has two years plus the club option. That matters, although we do need to factor in what the player wants as well. On top of that, valuation still has to sit inside the market he’s being sold from. The closest benchmark for us is Lennon Miller at roughly £4.5m-£4.75m, but that was for an 18-year-old midfielder with major resale upside. Hibs getting around £6m upfront for Kieron Bowie is a useful comparison too, but Bowie is 23, a Scotland international, had strong resale value and there was Serie A interest. So for Just, I’d break it down like this: Basic fee: £3.5m-£4m Appearance add-ons: £500k-£750k European/international performance add-ons: £500k-£750k Future sale add-on or profit clause: 15%-20% Total package ceiling: around £5m-£5.5m if everything lands That, to me, is the realistic sweet spot. I don’t think £6m-£8m guaranteed is how buying clubs will price a 26-year-old winger from Motherwell, even after a brilliant World Cup. But I do think Motherwell should be pushing for a deal that lets us benefit if the buyer is right and he kicks on again. The buying club is gambling on that happening, so we should position ourselves to share in that if it does. So my number would be: £4m guaranteed, or as close to it as possible (no less than £3.5m), plus serious add-ons and a proper sell-on. Obviously, the higher our guaranteed ask is, the less we can ask for when it comes to add-ons, usually which is worth keeping in mind. I honestly think that’s recognising his value while structuring the deal properly so Motherwell aren’t left short if he proves he’s worth more. Obviously something mental such as a bidding war between two or more clubs desperate for him could happen, even if the chances are slim, but we can always hope!

I think the World Cup has definitely increased his visibility, no question there. My only point is that clubs have become far more disciplined about how much weight they put on international tournament football, largely because history shows they’ve been burned plenty of times paying a premium off the back of short-term performances. The other bit I’d add is context matters. The World Cup is obviously the biggest stage in football, but recruitment teams don’t just look at the headline of “3 goals at a World Cup” and stop there. They look at opposition strength, tournament progression and overall sample size. Two goals against Iran and a consolation against Belgium in a heavy defeat is a very different data point from someone producing that level against France, Argentina or Brazil and dragging their team deep into the tournament. That’s not diminishing what Just did. He was excellent. I just think sometimes supporters overestimate how aggressively clubs react to tournament performances now. Ten or fifteen years ago, clubs would throw money at these situations far more often. Modern recruitment departments are a lot more process-driven. If the argument is now “a handful of elite level World Cup performances massively resets a player’s valuation”, then we’d need to apply that logic consistently across the market. Take Lionel Mpasi. He stood on his head against England and was arguably man of the match. By that logic, clubs should suddenly be lining up to throw millions at him. Same with Vozinha. Massive exposure, huge performance level, lots of coverage. But recruitment departments don’t work like that. For me, the World Cup absolutely moves his valuation upwards. I’m just not convinced it moves it upwards by several million pounds the way some people are suggesting.

You're clearly in the latter category.

I don't think I'd be looking at isolated transfer fees without looking at the underlying data sets. Kieran Bowie wasn’t bought purely because of goals scored over a few seasons. Clubs don’t price attacking players on raw goal output alone, otherwise half the market would make zero sense. They look at things like age curve, contract position, physical profile, league-adjusted output, projected development trajectory, injury history, resale potential and expected value over the life of the contract. That’s why younger players consistently command premiums over better current players. If you look across Europe over the last 5 years or so, players aged between 18-22 routinely transfer for significantly more than players 25+ with better immediate output. That isn’t my opinion, that’s just how recruitment models work nowadays. Same with the Raskin comparison. He plays for Rangers, is younger, has European exposure almost every season, and is sitting in a completely different transfer ecosystem. The Old Firm market is not the Motherwell market. I know we don't like that, but it's the truth. If we strip emotion out of it and look at Just objectively, here’s the career profile a buying club is probably looking at: 26 years old Spent years moving between Danish first and second division football Spell in Austrian second tier One very strong season in Scotland 3 World Cup goals, which absolutely helps visibility Now compare that to what I believe recruitment departments call “transferable asset value”. At 26, a club buying Elijah probably gets 3–4 peak years. At 18 like Lennon Miller, a club potentially gets 10+ years plus a second sale. That future value gets priced in. I think where I disagree is this idea that “performance merits a £Xm valuation”. Football doesn’t work like that. If it did, loads of players would be worth far more than they eventually end up moving for. Recruitment departments are increasingly data-led these days. They model future value, they don't tend to reward past performance all that much. Personally, I think Just has been phenomenal for us. But if I was sitting in a recruitment department trying to build a valuation model, I’m not getting anywhere near £10m (or even £6 million) based on one excellent Scottish Premiership season and three World Cup goals in a group-stage exit. And that’s not talking him down. That’s just how the market tends to price these things in my opinion.

It was said literally at the top of this page.

It's one of those shirts that will likely look pretty good as part of a whole kit, worn by footballers on a football pitch, but maybe not so much worn by the average Scottish guy with jeans and a pair of trainers. I'll likely wait and see what the training collection looks like this year.

I’m not trying to undersell him. I rate him highly and I think he’s been outstanding for us. But I think there are two different arguments being mixed together here. One is: how good is Elijah Just? The other is: what would a buying club realistically pay Motherwell for him? Those are not the same thing in my view. On the Ronaldo comparison, I don’t think it works at all. Ronaldo’s Juventus fee came after he had become one of the greatest players of all time, won multiple Champions Leagues, won Ballon d’Ors, and had enormous commercial value. That wasn’t a “finished article” premium in the normal sense. It was an elite global asset changing hands. In normal football markets, clubs often pay more for younger players because they are buying future upside. That’s why Lennon Miller’s fee makes sense. Udinese were not paying £4.5m because he was a better player than Just today. They were paying for an 18-year-old Scotland international with resale potential. If Miller develops properly, he could become a £15m–£25m player. That upside is priced into the fee. With Just, it’s different. He’s 26. He’s much closer to the finished player. That makes him more reliable, but it also reduces the resale premium in my opinion. His career history matters too. Before Motherwell, he had played in Denmark across the first and second tiers, then in the Austrian second tier. That doesn’t mean he isn’t a very good player, but it is part of the evidence a buying club will use. Clubs won’t ignore seven or eight years of career data because of one excellent season and a few World Cup games. That's just a fact. I'm not saying that the World Cup doesn't raise his profile though, it absolutely does. Three goals at a World Cup is a brilliant achievement, especially for a Motherwell player. Nobody should dismiss that. But context matters there as well. Two came against Iran. The other was a consolation in a 5–1 defeat to Belgium, and New Zealand still went out bottom of the group. That is still impressive, but it is not the same as dominating a knockout tie against France, Brazil or Argentina. The Engels and Fernandez comparisons are also a bit of a stretch. Celtic and Rangers sell from a completely different position. They have bigger wages, European exposure, stronger bargaining power, longer control in many cases, and clubs in England are more willing to pay a premium for players coming out of them. Motherwell do not get Celtic or Rangers prices just because the player may be comparable on the pitch. I wish it wasn't the case, but it is. I also agree that we should talk our players up. But talking them up doesn’t mean inventing a market that doesn’t exist. I'm trying to look at this from the position of a club who can afford someone like Just, and how they'll see it. For me, £4m for Just would not be insulting. It would be a very strong fee for a 26 year old attacking player from a non-Old Firm Scottish club. If we could get £3.5-£4m with serious add-ons and a sell-on clause, that would be very good business. Could a Celtic buy him for £4.5m and later sell him for more? Possibly. But that’s exactly the point. Celtic would be able to do that because they can offer Champions League exposure, a bigger platform and a stronger selling market. Motherwell selling directly from Fir Park are operating in a different market. So I’m not saying Just isn’t a class act. He is. I’m saying “class act” and “£10m player from Motherwell” are two very different things.

I understand the hype coming off last season and all that, but I think we need to row it back a little as far as expectations go. I think people are putting far too much weight on a couple of World Cup performances and ignoring the bigger picture. Just is 26 years old and, prior to arriving here, his career trajectory was hardly that of a player clubs were lining up to spend huge money on. He spent years in Denmark moving between the first and second tiers, then had a spell in the Austrian second division, before ending up at what is seen as a mid-table Scottish Premiership club. Aye, he had a very good World Cup, but let’s keep perspective. He scored twice against Iran, then got a consolation goal against Belgium in a heavy defeat, and New Zealand still finished bottom of the group and went home early. That tournament absolutely raises his profile, but clubs don’t suddenly ignore 7 or 8 years of previous evidence because of three good games. The Lennon Miller comparison absolutely does not work for me either. Udinese paid for an 18-year-old with massive upside and potential resale value. Just is much closer to the finished article, which usually means lower upside and lower transfer fee, even if he’s arguably the better player today. If he was 20 and had just put in those performances, we’d be having a completely different conversation. But he isn't, so we're not.

I'm not so sure it's down to him being unsettled, and more likely to be the one issue that saw him arrive at Fir Park in the first place. A lack of consistency. There's a lot of really good players out there, but the great players who make it at the top level tend to be more consistent than most. He was initially brought through the Leicester City academy, so he obviously turned some heads previously. But he was let go for a reason, and that reason is likely a lack of consistency. The talent is there, there's no doubt about that.

Transfer fees aren’t really based on how highly supporters rate a player. They’re based on what the market is willing to pay, and historically clubs in Scotland outside Celtic and Rangers rarely command £6m fees unless you’re talking truly exceptional circumstances. Like a Lennon Miller. The World Cup definitely helps exposure, no doubt about it, but one tournament doesn’t automatically double a player’s value overnight. I think there’s a difference between saying he’s played at a £6m level and saying a club will actually pay £6m. Those aren’t always the same thing.

I think £4 mill is likely the ceiling, we'd do well to get that kind of money. Transfer fees aren’t just about how good someone looks in a tournament. They’re about age, contract length, league, buying market, resale value and proven level. The Chris Wood comparison doesn’t really apply either. Wood moved for those fees because he was a proven Premier League centre-forward, with a rare physical profile and years of goals behind him. Plus, that market is completely different from a wide player coming out of Motherwell, no matter how good Elijah has looked. I would say that the World Cup absolutely raises his value. No doubt about that. That provides visibility, creates interest and maybe turns a £2m player into a £3m–£4m player if there’s a bit of competition and a bidding war or something. But £3m–£4m for a 26 year old attacking player from a non-Old Firm Scottish club would already be a very good fee. If he was 20 or 21, with the same performances and bigger resale upside, then I’d agree the number should be a bit higher. For me, the club should be aiming for a decent guaranteed fee, good add-ons, and a sell-on clause. That’s where we can protect ourselves if he goes on and proves he’s worth far more.

I think that’s fair to an extent, but I’d say that’s slightly separate from the point I’m making. I completely agree that uprooting at 16 and moving hundreds of miles away, or even abroad, is a huge decision and not every young player will be comfortable doing that. But we’re still talking about young lads making career decisions in an industry where the odds of making it long term are incredibly small, and where one injury can change everything very quickly. Some will value first team football above everything else. Some will value financial security. Some will value staying close to family. Some will back themselves enough to take a bigger gamble elsewhere. I just think supporters are a bit too quick to look at it entirely through a footballing lens and say “he should have stayed here, played 50 games and got a better move later”. The problem is football careers don’t follow neat scripts like that. Plenty of boys stay, never kick on, lose form, get injured or disappear down the leagues. It’s easy to say what the right choice was after the fact. Much harder when you’re 16 and trying to make a decision that could shape the rest of your life.

I think a lot of supporters massively overestimate how predictable football development actually is. I see it said that Rice should have stayed because he’d have had 50 games with us and earned a bigger move later. Maybe. But statistically, most academy players never make it that far. Across professional football, the majority of academy players are out of the game entirely by 21. Even at clubs like ours, dozens sign professional deals over a decade and only a small percentage become established first team players. Then add injury risk. One bad injury at 18 and suddenly that “big move later” never comes. It’s easy to point at Lennon Miller now, but Lennon is clearly an exceptional talent. Using the most successful academy player we’ve had in years as the benchmark for every youngster is hindsight. At 16 or 17, if someone offers you serious money, elite facilities and a different pathway, I don’t think taking that deal is mental at all. Supporters always talk about what players might earn in the future. Players have to think about what happens if that future never arrives.

That's an unfair comparison in my view. Lennon is a special talent. The previous poster mentioned Hastie, and I think we can all agree that had he not accepted that Rangers deal he'd likely have pissed about with us for a season or two, not getting a steady run, then quietly let go to drift down the leagues. Only difference is that when that happened he had a decent wedge in the bank. I grudge no young player the chance to make good money. We can all bang on about how it would serve them better by staying at Fir Park and eventually winning the big move. But what if the big move never comes? What if they end up injured and are never the same? The fans aren't going to pay the mortgage or give them that financial cushion if they're playing part-time football. Bailey took the right course of action for himself at the time, and that's fine.

They can seek all they like. Doesn't mean they're going to find it.

The proof will be in the pudding when they get to the training ground. That's where a manager is judged. Players can tell from how he runs his training sessions, how hard he works them, what he asks of them, and his tactical nouse how effective a manager he is. Aura and presence are definitely a thing, but they only get you so far. Yogi Hughes has aura and presence, but he would very likely immediately lose this squad of players after a few training sessions.