David

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.

The more I hear about the guy, the more I'm strangely intrigued to see him get the job and basically burn Scottish football to the ground.

I was more thinking about the growing fanbase for the English Premiership.

When we live in the UK, and Scotland in particular, and insist on playing football through the winter, a lot of people are always going to prefer sitting in their warm house with a beer watching the game.

I've gone ahead and moved some of the World Cup chat to the World Cup thread in General Football so the Former Players thread can get back on track. A few posts around current players and players leaving us in this window have been shifted to the 2025/26 ins and outs thread.

Because Clarke has a hard-on for anyone who plays south of the border? He'd probably take the guy who cuts the grass at the Etihad before he'd take someone like Miller to the tournament.

I don't know if I'd classify them as "much bigger", but I'm not sure we can say that we're bigger than Celtic, Rangers, Hearts, Hibs, Dundee United & Aberdeen. On crowd and budget, that collection right there should be the default top six. Granted, we rarely see a season where all six of them are on form and performing to their potential, which usually means one or two slip out of the top six, and that's where ourselves, St Mirren, Killie, Dundee etc can take advantage.

Progression for me doesn't mean attaining more success, it's more about continuing with what we've been doing. I'm thinking more along the lines of establishing ourselves as a mainstay in the top six, for example. We've finished in the top six something like three times in the past ten years, so establishing a run of finishing in the top six would be progress in my opinion. Continuing to play an attractive, exciting brand of football that attracts fans to the ground is also important. That's mainly what I mean when I say it would have been interesting to see how JBA would have fared in his second season.

I guess a question I have is, *whisper it*, would Jens have managed to continue the success with the same approach in his second season? Your Slot comment is interesting, because we saw the difference between his two seasons in charge. Sadly, we'll never know. We can only be thankful for the incredible season we had.

I agree with you. If he were German or Danish and could squeeze into a slim-fit Uniqlo long-sleeve minimalist-style t-shirt, opinion on him would likely be very different. There are a few things that I admire about McGlynn's style, including his brave decision to reject the usual approach to Scottish Championship-level football (direct, physical, second-ball contests) in favour of a more attractive, proactive approach. I have probably watched more of Falkirk in the second half of this season than any club outside of our own, and it's mental how calm they seem to play. They often looked like a side who just know the goal would eventually come through repetition and patience rather than chaos and panic. Some would say that has proven to be the way to actually undo us this season. McGlynn seems to be more interested in Intelligent footballers. Falkirk this past season had technically sound midfielders, full-backs comfortable in possession, and mobile, versatile attackers. He is one of the rare few generally less interested in the "run your socks off, earn the right to play football" approach that many Scottish managers (and some not Scottish managers, it must be said) tend to employ. That said, his approach is different from the system we have in place at the moment, even if I do rate McGlynn highly. In my view, he favours a system where the players look comfortable, the system serves the players, and they play with confidence, rhythm and repetition. Us under Jens seemed more along the lines of constant movement, pressing triggers, rotations and tactical demands. Everything feels designed to overwhelm opponents physically and mentally, where the players serve the system instead. What the real question is, is what we're doing actually sustainable? McGlynn has shown his system is sustainable over League One (also going undefeated I think?), Championship, promotion pressures, initial relegation pressure in being one of the favourites to go back down, and also squad turnover. What he's done with Falkirk is remarkable. I know the trendy option is to look for coaches who look the part and have umlauts in their name, but I do think we could honestly do much worse than John McGlynn. But the fact he's Scottish and looks like the guy your auld da talks to down the bookies definitely works against him, I think.

I look forward to seeing a 38 year old Kenny McLean and Grant Hanley included, despite not even playing club football, with Clarke commenting how impressive they've looked during kickabouts with their kids in the garden.

It'll be interesting to see how Olly Whyte factors in this coming season. With that extension signed and his successful loan period last season, I'd hope to see him get some minutes in our midfield this season. I admit to not seeing much of him, but from what I've heard, he has a lot of qualities that could see him eventually fit into the midfield and how we play. I guess it'll depend on whether he's quite ready to show the consistency and decision-making under pressure that anyone playing in our midfield requires. I'm not sure another loan spell is needed, as there's few teams in the lower leagues that play how we do, so it wouldn't be worth it from that viewpoint. And he's already shown that he's physically capable of competing in senior football. I'd hope he sees time on our bench and gets some game time.

Looks like it may be more family-related than anything else, going by the social posts. If he's got a kid and fancies being closer to family, then no one can grudge him that.

Personally, I think there’s a middle ground here. I agree that “investment” is a word we need to be careful with. Motherwell simply isn’t the kind of club where someone comes in, puts money in, and gets a normal business return from profits. That’s just not how it works for clubs our size. The latest accounts show the club is in a reasonably solid position, but we’re not sitting on huge profits. So if an investor is coming in looking for dividends, control, security over assets, or some guaranteed route to make money, that’s where I’d be taking a long, hard look at their intentions. Where I do think there’s a difference is between bad investment and properly structured strategic investment. The Hearts/Bloom deal is interesting to me for that reason. Bloom put in something like £9.9m for just shy of 30%, but those are non-voting shares if I recall. Hearts/FoH also state that player trading revenue stays with the club, so it doesn’t look like he’s taking a direct cut of any transfers. His upside seems to be tied to the value and success of his stake, not stripping money out of transfer fees. When it comes to Motherwell, I’d be against selling control. Completely against it. But, I wouldn’t be against the right minority deal if it was properly protected. Something like: minority stake only fan control protected ideally non-voting shares no security over Fir Park no right to force asset sales no direct claim on transfer income clear exit terms clear limits on board influence money going into sustainable growth, not just short-term spending The above is very different from just handing the club over to someone. Hibs is probably a bit of a warning sign. Foley/Black Knight came in for 25% at £6m I think, but the relationship didn’t work out from what I read and the stake has now been bought back. That doesn’t prove outside investment is always a bad idea, but it does show that alignment is crucial. Money on its own isn’t enough if the investor’s model, timescale or expectations don’t fit the club. So I’d say organic growth should still be the base case. That’s the safest route, and we do seem to be in a better position now than we were during the car crash that was the Barmack discussion. But I also wouldn’t be shutting the door completely. If someone credible came in with capital, expertise, no demand for control, and a structure that protected the Society and the club, then I think we’d have to look at it seriously. The key for me is that we shouldn’t be looking for “an investor” in the generic sense. We should only be interested in a very specific type of potential partner. Basically, one who strengthens the club without owning the club. Which is hard to find.

It could be. But it probably isn't.

I think I read somewhere that he's one of, if not the best, distributor of the ball in his position in Scotland. Which is a huge part of the skillset clubs look for from a goalkeeper nowadays. There's a reason why clubs are sniffing around him.

But not with his particular skillset, which is a requirement for how we play now. Those better keepers from years gone by might not be a great fit for how we play today. In the past, it was basically a case of looking for someone who could stop shots and be decent coming for crosses. Changed days.

Any keeper who replaces Ward, if we sell him, will more than likely come with the same attributes.

Thing is, Hibs didn’t just decide he was worth £6m. They had a club in Serie A willing to actually pay it. Once that happens, we're negotiating in a different tier. That’s what drives the fee up. Similar to what happened with Lennon. With Maswanhise, as good as he’s been, we’re not quite in that position yet. The interest, from what I've seen, hasn’t reached that same level where multiple clubs from stronger leagues are pushing the price up. That could, and hopefully will, change, of course. You don’t get £5m because a player is “worth it” in theory. You get £5m because someone is willing to pay it, usually because they think they’re getting ahead of the curve. Profile matters as well, whether people like it or not. Bowie fits the classic mould clubs across Europe want. Big, physical, leads the line, can play as a focal point. That kind of striker is harder to find, so there’s a built-in premium there. Again, we might get a fee of around £5 million for Maswanhise, but it'll be market value that determines that, not us. Unless we're prepared to knock back anything below that and risk pissing off the player, his agent, and so on. A lot of moving parts, basically.

Could be that he's in a better mental state and feeling more confident playing back at home? I know we all tend to just think that success or less-than-success (I don't want to call it failure) is purely footballing, but being halfway around the world with family and friends in a different timezone can play a part. If he's happier out in Australia there maybe isn't much point in bringing him back.