Coolhandluc Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 Only saw him against Ross County but am I the only one that thought Robinson looked absolutely useless? A fast Casagolda? Obviously, I'm not writing him off on the basis of one 45 minute showing but didn't see much cause for optimism... I thought he looked a lot better than his debut appearance and hopefully keep improving with a run in he team. Strong and holds the ball up well. Could be a good foil for Moult if we play 2 up top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goggles & Flippers Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 Only saw him against Ross County but am I the only one that thought Robinson looked absolutely useless? A fast Casagolda? Obviously, I'm not writing him off on the basis of one 45 minute showing but didn't see much cause for optimism... Erm, you 100% sure you're not writing him off, because the caveat in the first half of the sentence is kinda negated by how you ended it? e.g. Obviously, I'm not saying that was a shitey post, but it kinda is. See what I did there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilian Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 TThe ass. manager mentioned in the Youtube video today they are adhering to budget also. Pat Nevin still maintains that when he was managing contracts at the club everything was in budget Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superward Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 Pat Nevin still maintains that when he was managing contracts at the club everything was in budget Wether the budget is correct is a different story! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigWeegieDosser Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 Pat Nevin still maintains that when he was managing contracts at the club everything was in budget He also maintains that if John Boyle had just committed another few quid it would've turned out ok. Total f cking banger of a man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ianc Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 Fairly convinced the Rangers loanees they have for free are paid by home clubs. but vv expensive lifestyle. Ditto I believe some of ours. We pay expenses. Depend entirely how these loanees define their needs? From MAN U ?expensive Boro less so And so on. Doubt the club will comment, just my take on the likelihood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelvinBragg Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 Erm, you 100% sure you're not writing him off, because the caveat in the first half of the sentence is kinda negated by how you ended it? e.g. Obviously, I'm not saying that was a shitey post, but it kinda is. See what I did there? As I said, only my first impression. Looked clumsy to me, reminded me of Paul Baker. I've been around long enough not to judge a player on one appearance but others seemed impressed by him which baffled me. Hence I started my post asking if I was the only one that thought that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haggischomper Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 Looked clumsy to me, reminded me of Paul Baker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 As I said, only my first impression. Looked clumsy to me, reminded me of Paul Baker. I've been around long enough not to judge a player on one appearance but others seemed impressed by him which baffled me. Hence I started my post asking if I was the only one that thought that... I thought he looked big, strong and fast. Hardly a world beater but looked like he had something about him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 I thought he looked big, strong and fast. Hardly a world beater but looked like he had something about him.My take on him was similar. It was less about what he did in his half on the park and his cameo before that and more about what he looks like he offers, if that makes sense? To me he looks like he's suited to playing 'on the shoulder' of the defender and with the right service would offer something going beyond a defence and has attributes that the other four strikers at the club don't. Fletcher, Moult, McDonald and Clarkson all have something to offer but I think on the whole they seem more suited to playing in front of a back line, holding the ball up and bringing others into play rather than getting 'in behind', (to speak in football cliché again). Similarly I wouldn't be too confident in any of the others beating a centre half in a straight out sprint whereas Robinson looks like like he has that sort of pace on offer. An element of that is based on having watched him score a few goals with Derby as well I suppose. To say I was "impressed" by him would be stretching it, it's more a case of I can see why he's been brought in and what he might offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 Double Post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onthefringes Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 I thought he looked big, strong and fast. Hardly a world beater but looked like he had something about him. So... the new Eliphas Shivute? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superward Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 So... the new Eliphas Shivute? My hero Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 So... the new Eliphas Shivute? More or less... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catweazles ring piece Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 I'm totally out the loop on any ongoings at Firpark. However, I'm confused as everything I hear, appears to be a contradiction to what actually happens. * Signing policy initially appeared sound enough, but lately we've appeared to wildly deviate from the plan. Is this due to injuries or concern over perceived depth of squad? *Why has the much flaunted possession and pressing game been abandoned after assembling numerous new players from the highly acclaimed scouting system. Surely the absence of one player, Stephen Pearson, wouldn't change a game plan philosophy? *Why are signings been made for areas deemed covered, when budgets and W.S. Subscriptions are apparently paramount? *Is Les Hutchinson inputting more than finance and business acumen to the running of the club? *Do we look like a club, building for the future and do we appear to be making progression under the management team? Have we improved? Genuinely interested on feedback from these questions and any further information regarding the goings on at the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one m in motherwell Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 There are perhaps two things at play here. On one hand, we probably had a list of targets that Bara wanted to sign, although as Flow admitted on Twitter, this can be quite a long game with no guarantee that the targets will pay off. So, this would leave us with a 'B' list of players that we knew could do a job, that we perhaps turned to when other negotiations dragged on etc. To my mind this is the motivation behind signing Clarkson, Taylor and potentially Samson too (although the Taylor deal is perhaps more down to Pearo's injury. The other potential thing is that Bara genuinely doesn't have a clue what he's doing. As much as our scouting system sounds like something straight out of Champ, it seems we're going about our business as if we're playing it, signing a whole screed of players without any real long term plan. Now, in a way I'm not too fussed if these players can genuinely do a job for us, but I'd much rather sign - and I mean actually sign, rather than loan deals - a select few quality players with a view to using the rest of the team to blood some of the younger players. The few folk we've signed on permanent deals do look like they would tick this box, but it's strange that we've not been trusting enough of the younger ones' ability to come in and do a job. Which begs the question - this shift to a youth development/bring them in and sell them on ethos - how long is this going to take? Have we actually put anything in place at a grass roots level to bring players through that we can sell on? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bart Verheul Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 Did les hutchison not come out recently and say that none of the youngsters in the u20's were up to much? If this was the case then I'm guessing that this is the view of the coaching team too. Maybe I'm putting 2 and 2 together here but I doubt he's been to any of their games or sits on YouTube watching the highlights that the club puts up so it would suggest to me that in a meeting with the management team he's been told that there isn't anybody who is going to make a massive impact. Could this be why we are seeing guys being brought in seemingly just to sit on the bench? I'm not saying this is right as it does seem a bit pointless bringing in Samson, Clarkson, Robinson and Taylor just as back up but maybe the coaching staff have decided the boys in the u20's aren't even ready as back up for the 1st team. Not sure how much influence crags would have but certainly apart from Clarkson these guys have all come in after the appointment of craigan, which could suggest crags has come in and said the guys ready to step up from the u20's are nowhere near good enough for the first team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 In fairness I think Craigan might have mentioned in a couple of his YouTube interviews that some of the u20s aren't quite ready to take the step up yet. Not writing them off, just simply saying that they're not quite there yet which is fine. It's not a binary choice, just because the coaching staff make the observation that they're not ready to step up just now isn't writing off their entire careers. If they're not ready then they're not ready and it's not going to help Baraclough any if he chucks them in only to see them fail to perform and we take an absolute tanking. It's totally unreasonable to expect the management to just start chucking in players simply because "youth". The way that Dom Thomas has been handled so far this season (30mins as a sub followed by a few starts) is how I'd imagine they'd ideally be wanting to use all the group, Leitch, Watt, Cadden. We're 7 games into the season and just because half the starting XI aren't guys who were in the u20s last year doesn't mean that they're not going to be used. It's a fine balance. I might be wrong but in one of his more recent interviews I think Craigan had said that he felt Cadden was unlucky not to have been more involved with the first team. The problem that I see with the signings of the likes of Clarkson, Samson etc and the fact that they're not playing is that it's being amplified by the owner and the club highlighting the "financial situation" and Les' general doom-mongering approach to things. On one hand you have Stephen Robinson (who I thought spoke really well at his press conference) saying we're working within our budget, which was great to hear but how does that balance when the narrative coming from the owner seems to be "give us your money or you won't have a club." In many ways this is one of the root causes of the doubt that currently exists. You can't spend your time pitching absolute doom to a fan base then be surprised when they're up in arms that the club start signing players who aren't going to see much (or any) game time or for that matter when the manager says he's only looking to bring in a goalkeeper and a midfielder and we somehow end up with 2x goalkeepers, 2x midfielders and a striker. If there are issues with the payment schedule to Hutchison and this is in the public domain then of course it's a reasonable to ask "why are we signing a 31 year old senior pro to allow our current first team back up to cover for our u20s goalkeeper's injury? Would a more appropriate solution not be to just let one of the "Elite Academy" GKs sit on the u20s bench?" ditto the fact that we seem to have got a couple of signings wrong so our solution on the face of it is just to sign a replacement rather than work with what we've got and try and find out how to improve the team and work out exactly why players aren't playing to their potential. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superward Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 Excellent post capt_oats 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzie Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 So... the new Eliphas Shivute? Racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 If it costs the WS £1m to but the club now, would it cost any less if we hadn't signed Samson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilian Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 If it costs the WS £1m to but the club now, would it cost any less if we hadn't signed Samson? if the society has any chance of purchasing the shares , it needs to have funds to do so if the club is continuing to trade at a loss and the payments to Les are required to be made, is it the society funds that are the guarantee, leaving the society struggling to finance the share purchase in the required timeframe? if so, are the additional signings contributing to any losses, or are they contributing to increasing turnover in order to make the required profit to pay our way out of the mess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 If it costs the WS £1m to but the club now, would it cost any less if we hadn't signed Samson? And if the WS keeps having to bale out the Football Club to help meet salaries and the day to day costs of running the organisation how will it ever amass £1m to repay Mr Hutchison. I have a genuine fear that any monies ingathered will be well gone before they can be used to repay the debt. Never mind the fact that it's the Football Club's debt and not the Society's. Despite seeking clarification on this Forum, (and directly to the Society as a member) the question as to whether any loans to MFC are on a short term basis to be repaid from SPFL, Transfer Income etc. has not been answered. The fact that WS Subscriptions were to be protected and would therefore build up into a sizeable sum over a period of time was a major factor in encouraging me to join up. Simple question. How much has been collected in total from day one and how much is currently sitting in the WS Bank Account? Sorry for posting these comments under this topic and not the WS section but my comments are in answer to the question posed by Waldo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 The Society loans money to the club. Apart from the first year where the mechanism wasn't in place and they had to buy shares instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LankyMac Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 My take on him was similar. It was less about what he did in his half on the park and his cameo before that and more about what he looks like he offers, if that makes sense? To me he looks like he's suited to playing 'on the shoulder' of the defender and with the right service would offer something going beyond a defence and has attributes that the other four strikers at the club don't. Fletcher, Moult, McDonald and Clarkson all have something to offer but I think on the whole they seem more suited to playing in front of a back line, holding the ball up and bringing others into play rather than getting 'in behind', (to speak in football cliché again). Similarly I wouldn't be too confident in any of the others beating a centre half in a straight out sprint whereas Robinson looks like like he has that sort of pace on offer. An element of that is based on having watched him score a few goals with Derby as well I suppose. To say I was "impressed" by him would be stretching it, it's more a case of I can see why he's been brought in and what he might offer. I like the look of him but his contract bothers me. We have bought, Fletcher and Moult with the hope/intention of them playing well to then be a sellable asset. Robinson seems to have come to the club to play well and move on for free. We already have Skippy on that kind of deal. Robinson may be a better player than Moult and Fletcher, and we need goals, but I still don't think he should be starting ahead of them as they are on longer contracts and need game time to boost their value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts