Joeboy Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 Some interesting points a) Why move Moore out then? b) Squad no different to when he signed his deal. Was he naive in thinking we would suddenly be bringing in quality players? c) How much can it have deteriorated in the two or three weeks since he signed? d) Find this hard to believe. If Hibs had time to make an offer when he was out of contract, pretty sure Sydney did as well. Concerning that we may lose our second top scorer from last season, having already lost our third and with our top scorer going in for an operation and not having had a proper preseason due to this... Not only our top goalscorer, but also our top assister. I'd hope we are getting reimbursed well if he goes. Will be a struggle with Moore at Ayr and Moult needing surgery. That leaves us only with Blyth and Mackin, who are both similar types. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 Just quickly watched back McDonald's press conference there, after all the questions about Hibs a journalist asks "was the A league ever a possibility?", his response is "...we can talk about this one or that one but what's important is that I'm here now." There's enough about the pause before he answers to make you think that it was definitely on the table and realistic. There's obviously a clear difference between a 4th choice striker being moved out on loan to free up some funds (if that is indeed what's happened) and a key first team player moving 3 weeks after signing a new deal. If Sydney have decided to come back in with an offer and asked the question then it's up to the club to answer, it's all pretty weird though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Made Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 Just been looking through the Sydney FC Forums and apparently because of a tweet it ain't happening. This'll be the tweet from the Chief Executive of Sydney FC (Guess we'll just have to wait and see if there's any truth) William Clancy @william_clancy 1h 1 hour ago @tpignata9 any comments on the Scott Macdonald links in the below? http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/36842806 …. Would be a great signing !! Tony PignataVerified account@tpignata9 @william_clancy No idea where this has come from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelvinBragg Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 I'm not the biggest fan of McGhee but I find it hard to believe that he'd have let Moore go if there was an offer on the table for McDonald that the club were considering. What I would say, and in no way am I commenting on the quality of the new signings as I haven't seen enough of them, is that the club's transfer business this summer has left me a bit puzzled. For the first time in a while, we have two experienced first team goalkeepers. We have signed a centre half when it didn't seem to be a priority and have lost three midfielders and signed one. If we find ourselves in a situation where when everyone's fit that our striking options are Moult, Blyth and Mackin then it's fair to say questions would have to be asked. At the moment, I'd say I'm concerned but not panicking. But it wouldn't take much for me to say that we were in a bad way. Maybe explains McGhee's stated ambition was to stay up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 Burrows saying there have been no enquiries about McDonald. Not convinced this story has developed from thin air though. McDonald is not shy in using the media and the Daily Mail seem to have a feel for dealings at Fir Park, particularly since Les came on the scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelvinBragg Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 Burrows saying there have been no enquiries about McDonald. Not convinced this story has developed from thin air though. McDonald is not shy in using the media and the Daily Mail seem to have a feel for dealings at Fir Park, particularly since Les came on the scene. You start to wonder, don't you? I have my suspicions that McGhee and McDonald could both be trying to pressure the club subtly to find funds for a couple of players. McGhee with his "ambition to stay up" and McDonald possibly moving (could be interpreted as not being happy with the team he's surrounded by) makes me wonder if the feeling among the "football people" at the club is that the squad is not fit for purpose... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rambunctious Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 I'd like to think that McGhee, McDonald and Burrows, with the assistance of the Daily Mail, are just trolling the easily flustered members of Steelmen Online. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joeboy Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 I'm not the biggest fan of McGhee but I find it hard to believe that he'd have let Moore go if there was an offer on the table for McDonald that the club were considering. What I would say, and in no way am I commenting on the quality of the new signings as I haven't seen enough of them, is that the club's transfer business this summer has left me a bit puzzled. For the first time in a while, we have two experienced first team goalkeepers. We have signed a centre half when it didn't seem to be a priority and have lost three midfielders and signed one. If we find ourselves in a situation where when everyone's fit that our striking options are Moult, Blyth and Mackin then it's fair to say questions would have to be asked. At the moment, I'd say I'm concerned but not panicking. But it wouldn't take much for me to say that we were in a bad way. Maybe explains McGhee's stated ambition was to stay up... I am a McGhee fan but several of his moves I have questioned. Looking at the goalkeeper situation, if things really were as tight as we are believing, I don't know why we didn't go for a younger, less experienced back up than Brill. Maybe this comes from Samson not having McGhee's full trust as number one, but if that's the case he shouldn't have signed him. Then there's the centre back situation. I think Heneghan looks a good player and could be a good signing over time but if we were signing another centre back I see little point in giving Ferguson a new deal at 21, to be a fifth choice. Maybe this means he plans to exclusively use Laing elsewhere this season. Signing Blyth was one I also questioned to an extent as well. Retaining Moore as well as having Moult and Mackin made me think we were signing Skippy or someone else, not Skippy and someone else, especially after his comments regarding El Bakhtoui. Now Moore is out on loan it makes the load seem a bit lighter there, but it just makes giving Moore a new deal all that bizarre. So considering all that, you could argue we are spending a surplus in goals, defence and up front (maybe less so if Moore's wage is covered now) yet we are threadbare in midfield. Over the summer we lost Pearson, Gomis and Leitch and we now have Lasley approaching his 37th birthday. Lasley was missing for one game on Saturday and to replace him we played a guy who most people would agree disappointed as a second choice left back last season. I'm not happy with what looks like a supposed reliance on him playing every week this season, given his age. Pearson had a massive impact last season, especially in terms of goals and whilst Cadden shares many of his attributes, I don't think we should place the reliance on him to emulate Pearson as yet. Gomis and Leitch aren't that tough to replace. I think I would have been most comfortable with our midfield three being Cadden, Lasley and a replacement for Pearo, rather than having surplus elsewhere in the squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelvinBragg Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 I am a McGhee fan but several of his moves I have questioned. Looking at the goalkeeper situation, if things really were as tight as we are believing, I don't know why we didn't go for a younger, less experienced back up than Brill. Maybe this comes from Samson not having McGhee's full trust as number one, but if that's the case he shouldn't have signed him. Then there's the centre back situation. I think Heneghan looks a good player and could be a good signing over time but if we were signing another centre back I see little point in giving Ferguson a new deal at 21, to be a fifth choice. Maybe this means he plans to exclusively use Laing elsewhere this season. Signing Blyth was one I also questioned to an extent as well. Retaining Moore as well as having Moult and Mackin made me think we were signing Skippy or someone else, not Skippy and someone else, especially after his comments regarding El Bakhtoui. Now Moore is out on loan it makes the load seem a bit lighter there, but it just makes giving Moore a new deal all that bizarre. So considering all that, you could argue we are spending a surplus in goals, defence and up front (maybe less so if Moore's wage is covered now) yet we are threadbare in midfield. Over the summer we lost Pearson, Gomis and Leitch and we now have Lasley approaching his 37th birthday. Lasley was missing for one game on Saturday and to replace him we played a guy who most people would agree disappointed as a second choice left back last season. I'm not happy with what looks like a supposed reliance on him playing every week this season, given his age. Pearson had a massive impact last season, especially in terms of goals and whilst Cadden shares many of his attributes, I don't think we should place the reliance on him to emulate Pearson as yet. Gomis and Leitch aren't that tough to replace. I think I would have been most comfortable with our midfield three being Cadden, Lasley and a replacement for Pearo, rather than having surplus elsewhere in the squad. Ferguson being offered a new deal didn't bother me too much. Even at 21, I'd suggest his wage demands would be a lot less than Heneghan, Laing or Kennedy. Having him as fourth choice centre back, I'd be fine with. Did we "need" to sign Heneghan? And if we felt he was a vast improvement on Laing and Kennedy, then surely money could have been saved moving one of them on. Up front, when our options with any first team experience were Moult, McDonald and Moore, the signing of Blyth made a bit of sense to me as Moult was the only tall, lead the line striker we had, Mackin being relatively untested. Letting Moore go turns that totally around in that we have Moult, Mackin and Blyth, all relatively similar and only McDonald as a different type. Unless the management see this as a role for Dom Thomas, something I wouldn't object to. Midfield, McHugh looks to have been bought with the idea of replacing Keith Lasley in the very near future so playing them both may leave us too defensive in midfield. Ideally, I'd be looking at ending the season with a midfield of Cadden, McHugh and a Pearson replacement. Alternative would be to go back to McCall's 4231, with McHugh and Lasley sitting and Cadden, Johnson and McDonald supporting a lone striker but this doesn't seem McGhee's chosen style. It just seems to me that there's no joined up thinking in the transfer strategy... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ianc Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 Sydney signed a striker and a winger today. Mail storyline is mince I think. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 Ultimately there's nothing to stop a team putting in an offer for McDonald, however to recap, as it stands: - the player signed a new deal on 1st July. - Sydney FC's CEO has said he doesn't know anything about the story. - MFC's COO has said there have been no bids or enquiries regarding the player. As far as the squad building goes I've got reservations about Samson and Brill, it's fairly clear we haven't fully addressed the middle of the park but equally we've addressed the right back issue, look to have brought McHugh in with a view to succeeding Lasley (which is again something that's been highlighted almost every window) and brought in a different 'option' in Blyth up front. So of the 5 first team signings we've made 3 of them address longstanding issues or at least offer something we didn't already have (right back, holding midfielder, target man). To say there's no joined up thinking there is a bit extreme. It's all well and good to talk about moving certain players on but they can only be moved on if another team actually wants them and they're willing to go in the circumstances. Given his relative success at Ayr last season Moore was clearly a player there was interest in. For whatever reason, budgeting issues as a fall out of the fixtures etc, we're looking to free up some cash there was interest in Moore and we've done a deal. It's worth pointing out that Ayr were paying Ryan Stevenson's wage when he joined them from Thistle last season so if they were able to cover his wage when they were in League 1 then I'd imagine they'd be able to cover Moore's now they're in the Championship. It's fair enough to question why Moore was given a new deal and then loaned out in the context that he has (with some suggesting that it was a player option in which case it's a legacy issue from the original deal) but it seems conflicting to be questioning why some fringe players were offered terms, and to be clear when he signed Moore was evidently 4th choice striker, yet have people up in arms at the thought that we may not have received a fee for Robbie Leitch because he may not have been offered terms (by a certain date) and ended up at Burnley. You can't really have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 It's fair enough to question why Moore was given a new deal and then loaned out in the context that he has (with some suggesting that it was a player option in which case it's a legacy issue from the original deal) but it seems conflicting to be questioning why some fringe players were offered terms, and to be clear when he signed Moore was clearly 4th choice striker, yet have people up in arms at the thought that we may not have received a fee for Robbie Leitch because he may not have been offered terms (by a certain date) and ended up at Burnley. You can't really have it both ways. I think this is it, really. Signing Moore was pretty low risk for us, on the whole. He wouldn't have been on massive money you'd imagine, it was a year's deal and if he was able to kick on and get a place ahead of the players we have, more the better. This is all full in the knowledge that other clubs want him, so if he'd stayed, you'd imagine Mackin would be out on loan, now Mackin fills the role of 4th striker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joeboy Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 I think it is possible we offered him a deal hoping to get compensation and he called our bluff and accepted it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 I think it is possible we offered him a deal hoping to get compensation and he called our bluff and accepted it. That was my original thinking but realistically who would have offered compensation for Moore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 I think it is possible we offered him a deal hoping to get compensation and he called our bluff and accepted it. It's possible but I'd be interested to know how much in comp we'd be likely to get for Moore and by extension which clubs would realistically pay a fee (I get that the two are interlinked). My interpretation of it is that he signed with a view to being part of the match day squad and hopefully break into the starting XI, 4th choice striker in the group being utilised as 2nd striker on the bench with a bit of rotation however due to *ahem* "unforseen" circumstances regarding the midfield and consequent need to free up some budget we've taken Ayr up on their interest; MFC get a wage, Ayr get a player they've been chasing, the player gets guaranteed first team football at a club he's performed well at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Made Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 Daily Record now reporting the deal is with Western Sydney Wanderers... Scott McDonald poised to quit Motherwell for dream return to Australia with Western Sydney Wanderers 11:50, 20 Jul 2016 Updated 11:50, 20 Jul 2016 By Keith Jackson STRIKER set to return home to join the A-League side if the Fir Park club agree to rip up his new deal and allow him to move as a free agent. Shares SNS Group Scott McDonald could be set to return to Australia SCOTT McDONALD could be set to quit Motherwell this week after being offered a dream return to the Australian A-League with Western Sydney Wanderers. The former Celtic striker signed a new one year deal at Fir Park earlier this month after a proposed with a switch to join Neil Lennon at Hibs fell through amid a great deal of acrimony . But, days after pledging his future to Mark McGhee's men, McDonald was shocked to receive a life changing proposal from down under where he is wanted by the Wanderers who are preparing for a crack at next season's Asian Champions League. McDonald has held talks with Motherwell manager Mark McGheeIt's understood McDonald has spent the last week agonising over the decision after holding talks with manager Tony Popovic. The 32-year-old has also held heart-to-heart talks with McGhee and Motherwell's general manager Alan Burrows as he agonises over the decision. But, so long as Motherwell agree to rip up his new deal and allow him to move as a free agent, McDonald looks set to agree to return to his homeland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrosshillWell Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 Totally agree. Nice to have some clarity on this thread. Ultimately there's nothing to stop a team putting in an offer for McDonald, however to recap, as it stands: - the player signed a new deal on 1st July. - Sydney FC's CEO has said he doesn't know anything about the story. - MFC's COO has said there have been no bids or enquiries regarding the player. As far as the squad building goes I've got reservations about Samson and Brill, it's fairly clear we haven't fully addressed the middle of the park but equally we've addressed the right back issue, look to have brought McHugh in with a view to succeeding Lasley (which is again something that's been highlighted almost every window) and brought in a different 'option' in Blyth up front. So of the 5 first team signings we've made 3 of them address longstanding issues or at least offer something we didn't already have (right back, holding midfielder, target man). To say there's no joined up thinking there is a bit extreme. It's all well and good to talk about moving certain players on but they can only be moved on if another team actually wants them and they're willing to go in the circumstances. Given his relative success at Ayr last season Moore was clearly a player there was interest in. For whatever reason, budgeting issues as a fall out of the fixtures etc, we're looking to free up some cash there was interest in Moore and we've done a deal. It's worth pointing out that Ayr were paying Ryan Stevenson's wage when he joined them from Thistle last season so if they were able to cover his wage when they were in League 1 then I'd imagine they'd be able to cover Moore's now they're in the Championship. It's fair enough to question why Moore was given a new deal and then loaned out in the context that he has (with some suggesting that it was a player option in which case it's a legacy issue from the original deal) but it seems conflicting to be questioning why some fringe players were offered terms, and to be clear when he signed Moore was evidently 4th choice striker, yet have people up in arms at the thought that we may not have received a fee for Robbie Leitch because he may not have been offered terms (by a certain date) and ended up at Burnley. You can't really have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 Keith Jackson reading the forums eh? Hiya Keith, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrosshillWell Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 Who is Keith Jackson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Made Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 See my post above yours Who is Keith Jackson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrosshillWell Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 Ah... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrosshillWell Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 Just spoken to my mate who owns a 'soccer' academy in Sydney. There seems to be some weight in the McDonald story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Wispy Flossy Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 He should be going nowhere unless a fee is involved. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigWeegieDosser Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 Would seem very odd to offer to tear up his contract. Only silver lining would be the wage it would free up IF we have target in mind. Would be a real miss , almost as big a miss as all the chances we squandered on Saturday... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts