New Season, Same Old Story?

[David]

Before I go any further this isn't a thread about our results thus far this season, there'll no doubt be enough chat about that elsewhere.

 

What I was wanting to talk about is the transfer policy of the club moving forward. In the run up to the end of last season we knew that a whole load of players contracts were up, and that a lot of them wouldn't be coming back.

 

This was going to open the door for the manager to bring in some new players under the new ownership blueprint of bringing in players we can eventually move on at a profit, which I think is great.

 

We've brought in some good prospects, most of whom are in their early 20's, such as Moult, Chalmers, Fletcher, Laing & Kennedy.

 

We've also added Scott McDonald to the side, bringing experience and a bit of class.

 

What I'm wondering is where the idea of us bringing through our own youngsters is going to fit in with this? I know it's early doors, but it seems to me that the young guys who are knocking on the door of the first team have been pushed to the back of the line again.

 

I don't expect them to walk right in and take a starting position away from an established player, but I thought the idea was to bring them in when we suffer injuries and suchlike? Pearson is out for a good few weeks, and after his injury against Inverness young Leitch got his opportunity, replacing Pearson for the entire second half virtually, and then also playing for 80 odd minutes against United the following weekend.

 

Then on the day before the Hearts game the club sign Jake Taylor on loan, and despite only being here for a day he immediately goes into the starting line up against Hearts and young Leitch is back on the bench.

 

The same thing happened to Twardzik, where he played all of our pre-season games (and did quite well by all accounts) only to see a keeper come in on loan the day before we play our first league game and replace him immediately. Now, I know there'll be people who say "fuck him, he's pish" and all that jazz, but that's not going to do his confidence any good, is it? Which isn't ideal if Ripley picks up a knock or decides he wants to fuck off home in January.

 

And what about the signing of Clarkson? He didn't look great for the most part at Dundee, he has virtually no real sell-on potential but yet we're playing with him on our bench, coming on for the last 10-15 minutes in matches whilst Craig Moore has been fucked off to Ayr United.

 

The truth is, apart from Leitch getting that game against United before he got bumped for Taylor I've seen fuck all by way of progress in bringing through some of our younger guys, such as Dom Thomas, Leitch, Moore, Ferguson or Cadden.

 

I dunno, it just seems like the same shite when it comes to our younger players, only this time they're being kept out of the side by different names, some of whom don't look all that special if I'm being honest.

[Lobey_Dosser]

Thomas has had a fair amount of game time so far and has a long way to go before being a regular first team starter.

 

In addition to Thomas, the two which Baraclough rates the most, Watt and MacLean, are both injured.

 

If they're good enough they'll get their chance.

 

Last night didn't bode well for Leitch I guess but he didn't have a strong enough performance on Saturday to maintain his starting slot.

[Desp]

If they're good enough they'll get their chance.

 

 

 

That's the key for me.

 

The only player from the young players I'd have in the starting XI is Luke Watt (ahead of Josh Law) and he's currently injured.

 

I remain to be convinced over Dom Thomas.

[underboyleheating]

I remain to be convinced over Dom Thomas.

Although still a bit raw, I thought he looked very lively when he came on against Dundee United.

[Kmcalpin]

Although still a bit raw, I thought he looked very lively when he came on against Dundee United.

 

He did look lively but his final ball was very poor. Someone said that he was trying too hard.

 

In general its great to give young lads a chance but they have to be good enough. From what I've seen so far only Luke Watt is really knocking on the door.

[superward]

 

He did look lively but his final ball was very poor. Someone said that he was trying too hard.

 

In general its great to give young lads a chance but they have to be good enough. From what I've seen so far only Luke Watt is really knocking on the door.

Think I would agree with that. Thomas defensive capability is also lacking. He will do better getting 20/30 mins most games for the first half season at least I think.

[capt_oats]

My 2p here (apologies in advance for the tl;dr post btw):

 

- As far as "our" youth goes, it's fairly clear there are 3 or 4 who the manager would like to be involved: Watt (currently injured), McLean (currently injured), Dom Thomas (has already made appearances from the bench) and Leitch (ditto Thomas with a start to his name too) with possibly Cadden to make a 5th. As Lobey_Dosser says above, if they're good enough they'll get the chance. For what it's worth I too think that of those 4 it's Watt who's currently best placed to step up to being a first choice. I'd say it's fairly clear who the pool of home-grown young players are and that over the course of the season they'll be utilised.

 

- Twardzik: clearly I don't know what the manager has said to Twardzik during pre-season however I'd speculate that given the fact that Long came in and kept his place after the last window it's apparent to Dan that his role at the club is that of back-up goalkeeper. You can argue the rights or wrongs of that as much as you want but if you're the back-up keeper then you shouldn't really be too surprised when another goalie comes in and takes your place. The assumption is that Dan had been told that he was first choice but had that cruelly snatched away from him, I genuinely don't think that was ever the case, yes he was our first choice at the start of last season but as evidenced by the arrival of Long, the manager clearly doesn't see Dan as his first choice. I'd imagine that with regards the ICT game he would have been told "we're looking to bring in another 'keeper, however if we don't then you'll be playing at the weekend so be ready". Such is the life of a back-up goalie I guess.

 

- Taylor/Leitch: Personally I thought the choice to start Taylor last night was the wrong one however by the same token I've always felt that Leitch's role within the squad at this moment in time is to offer a rotation option for Lasley so in a sense I'm not surprised that we went with another player who in theory (if not in practice) should have offered something more in an attacking sense to pair with Lasley.

 

- Clarkson: it seemed apparent to me when Clarkson signed that he was replacing Sutton's role in the squad ie: an experienced head to come off the bench when needed. I don't think that this impinges on Moore's development if the manager doesn't feel Moore's ready to do a job at Premiership level.

 

- Moore: going by his goalscoring record for Motherwell coming off the bench for 10-15 minutes (as Clarkson is) then I'd argue that it's in Moore's best interests and development to be starting games and actually scoring goals rather than coming off the bench here and there and not scoring goals. From what I saw of him in pre-season games (highlights granted) and his appearances last season he looked like a player who was snatching at chances and frankly needs to be starting games to get some sort of form.

[Busta Nut]

Moore is away on loan

[capt_oats]

Moore is away on loan

 

I know, that was the point I was making about him getting games etc. Reading back it does look like I was suggesting he was still here though.

[Spiderpig]

IB and the coaching team see the younger players like Leitch, Moore, Cadden, Thomas etc day in day out. They make the call and decide if they are ready and good enough to get their chance in the 1st team if they are then they will,but clearly if we are bringing players like Taylor in then IB is not convinced they are ready to step up to get a start.

[David]

The thing is, at the end of the season we let go of 11 players, and we've now brought in 9 replacements if my math is correct, along with re-signing 2 key players.

 

I could be wrong, but I can't see the guys we've brought in being on less money than the players we've let go, not to mention the seven new guys we brought in last January, so my question is, where is the money for all of this coming from?

 

I know Les has cash to burn, but is he basically throwing this cash into the club and not worrying about any return? Or is this all part of the loan we're getting and are expected to pay back via the society eventually?

[Onthefringes]

The thing is, at the end of the season we let go of 11 players, and we've now brought in 9 replacements if my math is correct, along with re-signing 2 key players.

 

I could be wrong, but I can't see the guys we've brought in being on less money than the players we've let go, not to mention the seven new guys we brought in last January, so my question is, where is the money for all of this coming from?

 

I know Les has cash to burn, but is he basically throwing this cash into the club and not worrying about any return? Or is this all part of the loan we're getting and are expected to pay back via the society eventually?

 

Eureka! To be paid back by the support. Dangerous.

[David]

 

Eureka! To be paid back by the support. Dangerous.

 

This is kind of my point. Whilst it's great seeing fringe England under 21 goalkeepers coming in on loan, and exciting young talent from down south being signed up, I'm a bit worried about who is going to end up paying for all this?

 

It certainly appears that we're spending way more than we're bringing in.

 

Wasn't the idea supposed to be to get a lot of high earners off the wage bill during the summer, tighten down on the squad and cut our cloth accordingly? So that when the time comes where Les decides he's had enough we actually have a squad that we can afford to pay without banking on a cup run or a 2nd place finish?

 

That's why I'm wondering why we're signing Welsh internationals on loan from Reading when we should be pushing our own affordable players into the team. Unless of course these players are playing for next to fuck all, in which case my worries are unfounded.

[Haggischomper]

Didn't Lee Erwin net us 400 grand?

[David]

Didn't Lee Erwin net us 400 grand?

 

That's a one-off though, isn't it? I'm talking more about us looking at the money we actually bring in and cutting our cloth to reflect it. As I said, I could be wrong, but I don't see that happening.

[Ya Bezzer!]

The thing about McDonald and Taylor though is, pre-season is over. If we want these guys to get fit they need to play in games. If you have a problem with us playing these guys when they aren't fit, well it was a managerial decision to bring these players in late in the day.

 

Personally, I'm prepared to take the gamble as we know about McDonald and Taylor seems to have a pedigree.

[David]

The thing about McDonald and Taylor though is, pre-season is over. If we want these guys to get fit they need to play in games. If you have a problem with us playing these guys when they aren't fit, well it was a managerial decision to bring these players in late in the day.

 

Personally, I'm prepared to take the gamble as we know about McDonald and Taylor seems to have a pedigree.

 

Who are you talking to here? I didn't mention anything about McDonald's fitness?

[Ya Bezzer!]

 

Who are you talking to here? I didn't mention anything about McDonald's fitness?

 

You implied that Jake Taylor shouldn't have started the match last night. Since McDonald and Taylor are probably in the same boat fitness wise, I made the general observation that if we want these players to be match sharp later in the season we need to give them game time now.

[weeyin]

Folks are probably bored with me repeating myself, but I did think Taylor was a gamble fitness (and match-fitness) wise for a high tempo debute at Tynecastle. I thought he'd have been better served with a run out in the U20s for a game or two - but maybe, like Long, we promised him game time.

[siebsbarmyarmy]

New season same old story...... Scottish Referees are fucking diabolical.

[Spiderpig]

Folks are probably bored with me repeating myself, but I did think Taylor was a gamble fitness (and match-fitness) wise for a high tempo debute at Tynecastle. I thought he'd have been better served with a run out in the U20s for a game or two - but maybe, like Long, we promised him game time.

I dont think it was a gamble, lets be honest he was brought in because IB thinks he is better and will add more to the team than the other options we have already. May take him a few games to settle and get to know the players around him but no gamble for me, hes signed for the season so get him playing and lets see whats hes capable of.

[David]

 

You implied that Jake Taylor shouldn't have started the match last night. Since McDonald and Taylor are probably in the same boat fitness wise, I made the general observation that if we want these players to be match sharp later in the season we need to give them game time now.

 

No, my main point in this thread is that rather than relying on the younger players we already have under contract we're finding money from somewhere to finance a loan deal for a Welsh international who plays for Reading.

 

Don't get me wrong, if Les is happily footing the bill for these types of signings then fine, I've not got a problem with it, but if this money he's spending is being tallied up and is going to be added to what we have to pay him at the back-end of this deal we have with him then it's an issue, isn't it?

 

I'm not questioning the ability of the players we're bringing in, because obviously they seem to have the pedigree, but what I'm questioning is the fact that we seem to have completely deviated from the "self-sufficient, cut our cloth to fit with what we bring in" motto that I'm sure I heard mentioned when Les first arrived.

 

I may be losing the plot, but I thought the idea was to dump a lot of the relatively high earners during the close season and try to bring in a few well thought-out signings with sell-on potential and start giving our academy players a shot? Isn't that how a club our size manages to operate in a self-sufficient manner?

 

We've brought in almost as many players as we let go, including David Clarkson and Scott McDonald, who won't be cheap I'd guess.

[ONeils40yarder]

You are taking a stab in the dark at how much these players are costing us though...for what its worth, I've been told that the plan this season was to drop the wage bill drastically, 'more in line with the likes of Partick Thistle'. This may, or may not, be the eventual case but I'm going to take a guess that we are paying less this season on players wages than we were at the tail end of last season, the squad size of the 1st team is drastically reduced for a start.

 

Players Out Players In

Bob McHugh Chalmers

Ian Vigurs Laing

Paul Lawson Kennedy

John Sutton Clarkson

Fraser Kerr Moult

Zaine Francis Angol Fletcher

Simon Ramsden Ripley (on loan)

Lee Erwin Taylor (on loan)

Stuart Carswell

Gunnar Neilsen

Adam Cummins

Tony Straker (loan expired)

Mark O'Brien (loan expired)

George Long (loan expired)

Craig Moore (on loan to Ayr)

 

So 15 out, in one way or another and 8 brought in.

 

I think its a fair assumption to believe that Sutton would have been on more than we have given Clarkson. Kennedy (brought in from Leicester youths), Fletcher (end of contract with York), Moult (plying his trade with Wrexham) and Chalmers (released by Celtic) will not be on Kings ransoms and again I'd do what you are doing, and guess, between them they will be on less than Vigurs, Lawson, Neilsen and Ramsden. The only other permanent signing is Clubber Laing, who I'd imagine wouldnt have been short on offers, so may be a higher earner, but again having let go more than we have brought in (see McHugh, Kerr, Angol, Cummins, Erwin and Carswell) I'd still expect us to paying out less than we were last season.

 

On the loan signings...we have got not one iota of evidence to suggest that we are paying a single penny to Middlesbrough or Reading for the services of Ripley and Taylor, we may be paying their full wage, a fraction of it, or fuck all because the parent club might believe its in their interests for their player to gain competitive experience at a higher level than they've been playing at, which might make sense given the fact that they were both fired in to the starting line ups at 24hours notice...'we'll pay his wages, if you guarantee him game time' type scenario. At worst, we'll be paying no more than we were for the use of Long, Straker and O'Brien.

 

Skippy and Ainsworth have both renewed their contracts from last season, at this stage we have no idea if these contracts were an increase or a decrease on last season.

 

As an aside, i take your point about 'our own talent' potentially being stunted by young players from England, but the most important thing for me is that the guys we bring in, and play, have some sort of re-sale value and in Chalmers, Kennedy, Laing, Fletcher and Moult the potential at least is there, they may not be good enough but time will tell. Clarkson obviously bucks this thought process but we cant be so rigid in our signing policy that we can't make the occasional signing that doesnt conform with the norm. If our own guys are good enough and have the balls, then they will displace the likes of Josh Law, Lasley and (in Dom Thomas case) Ainsworth.

[McCusker]

 

That's the key for me.

 

The only player from the young players I'd have in the starting XI is Luke Watt (ahead of Josh Law) and he's currently injured.

 

I remain to be convinced over Dom Thomas.

 

having seen a fair few u20 games last season i can say that dom thomas is the pick of the bunch by a country mile.

[David]

You are taking a stab in the dark at how much these players are costing us though...for what its worth, I've been told that the plan this season was to drop the wage bill drastically, 'more in line with the likes of Partick Thistle'. This may, or may not, be the eventual case but I'm going to take a guess that we are paying less this season on players wages than we were at the tail end of last season, the squad size of the 1st team is drastically reduced for a start.

 

Players Out Players In

Bob McHugh Chalmers

Ian Vigurs Laing

Paul Lawson Kennedy

John Sutton Clarkson

Fraser Kerr Moult

Zaine Francis Angol Fletcher

Simon Ramsden Ripley (on loan)

Lee Erwin Taylor (on loan)

Stuart Carswell

Gunnar Neilsen

Adam Cummins

Tony Straker (loan expired)

Mark O'Brien (loan expired)

George Long (loan expired)

Craig Moore (on loan to Ayr)

 

So 15 out, in one way or another and 8 brought in.

 

I think its a fair assumption to believe that Sutton would have been on more than we have given Clarkson. Kennedy (brought in from Leicester youths), Fletcher (end of contract with York), Moult (plying his trade with Wrexham) and Chalmers (released by Celtic) will not be on Kings ransoms and again I'd do what you are doing, and guess, between them they will be on less than Vigurs, Lawson, Neilsen and Ramsden. The only other permanent signing is Clubber Laing, who I'd imagine wouldnt have been short on offers, so may be a higher earner, but again having let go more than we have brought in (see McHugh, Kerr, Angol, Cummins, Erwin and Carswell) I'd still expect us to paying out less than we were last season.

 

On the loan signings...we have got not one iota of evidence to suggest that we are paying a single penny to Middlesbrough or Reading for the services of Ripley and Taylor, we may be paying their full wage, a fraction of it, or fuck all because the parent club might believe its in their interests for their player to gain competitive experience at a higher level than they've been playing at, which might make sense given the fact that they were both fired in to the starting line ups at 24hours notice...'we'll pay his wages, if you guarantee him game time' type scenario. At worst, we'll be paying no more than we were for the use of Long, Straker and O'Brien.

 

Skippy and Ainsworth have both renewed their contracts from last season, at this stage we have no idea if these contracts were an increase or a decrease on last season.

 

As an aside, i take your point about 'our own talent' potentially being stunted by young players from England, but the most important thing for me is that the guys we bring in, and play, have some sort of re-sale value and in Chalmers, Kennedy, Laing, Fletcher and Moult the potential at least is there, they may not be good enough but time will tell. Clarkson obviously bucks this thought process but we cant be so rigid in our signing policy that we can't make the occasional signing that doesnt conform with the norm. If our own guys are good enough and have the balls, then they will displace the likes of Josh Law, Lasley and (in Dom Thomas case) Ainsworth.

 

The squad at the tail-end of last season provides a skewed example though, because Les had come in and the manager had been given funds to bring in seven extra players in January, which I'm willing to bet would not have been possible had we been relying on funds generated by the actual club rather than the new owner.

 

Look, all I'm saying is that whilst it's certainly all very exciting seeing these guys being brought in from down south, I'm just wondering where the money is coming from. It was made known that before the new owner came in we were walking a financial tightrope already, that if we'd continued as we were and Les hadn't come in we would have been in deep shit basically.

 

I don't see how, even if you're right about the incomings being around the same as the outgoings, that's a good thing? We were supposed to be downsizing, not maintaining or even increasing our wage bill.

 

My main fear is that when Les comes to the end of his time with the club and asks for the Society to step up that he also says "oh, and there's X amount due to be paid back to me on top of the original loan due to me forking out cash for loan signings and decent prospects from down south".

 

The Society is looking like it's already hitting a plateau of sorts already, and the question I have is will the level it's sitting at be enough to finance the club as it is?

 

There was a lot of chat about cutting our cloth accordingly, and thus far I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest we're doing that on the playing side of things.