2016/17 Ins & Outs

[mfc]

with some of the under 20's hopefully close too making the step up i can see why mcghee would want too keep as many of our experienced player's at the club as well as rely on them too keep making a contribution to the team.were lacking in the full back position's as well as centre midfield and even if we are offering player's reduced terms too stay i just hope there's some money left too strengthen those areas of the team.

[superward]

Take out the emotional attachment.

 

If the players offered reduced terms were with other clubs - would you want the club to go out and sign them?

 

I think not.

 

I'd rather that all five were released so that we can sign players that will give us half a chance of getting some transfer money in.

 

And I have enough faith in Mark McGhee to believe that he is capable of digging out a couple of new players from outwith the club who will do exactly that. And that's before we look at our development squad.

 

We can't afford to be giving contracts to players who will realize zero value, and of whom, at least two I regard as passengers, the other three of borderline worth to the team. Can you picture a scenario where any one of these five will be offered a further contract in a years time?

 

Again, I think not.

 

I can picture a scenario where we'll land in administration again, though - and we'll hasten that by pumping resources into veteran, injury prone players.

Releasing all 5? Bring in who that will give us the experience required?

 

Personally I wouldn't have given McFadden a contract and maybe not Samson. But Las, Hammell and McManus are all worth 1 or 2 years to help the team through while other players are brought in to be developed and sold on

[Welldaft Mk1]

Whoever it is at the club that keeps blabbing about contract details should be fired.

 

Unless all this is speculation, of course.

Quite agree. Although it could have come from one of the players to a fellow player, friend, journo. Not necessarily someone from the club.

 

Either way I strongly agree we need to cut our cloth accordingly and if that means wage cuts for out of contract players, then so be it. Certainly be interested to see what happens. You would think that players will weigh up their options, but realistically no club outside top flight would probably match even reduced terms.

[Big Wispy Flossy]

Releasing all 5? Bring in who that will give us the experience required?

 

Personally I wouldn't have given McFadden a contract and maybe not Samson. But Las, Hammell and McManus are all worth 1 or 2 years to help the team through while other players are brought in to be developed and sold on

1 year for those you mention is not unreasonable but 2 years is sheer lunacy

[Dezz]

Releasing all 5? Bring in who that will give us the experience required?

 

Personally I wouldn't have given McFadden a contract and maybe not Samson. But Las, Hammell and McManus are all worth 1 or 2 years to help the team through while other players are brought in to be developed and sold on

Agree with Superward here.

 

For me it'd be madness to release our 3 most experienced players who have formed the spine of our team for the last 3-4 years (7-8 years in Las and Hammell's case) all in one go.

 

Take CB for example - releasing Mick leaves us with Hall, Kennedy and Laing as CB's who have played, what, 30 first team games combined in their careers?

 

McGhee has stated previously that without Mcmanus' presence we wouldn't have thrown Hall straight into the first team. We need to keep these experienced pro's who are still capable of performing at our level, let them assist in developing the younger talent before gradually phasing them out.

 

If they're willing to do that on slightly reduced terms on the proviso their playing time is reduced to give younger players a chance, and at the same time work on their coaching skills with the youth teams then it's a win/win for me.

[ropy]

Surely Samson is everything you would want as a back up keeper. And at the moment we do not have a no. 1 for next year.

[capt_oats]

Surely Samson is everything you would want as a back up keeper. And at the moment we do not have a no. 1 for next year.

Problem there is that Samson's been quite explicit in saying he has no interest in being a back up 'keeper and you'd think that the fact we chose to extend Ripley's loan rather than go with Samson for the 2nd half of the season at the very least casts doubt on whether he's viewed as being a viable choice for #1.

[The African]

Samson will probably get another start in one of the final two games and a chance to fight it out for the starting jersey with whoever we bring in over the summer. If he thinks he can do better elsewhere then good luck to him.

[capt_oats]

Samson will probably get another start in one of the final two games and a chance to fight it out for the starting jersey with whoever we bring in over the summer. If he thinks he can do better elsewhere then good luck to him.

Do you really think that one extra start will make a difference either way? He's been at the club since September and has played 1 game.

 

In context, he negotiated his way out his contract at Killie saying he didn't want to sit on the bench there and signed up at Fir Park where he's sat on the bench for the best part of 7 months. Presumably when he signed he was on a promise that he'd be first choice when Ripley left in January. Except rather than let him leave we actively chose to extend Ripley's contract rather than play Samson and released Twardzik instead.

 

Now having sat on the bench for the 2nd half of the season it seems he's being offered less money than he's been getting sitting on the bench to extend his deal. Not that I'm bothered either way but I'd be surprised if he was particularly keen to stick around at Fir Park given the way it has panned out for him here.

 

Amusingly it's almost as if the club has gone out of its way to troll Craig Samson this season.

[The African]

Samson is an experienced pro so he hold know that nobody is guaranteed a starting place. Throw in a change of management since he signed and he has to accept that he has been behind Ripley this season. He is also not the only player being offered reduced terms, so taking it personally would be a bit daft. With Ripley more than likely not to return he has a chance to stake a claim for the starting position, though I reckon we will look to bring in more cover, unless young Long is considered good enough to make the step up.

Samson might be able to secure a gig elsewhere, but it is not likely to carry any more guarantees than he will get at Fir Park or indeed much more cash. McGhee spoke highly of him when he started against Hearts and has offered him a deal. The ball is in his court.

[steelboy]

 

 

Amusingly it's almost as if the club has gone out of its way to troll Craig Samson this season.

Samson has made a lot of money for someone getting trolled.

[capt_oats]

Samson has made a lot of money for someone getting trolled.

 

Fair point.

[Goggles & Flippers]

Other than the 5's egos being bruised, there is a reality to this they have to face.

 

The rest of us non footballers have an advantage over them. We go to work from school/further education and gain experience that means by the time we hit 40 we have a particular skill set that is desired by employers. Most expect to see their salary increase and value to employers as time progresses.

 

Footballers peak physically at 27/28 and then have to mitigate injury and ensure availability for selection on a matchday through merit over their teammates. Those appearances diminish as they get closer to 40, as they work in an industry where appearances are what's it's all about. They have to realise you can't command the same salary you did when buzzing about being instrumental in 45 games a season opposed to the influence and appearances you have now in your mid-30's due to the natural ageing process.

 

Sad reality guys I'm afraid, it's now we 9-5er's can feel smug as you did going to the bookies after playing 5's at Ravenscraig for an hour and a half back when you were in your early 20's.

[BigWeegieDosser]

Get Mike Ashley and David Cameron on the Board.

Impose "zero hours" contracts. Pay only for 90 minutes work ( unless they're subbed)

Simples...

I think the tricky part is anticipating who we can sell, and for how much, and who we can buy.

 

The real danger is ending up with too many players, or not having enough cover.

[David]

Surely Samson is everything you would want as a back up keeper. And at the moment we do not have a no. 1 for next year.

 

There's every chance he could end up being our number one, with someone a bit younger coming in as back up.

 

As far as Lasley, Hammell & Mick go, I'm happy to see them offered one year extensions.

[CMWellfan]

Agree with Superward here.

 

For me it'd be madness to release our 3 most experienced players who have formed the spine of our team for the last 3-4 years (7-8 years in Las and Hammell's case) all in one go.

 

Take CB for example - releasing Mick leaves us with Hall, Kennedy and Laing as CB's who have played, what, 30 first team games combined in their careers?

 

McGhee has stated previously that without Mcmanus' presence we wouldn't have thrown Hall straight into the first team. We need to keep these experienced pro's who are still capable of performing at our level, let them assist in developing the younger talent before gradually phasing them out.

 

If they're willing to do that on slightly reduced terms on the proviso their playing time is reduced to give younger players a chance, and at the same time work on their coaching skills with the youth teams then it's a win/win for me.

 

 

I'd say it's mad running the first team on the basis that a couple of guys might get their coaching badges.

[David]

I'd say it's mad running the first team on the basis that a couple of guys might get their coaching badges.

 

If they're accepting lesser deals and know their playing time is going to be shortened as well, then why get rid of them? If we ditch them we'd just need to go looking for experienced heads from outwith the club, wouldn't we?

[grizzlyg]

Watching Hibs v Falkirk if Falkirk lose we should go for their left back Leahy and the guy Sibbald in midfield, both young but a lot of gamesvplayed

[Lobey_Dosser]

Watching Hibs v Falkirk if Falkirk lose we should go for their left back Leahy and the guy Sibbald in midfield, both young but a lot of gamesvplayed

Always liked the boy Leahy when I've seen him on the telly. Under contract unfortunately.

[GazzyB]

Sad reality guys I'm afraid, it's now we 9-5er's can feel smug as you did going to the bookies after playing 5's at Ravenscraig for an hour and a half back when you were in your early 20's.

The bitterness is strong in this post. Deary me!

[Gadgey]

 

I'd say it's mad running the first team on the basis that a couple of guys might get their coaching badges.

 

I would wholeheartedly agree if we were talking about an EPL side but quite frankly, we are in a precarious position financially and every conceivable factor must be considered and pound note stretched in what will be vital negotiations with the 5.

 

Can we afford to lose them? Can we afford to keep them? It's a genuine quandary, but for more reasons than just first team selection !!!

 

It would appear and makes sense to me that the club is looking to become a bit of a footballing academy, they have already invested in some infrastructure for this and are quite sensibly looking to utilise existing resources to populate that structure and bring the academy to life.

 

As said before, a footballers career cycle is different to the average Joe so there is a strong attraction for the 5 in becoming part of the coaching team as well as the first team. Where else would they get an opportunity to taper from one career to another within a friendly environment from an empowered position and have a clear career path if you do well?

 

It represents good value for money for the club whilst generating a competitive and attractive coaching development plan.

 

In the context of Motherwell....it makes perfect sense.

[Goggles & Flippers]

The bitterness is strong in this post. Deary me!

 

Eh?

 

Deary me indeed ..... that you can't distinguish hyperbole, I'll make sure to telegraph it in future for your benefit.

[milo]

Mark McGhee interview in the Herald today stating he fears the out of contract players won't re-sign.

 

It's a bit of a worry to lose all that experience.

[Desp]

Mark McGhee interview in the Herald today stating he fears the out of contract players won't re-sign.

 

 

Textbook management from McGhee. He knows they're not leaving (Hammell, Lasley & McManus especially. Samson & McFadden nobody is bothered about).

Make the players feel important, but ensure he has as much of his budget left as possible.

[capt_oats]

Read an interview with McManus who said that while there's a fair bit of talking to be done he wants to stay: http://plzsoccer.com/news/174501/mcmanus-negotiations-are-a-long-way-off/

 

I think it depends on how reasonable (realistic) they're willing to be. Presumably the point at which they signed their last deals the club was still budgeting for top 6 & cup runs (which was mental) and during that time the club continued to post losses. I think I'm right in saying the club has posted losses each season since 11/12? It stands to reason that something needed changing in that respect.

 

Presumably the change in budget isn't because we're 'skint' as such but rather it's to stop the club posting losses and hopefully start turning a profit or at worst breaking even. There's a difference between us asking players who are under contract to take pay cuts (which would be bad) and us offering players who are out of contract terms based on what we can afford (which is sensible). If the players are realistic enough to accept that the situation has changed since they signed those deals and acknowledge that it's in everyone's interest for the club to be self-sufficent and that the playing budget will be a major part of that then it really shouldn't come as much of a surprise that they're being offered reduced terms (not to mention the fact they're all in their mid-30s).

 

Beyond that it's a case of them weighing up whether or not they will have the potential to earn more/play as much at another club. If they stay then great, if not then McGhee has to look for replacements.