David

What if the choice was £1.2 million from 3 rounds in Europe or losing a League Cup quarter-final to Hearts? There are a lot of people assuming we'll definitely lose to Freiburg, but we would have had a real chance to win the League Cup. It doesn't always work that way.

Absolutely not. We've already earned twice as much financially in Europe as we would if we actually won the League Cup. In a season where we aren't in Europe, I'd absolutely agree that the League Cup is a priority, but when we have more lucrative European games, and we currently sit two games away from the actual group stages and the chance to earn millions? It's not even comparable.

Since August 2nd, we've played Sunday, Thursday, Sunday, Thursday, Sunday. We can't keep playing our first eleven on that schedule, it'll result in injuries. I'm fairly sure with the approach at the club just now, and how the manager is known to approach things, that data will have been provided on player fitness levels and will have played a part in his selection. As I said above, something had to give, and the choice was the League Cup game.

No one thinks we're Man City or Liverpool. It's simple squad rotation, and it's something we need to do when we're playing so many games this early. Like it or not, European football is always going to be the priority over the League Cup. That's the reason we worked so hard to actually qualify last season. We've managed to bank over £1 million in prize money so far, and that's not taking into account the tickets sold for home ties and so forth. I wouldn't be surprised if we've pocketed somewhere close to £1.4 million so far in total. Even if we lose to Freiburg, which we probably will, we'll be looking at over £1.5 million. And if we somehow manage to upset the odds and win? You're looking at over £3 million before a group game ball is kicked. So yeah, while the fans may not like it, the manager could have been considered negligent to not want to give us the best chance possible to win that tie. Even if that comes at the expense of losing in the League Cup. European football doesn't come along often, so we need to prioritise as needed. A result against Stenhousemuir would have been nice, but the League Cup is secondary to Europe. Just how it is.

Not an ideal result, but the harsh truth is we're playing games on a lot of fronts at the moment with a fairly small squad available to us. If the manager has to rank the League Cup, League, and European football in order of priority, I know which I would have at the bottom of the list. Europe and the league are more important at the moment. Just how it is.

I'd certainly hope we're spending a bit more on players than we were, and not just because we have money to spend at the moment. It should be part of the model. We have progressed from getting players on a free transfer and hoping to get a million or so for them, to spending a couple of hundred grand and hoping to get a bigger profit margin, and now we're looking at players who cost around half a million and while the ceiling in what we can command in transfer fees is real, we'd hope that spending that half a million means the player is more likely to be worth four or five million in a year or two. It's not an exact science, of course, but it stands to reason that someone valued at half a million with the pedigree that Hodge has is more likely to have a higher ceiling than someone we get for nothing and who doesn't quite have that background. A calculated risk for sure, but hopefully it'll pay off more often than not. And that's not to mention that we are able to sign players on longer deals when we're spending more, rather than a season at a time.

Crazy to think that "retired former player" could easily be Jon Obika. The likes of Arnott, Philliben, Martin etc are all well past the age of being able to take part I'd imagine.

He can also play further forward if needed, and also in the middle to the left side as well in a pinch. Like I said, a useful, low-cost option to have around.

And if someone of that level is available, happy to play that role at a club like ours, and their salary reflects said role, then fantastic. Until we find someone, though, I wouldn't be moving Wilson out, because we'd only need to scramble to fill that gap and would likely end up with another no-name loanee who passes through Fir Park as so many have in the past. I also think Wilson is pretty much past the stage of "getting a chance" with us. He's played almost 50 games. He's at over 100 professional games. He is what he is. Which, to me, is a decent enough fringe player for a club of our size. He's a fairly versatile left-sided player and can do a job when required. How many managers has he been here under now? He's also had three contract extensions, so the club obviously see something in him. The truth is, we're Motherwell, not Man City. We most likely can't expect to have many players coming here who are happy to sit on the bench and try to force their way into the team. That's why in the past we've gone for late loans along the lines of Osong, Hegyi, Plange, Dickson, Tavares, and Buyabu to fill those fringe player gaps. I'll take someone like Wilson or Ross over those types of signings every day of the week. Ross has played fewer than 50 or so career games as a professional. Most of them came for Annan on loan. This has nothing to do with him being a nice guy (he might be an arsehole for all we know!), and it's more about the idea that we're in a position to give a kid who's just turned 20 years old and has played a small number of games for us the bullet for "failing to convince"? Jesus Christ, I know the standing joke is that we don't give players time to show what they have, but that's harsh in my book! Whyte is a different proposition altogether from what I've heard. There's talk of him being good enough to actually get into the first team and become a regular. That's a bit of an unfair comparison to a few guys who I have said are basically fringe players at this stage. You also mention Miller, Turnbull and Johnston. So that's the bar for a young player being considered worth a contract? You either have to be one of the top youngsters we produce in decades, or you're out the door and deemed not good enough? It seems if you were in charge, we'd have a squad of 13 players, because if someone is basically only good enough to be a backup, they're not good enough to retain. We don't need backups. We need a squad full of top-quality prospects and first-team-ready players, correct? Absolute insanity. Yes, but the question is "good enough" in what way? And for what? If someone isn't good enough to be a first eleven player they should be moved on? Christ. Anyway, I think we've both covered all our points, but I'm glad you're not calling the shots 😂

Look, I'm not saying Wilson is anything special. But he's 21 years old, he's closing in on 50 games for us altogether, and he's played over 100 career games in Scottish football. By my count, we have a decent number of defenders on the books, and throughout the season we'll see varying levels of availability depending on injury and suspension, so someone like Wilson could be useful to plug those gaps while also seemingly willing to not play for longer spells when availability is higher. If we decide tomorrow that he's not progressed enough and we want to move on, who fills that gap? Do we pay money for a player to come in and fill that role? Or, more likely, do we find some random from down south with very similar attributes to Wilson to fill the gap on loan? My guess is that the likes of JGR, JKL, Moormann and Williams aren't on buttons salary-wise, so having someone like Wilson as a somewhat versatile squad player, most likely on budget-friendly wages, isn't the worst thing in the world. My choice on when we'd upgrade from him is when another youngster comes through in that position, and we can then plug them in and see if their potential ceiling is higher. Is there someone in the youth setup who fits that criteria that could replace Wilson? If so, get them up and let's see how they do. Until then, I'd rather we kept Wilson than potentially find ourselves short if the injuries pile up, or go down the route of a loan who comes in and does absolutely nothing. On Luca Ross, I see from socials that he's just turned 20 years old. Are we deciding players are no good before they hit 20 years old now? As a comparison, Maswanhise had not played a single game as a senior pro by that age. Paul McGinn was heading into his first full season for Queens Park in the third division. Again, not saying either will become superstars, but we're getting awfully quick to want to pull the trigger on these kids these days.

That's exactly my thinking, which is why I'm not so quick to dismiss some of the players we have in and around the first team already. I do think we have set a very high bar as fans, where we're looking for Turnbull/Miller/Johnston levels otherwise we shouldn't be looking to retain them. We're going to have fringe players. It's how it works for clubs our size who require a decent-sized squad of players. I'd rather those fringe players were our own youngsters than loans or free signings that aren't all that much better in reality.

That's a good point. It could very well have been a situation where the seats were swapped out and fans forced to endure what they've endured, only for us to get papped out of Europe early doors and it to have been a waste of funds. Perhaps a better option would have been to ask fans to relocate to the top tier of the away stand for the first few rounds, then if we did make it to a tie with the likes of Freiburg we could have used some of that progression money to invest in better seating options that may even do a job for a few years, rather than what seems like a cheap option that isn't up to the job.

You're assuming that our injury list, as it stands, will improve and no one else will get injured and replace those players currently on the sidelines? We'll see injuries and suspensions happen throughout the season, so we will need a squad of players. I'd like to think that any transfer business we're doing involves players who are of a better quality than the ones we already have and could be considered first eleven worthy. I've seen us too often in the past sign players on free transfers (although they aren't really free at all when agent fees etc are taken into consideration) and loans who did absolutely nothing of note except take up a squad number and play the occasional match. Jair Tavares, Luke Plange, Will Dickson, Oli Shaw and others in recent years. We should be looking to bring in players who will make an impact on the first eleven, and then have a squad outside that consisting of a fair amount of younger players who can be drafted in and do a job when needed. Not every player needs to be someone we're priming to sell on for millions. Sometimes it's fine to have a Euan Wilson-type player who can plug gaps and fill in as and when needed. This idea that if someone hits 21 and hasn't become Lennon Miller means they're not up to doing a job is crazy.

For me, when it comes to players like Ross and Wilson is that we need a squad, not just a team. Especially with European football and cup football playing a part this season. While I agree that Ross and Wilson maybe aren't of the quality to be first-team starters, we can't expect every single player to be of the quality of a first-team starter. We don't have the budget for that. We need players who, while obviously looking to force their way into the team, are happy enough to play the role of substitute and cover for certain positions. It's easy to say "not good enough, ship them out", but then we get to mid-December and we have a fair amount of injuries and need cover, we're left stretched, asking guys to play out of position and so on. Maybe the manager is looking at some of these fringe players and thinking they can be useful squad members.

That amount didn't even cover the cost of his da's club car back in the day.

A big striker I agree with, and I think Thor could be that guy if he can stay fit and is given a chance to show us what he has. On the keeper and defender? Not for me. We don't play in a way that requires those traits. Especially when it comes to the keeper. I think Paulsen is the new number 1, with Connelly as back up.

I've always been confused by that saying. It's been a while since I brushed up on my He-Man lore, but isn't Castle Grayskull where the good guys were based? Snake Mountain was where the evil lads congregated, no?

He's a decent enough player. I don't think anyone will ever be calling for him to be a first choice starter, but as I've said before, this is a squad game, and we're not going to ever find ourselves in the position of having 22 or so first-choice starters in our squad. We need players who can come in when required, do a job and while I wouldn't say they're happy to not play, they understand their role.

An interesting question, and for me it's still Davie Cooper. The game has undoubtedly changed now, but the truth is, we'd never get anywhere near signing someone like him in this modern era. Not a chance. While I don't place Cooper in that "world class" category like many others do, he was absolutely very good. In modern terms the closest I've seen is a hybrid between Jack Grealish, Riyad Mahrez and Bernardo Silva. He was 33 when he signed for us, but 33 back then isn't the same as 33 now. By today's standards that would likely be the equivalent of 35-36 or so, but even so, we'd simply not be in the conversation for someone like that. A player like him today, in his prime, would likely fetch around £65 million, possibly even £85 million if he was plying his trade down south. That kind of player and talent probably eclipses any player we'll ever see at a club like Motherwell moving forward.

Fadinger for me.

With games like this, we just need to hope we have enough at this early stage to get us across the line. We're always going to be up against it playing such an important tie this early, but it is what it is. We know how it works. Hopefully we have the quality to overcome what will absolutely be a gulf in match fitness and sharpness.

I'm sure a decent percentage of that goes to his former club, but still a very good fee for a player regardless.

Having looked into it a bit more over the past few days, I don't actually think the issue is that the SFA took action. Rule 72 exists to stop people publicly accusing referees of bias or incompetence, and if Elliott Watt admitted his comments breached that rule, then some form of sanction was always likely to be on the cards. What I do struggle with is the lack of transparency and consistency. Watt received a four match ban with nothing suspended, while the club was fined over the social media video. Yet the SFA's public statement gives virtually no reasoning. It doesn't explain what specific words or parts of the video crossed the line, what aggravating factors were considered, or why those particular punishments were appropriate. That's hard to reconcile when you look at previous cases. Brendan Rodgers received a two-match ban after describing the officiating as "incompetence", but one of those matches was suspended from what I can tell? As someone already mentioned, Callum McGregor said after Trusty's red card: "We may as well all go up the road and stop playing football if that's going to be a red card every single week." No action appears to have been taken, I'm guessing because the SFA viewed that as criticism of the decision itself rather than an allegation of bias or incompetence by the officials? Honestly, it's hard to actually determine how they reach their decision half the time. I understand that different cases can absolutely justify different punishments, but the SFA doesn't publish anywhere near enough detail for anyone to understand why those differences exist. Why was McGregor's criticism acceptable, Rodgers received one immediate match and one suspended, while Watt received four immediate matches? There may well be legitimate reasons, but if there are, they're not being explained as far as I can tell. For me, that's the real issue. If you're going to dish out significant sanctions, particularly a four-match ban for a player, you should also publish clear reasons so clubs and supporters can see how the decision was reached and why it's consistent with previous cases. At the moment, that transparency just isn't there.

Aye, that's mental. I certainly feel it if we lose. Anger, disappointment, a sense of what could have been. But embarrassment? Why would I be embarrassed? That suggests it's somehow your fault? That you did something that caused us to lose?

I think there are a lot of fair points being raised in this thread, and I'm certainly not suggesting summer football is a silver bullet. The reason I'm open to it is that none of these challenges are unique to Scotland. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Ireland and similar nations have had to deal with transfer windows, scheduling, transition seasons and international tournaments, so there are clearly workable models out there. And looking at some of these nations, it's clear that whatever they're doing is working. For me, the weather isn't really the driver. It's the competitive and commercial side. If there was no serious financial or European advantage, I'd probably agree it wouldn't be worth the upheaval. But if being match sharp in July, having more settled squads and not competing directly with the Premier League for TV attention for part of the year gave clubs a better chance of reaching league phases and bringing in a few million euros every few years, then it's at least a conversation worth having. Take Hearts against Sturm Graz. Getting through that tie wouldn't just have meant another qualifying round payment. It would have guaranteed Europa League football and around €5 million from UEFA before you even factor in ticket sales or performance bonuses. That's the scale of the fine margins we're talking about. Being a little sharper or having a more settled squad wouldn't guarantee they'd win that tie, but it might just improve their chances enough to make a difference. As it is, they have a new manager, a brand new squad and they got wiped out before they even really got going. I'd also separate why some countries originally adopted summer football from the advantages it gives them today. Norway may have done it because of the climate, but being halfway through the domestic season when European qualifiers come around is now an advantage regardless of the original reason. As for European games in December or February, that would be an amazing problem to have! If Motherwell are still playing in Europe at that stage, we've already had a very successful season and the financial rewards would probably outweigh the inconvenience. The thing is, I don't think there's a perfect calendar. Every model has its own trade-offs. The question for me is whether another model would leave Scottish football in a stronger position than the one we've got now. I'm not convinced summer football is the answer to everything, but I do think we've been following the same approach for decades without really asking whether there's a better one. And I'm sure we'll all be shocked and dismayed when us or whoever else gets pumped out by a team that's fitter, more cohesive and settled because they hold advantages over us. We'll blame it on slow transfer business, the board, the manager, but the truth is, it's just a result of the model we operate with.