Andy_P Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Imo the club are not exactly being forthcoming with any statements or information as to regards player's leaving, coming or contracts and is becoming a bit frustrating And nor should they! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyS88 Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 I highly doubt Burnley would have went for Robbie if they had to pay a quarter million to get him. They probably just saw they could get him for free and jumped on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 I highly doubt Burnley would have went for Robbie if they had to pay a quarter million to get him. They probably just saw they could get him for free and jumped on it. £240k is pocket change for them. Swansea signed Jay Fulton & Stephen Kingsley from Falkirk and Adam King from Hearts for their development teams for £250k,£500k & £200k each Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 We need to wait until we get all the facts on the story. Absolutely. Far too much speculation. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMWellfan Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 No one is asking the club to give us a minute by minute, blow by blow account of contract negotiations. If we stick to facts, and facts alone, we know that as of today neither Scott McDonald or Robbie Leitch are Motherwell players. After having it rammed down our necks that the club is skint, and with many of us pouring money into the Well Society to assist the future stability of the club, we are entitled to know at some point if our Board of Directors and management are looking after our club's interests and securing our best assets. If it turns out that one of our brightest prospects, who has been developed by us for ten years, has walked for nothing - the club should not be shocked that supporters are enraged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 It's can be easily cleared up by the club. They confirmed we would receive compensation for Hall quick enough on twitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 The silence from Motherwell creates the speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superward Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 The silence from Motherwell creates the speculation. Yeah, agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn_Broomfield Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Robbie Leitch was one of our most highly rated youth players and vultures had been circling for while. I've no doubt we offered him a contract in the eventuality he was taken off our hands by a richer club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn_Broomfield Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Just out of interest, can you tell the last young player we lost without receiving a development fee? I can think of a few we've been reimbursed for, but none that have been allowed to slip through the net as it were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 The silence from Motherwell creates the speculation. Although, TBF, it's mostly posters on here that are creating the speculation. I imagine the club has plenty to take care of right now than reading through this thread and responding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milo Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Now that there is a new media officer in place there really should be greater consistency across the various outlets about how signings/re-signings are announced. Twitter announces all of the signings as does the official site, as you would expect, but the official facebook page only announced the departure of Hall and arrival of Brill (nothing on the 3 players from England, Lasley or Hammell) and bizarrely the official Instagram page only announced Hammell! I know it's just a small thing but this is all really straight forward stuff and looks better when it's announced across all the outlets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Although, TBF, it's mostly posters on here that are creating the speculation. I imagine the club has plenty to take care of right now than reading through this thread and responding. I think the point is, had we just received a £200k windfall, we'd likely know all about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammy Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Regardless of the fee or no fee for young Leitch, it can only be a good thing with English Premier League clubs taking our 17/18 year olds south. Will make the other clubs stand up and take notice and potentially see more follow suit if we're seen a club who can produce players for the teams in the category 1 compensation. Could also motivate the other young players of that age to work for a similar move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohwulliewullie Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 We don't yet know the story with Leitch, and whether or not we've got any compensation. Irrespective of that however, I'd imagine a conversation along the lines of, got any loan players that would benefit from first team experience? Given they've got gazillions compared to us, you'd like to think they'd try to do the right thing and help us out if it could work for all parties. (We have got a record of loan players doing well.) I realise how naive that sounds, but worth a conversation anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Regardless of the fee or no fee for young Leitch, it can only be a good thing with English Premier League clubs taking our 17/18 year olds south. Will make the other clubs stand up and take notice and potentially see more follow suit if we're seen a club who can produce players for the teams in the category 1 compensation. Could also motivate the other young players of that age to work for a similar move. Young Scottish players leaving our league to play for English development teams. Some of these players will get to age 20/21 without playing any competitive football. While there may be a short term financial gain, it doesn't bode well for the future of Scottish football at club or international level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The African Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Just a couple of things to consider. Leitch leaving the club for nothing is not a financial hit for the club. What you've never had, you never miss. If we erred because of some loophole in the regulations, then it is something that we need to tighten up our practices on, but hanging the club or individuals out to dry for it is both pointless and unproductive. Regarding the McDonald situation, the reduced terms offered cannot really be looked at in isolation. Reduced terms were offered to several seniorplayersbecause we could not afford to pay what they were currently on. To not also reduce the offer for McDonald could quite possibly have led to an unsettled dressing room. We, as a club, cannot operate without a controlled and affordable wage structure. Also, failing to take up an option, as we have done with McDonald, is not reneging on a deal. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigWeegieDosser Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Have you guys had a chance to look over Article 50 yet. Just looking for a bit of clarification, thanks. This thread reads like a Law Society debate, I'll be fecking glad when there's actually some football to talk about 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Just a couple of things to consider. Leitch leaving the club for nothing is not a financial hit for the club. What you've never had, you never miss. If we erred because of some loophole in the regulations, then it is something that we need to tighten up our practices on, but hanging the club or individuals out to dry for it is both pointless and unproductive. Regarding the McDonald situation, the reduced terms offered cannot really be looked at in isolation. Reduced terms were offered to several seniorplayersbecause we could not afford to pay what they were currently on. To not also reduce the offer for McDonald could quite possibly have led to an unsettled dressing room. We, as a club, cannot operate without a controlled and affordable wage structure. Also, failing to take up an option, as we have done with McDonald, is not reneging on a deal. McDonald is the one with the option not the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 ....and for the record renege means revoke.... There's a suggestion that Skippy was offered reduced terms but, as far as I am aware, the contract offer was never withdrawn or revoked so, by definition, M.F.C. did not renege on the contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigWeegieDosser Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 ....and for the record renege means revoke.... . Hate to join in the pedantry, but no it doesn't . Unless your playing cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 .. There's a suggestion that Skippy was offered reduced terms but, as far as I am aware, the contract offer was never withdrawn or revoked so, by definition, M.F.C. did not renege on the contract. Where did the suggestion come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Pup Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Where did the suggestion come from? Motherwell quintet warned they will have to take pay cuts to stay - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36260370 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 It doesn't make any sense because McDonald already has a deal he can choose to activate. This BBC story says Left-back Steven Hammell is still considering the reduced terms on offer at Fir Park, while forward Scott McDonald is considering whether to exercise the option of extending his contract. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36604437 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 It doesn't make any sense because McDonald already has a deal he can choose to activate. This BBC story says http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36604437 Agreed. It wouldn't surprise me if the press have been conflating McDonald's situation with the other out of contract players. McGhee said himself that McDonald was "effectively" under contract because of the option which to me suggests that the option should he take it up is per the original agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts