Former Motherwell Fc Players Thread

[weeyin]

4 minutes ago, Gadgey said:

It’s the “best of both worlds” justification that sticks in the craw because he’ll know all too well how much this will impact on the club financially.

Oxford are clearly at it as it wasn’t all that long ago that they were staving off administration due to the ongoing battle over the stadium and alleged owed revenues with the previous owner.

poor show all round

Their argument will be that lots of teams staving off administration use loans instead of transfers to bring in players.

I have no dobut they believe they are trying to pull a fast one, but it's also difficult to prove and might be a test case for the FIFA compensation rules.

I still don't see how Columbus benefit from it, though.  (Unless there is some weird salary cap/roster rule working in their favour that I'm not aware of - which is quite possible)

[Bert the Sailor]

17 minutes ago, GazzyB said:

Cadden is absolutely not to blame here, it' the crooks at Oxford. Hope we sue the shit outta them.

He may not be soley to blame for this. But to exonerate him of any blame here is also far off the mark. 

Hiding behind blaming agents and owners is far too easy. Turnbull showed that you can politely decline the ‘advice’ given. Cadden has allowed this to happen to a club he has been with for over 10 years. The whole move stinks and he could have quite easily put a stop to it at any time. 

This shouldn’t be Motherwell’s fight alone. The SFA and SPFL should be involved to protect the interests of Scottish clubs. They want to push Project Brave as the saviour of Scottish football? Well then you’ve got to back your teams. 

[weeyin]

If Hastie gets loaned out to Falkirk for the season, nobody would bat an eyelid.

It's the MLS component that makes this complicated, as they only started training compensation this year and tend to operate outside of FIFA rules when it comes to player transfers etc. So I suspect any legal battles will need to go all the way to the top, and likely take a while.

[gdalli10]

When are we likely to hear how much we’re getting for Hastie?

[weeyin]

On a slightly different note, I thought it was massively unfair when Celtic signed Lewis Morgan in January and loaned him back to St Mirren where he was instrumental in securing their promotion. Seemed like St Mirren played the system there too (in a different, but significantly advantageous way).

That barely raised an eyebrow in most quarters, so I'm not hopeful the Scottish authorities will back us in this one.

[ropy]

1 hour ago, Bert the Sailor said:

He may not be soley to blame for this. But to exonerate him of any blame here is also far off the mark. 

Hiding behind blaming agents and owners is far too easy. Turnbull showed that you can politely decline the ‘advice’ given. Cadden has allowed this to happen to a club he has been with for over 10 years. The whole move stinks and he could have quite easily put a stop to it at any time. 

This shouldn’t be Motherwell’s fight alone. The SFA and SPFL should be involved to protect the interests of Scottish clubs. They want to push Project Brave as the saviour of Scottish football? Well then you’ve got to back your teams. 

What should Cadden have done?

[Shaka]

Best of both worlds for Cadden and Oxford he means! They get their man for fuck all, and Cadden gets a nice healthy Signing Fee and Wage cause they have an extra £350k in the bank. All the while the club that developed him get shafted. 

I hope those dodgy cunts get found out and all parties get a nice healthy dose of Karma

[steelboy]

We stalled Cadden's development for 18 months due to our hoofball 3-5-2 and generally dire tactics which changed every 30 minutes.

He probably wasn't happy about his role but he always gave 100%. He might not feel that he owes the club anything after that.

[fizoxy]

It would have been genius if we did the same. Seem to remembering us shafting an English team when we signed Chris Porter, and I’m sure a few more.

We’ve had some good fortune on the transfer front recently (Heneghan, Kipre, Moult, Johnson), but this time we’ve lost out.  Our development of Cadden wasn’t wasted, we got 100 games out of him. That’s a pretty decent return on investment. 

[DunnyMFC]

Did we not screw with a club when we signed Coke?

[Londonwell]

1 hour ago, weeyin said:

On a slightly different note, I thought it was massively unfair when Celtic signed Lewis Morgan in January and loaned him back to St Mirren where he was instrumental in securing their promotion. Seemed like St Mirren played the system there too (in a different, but significantly advantageous way).

That barely raised an eyebrow in most quarters, so I'm not hopeful the Scottish authorities will back us in this one.

Not sure i'm following you with this one. Wheres the foul play in that scenario (perhaps i'm missing it) ?

[Londonwell]

5 minutes ago, DunnyMFC said:

Did we not screw with a club when we signed Coke?

Aye, seem to remember there being a stooshie at the time about that one. We also exploited a loophole with Chris Porter's transfer, which Mcghee admitted to at the time.

I obviously hope we get cash for Cadden but we aren't really in a position to grumble too much if we don't. 

[Big Wispy Flossy]

Cadden and Columbus have essentially trousered the fee we were due

[MelvinBragg]

10 minutes ago, Londonwell said:

Not sure i'm following you with this one. Wheres the foul play in that scenario (perhaps i'm missing it) ?

I think what he's getting at is that St Mirren trousered the fee for Morgan, presumably using it to strengthen the team and retained Morgan for the remainder of the season. Like having your cake and eating it. Hardly seems fair if you're a fan of other teams in the league but argument would be it's up to them to develop their own players that people are willing to pay for six months early and loan back. 

On the Cadden issue, we'll get some cash but maybe not as much as we'd hoped. Take it on the chin. As others have said, we are no different to any other club in that we probably try and look for any possible advantage in the transfer market...

[texanwellfan]

Not overly fussed about this. Good luck to Cadden, hope he does well. 

[David]

I know it's not the way most football fans want to see it, but Cadden owes us fuck all. He was paid to do a job, and when the time came and we stopped paying him he was free to move on within the rules of the game.

If any rules have been broken we will have a case, and if not then that's just how it goes.

[dennyc]

59 minutes ago, MelvinBragg said:

I think what he's getting at is that St Mirren trousered the fee for Morgan, presumably using it to strengthen the team and retained Morgan for the remainder of the season. Like having your cake and eating it. Hardly seems fair if you're a fan of other teams in the league but argument would be it's up to them to develop their own players that people are willing to pay for six months early and loan back. 

On the Cadden issue, we'll get some cash but maybe not as much as we'd hoped. Take it on the chin. As others have said, we are no different to any other club in that we probably try and look for any possible advantage in the transfer market...

Spot on. It's the way the system can work and if a team can operate it to their advantage then good luck to them. Celtic purchased a player with potential for future resale at a profit who was not quite ready for their first team but could continue to progress elsewhere. Very forward thinking. St Mirren gained as outlined. Win Win.  All of us would have been turning cartwheels  (or trying to) if Norwich or anybody else had signed Turnbull for £3m and then loaned him back to us for the season.  That would have been viewed as great business. A coup no less.  So well done St Mirren. Clubs are entitled to expoit the rules if it benefits them. Motherwell certainly do so

[Inthebasement]

Personally don't blame the clubs involved in the Cadden swindle at all - it's legal and I don't doubt we'd have done something similar if the opportunity arose. I do however blame Cadden, at least to an extent. The player does has power in these circumstances, and can help ensure compensation for the club if so inclined, though it will sometimes be contrary to their own immediate interests. In short hand, he's taken the Hastie route rather than the Turnbull, and given the boys background and relationship with the club that's a little disappointing. At least it's not Hearts.

[stuwell]

Although I understand the grumbles around this I still feel that Caddin had few options. There wasn't a lot of clubs offering him a deal apart from us and Oxford so he could stay here on a relative pittance or move on for better money and a chance of furthering his career  - a no brained in my view.

If having decided on the move Oxford then say ok this is how we're going to do this, then he would have had to agree to it or give up the move.  

[Andy_P]

3 hours ago, steelboy said:

We stalled Cadden's development for 18 months due to our hoofball 3-5-2 and generally dire tactics which changed every 30 minutes.

He probably wasn't happy about his role but he always gave 100%. He might not feel that he owes the club anything after that.

Or there's the flip side that we've aided Cadden's development for 18 months due to a change in formation from that which he played for the previous two years taking him out of a comfort zone and giving him an appreciation of playing a deeper wing-back role.  And let's not forget the experience of two Semi Finals and two Finals in during those eighteen months.  I'm sure that did absolutely nothing for his development...

I liked Cadden and would rather he be at the club than playing for another team but I'm not convinced that had we been playing 4-4-2 all through Robinson's reign those eighteen months wouldn't have seen very much difference to the  "hit the ball past the full-back and try to run fast past him" tactic that had been synonymous with him since he broke through. 

That said I absolutely agree that he gave 100% when selected which for for me means that Cadden's obligations to Motherwell ceased when his contract expired. Thereafter he could pick and choose where he wanted to go as he saw fit. 

Let's not forget though, we may have invested 10 years plus into the development of his game but we got four or so years of a first team player, and what 150 games or abouts, on the back of that investment.  Sometimes compensation isn't always monetary.

 

 

[weeyin]

3 hours ago, DunnyMFC said:

Did we not screw with a club when we signed Coke?

And Porter, I think.

Cadden is a poster boy for our academy and we should be pointing that out has often as possible.

115 first team appearances. 12 Scotland U21 caps and 2 Senior caps plus the cup finals. And still only 22 years old. 

Instead, we get the usual "he's not that good" patter soon to be followed by the "why do we never get as much money for our youngsters" patter, without a hint of irony.

 

[Kmcalpin]

2 hours ago, DunnyMFC said:

Did we not screw with a club when we signed Coke?

Depends what you mean by"screw". We signed Coke when he was 23 I think thereby depriving Northampton of a fee. All legal and above board. Clubs have been doing it ever since. 

[weeyin]

3 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

Depends what you mean by"screw". We signed Coke when he was 23 I think thereby depriving Northampton of a fee. All legal and above board. Clubs have been doing it ever since. 

We got Porter for free, though, because it was cross border when, at the time, a move to an English team would have netted a transfer fee.

Still legal though - and until proved otherwise, Oxford's move is legal too. 

[fizoxy]

We took advantage of the rule being different for cross border transfers, as both coke and porter would have commanded a fee if they moved to an English club. I see the Cadden situation as similar in that clubs worked something out to their favour within the existing system. 

[Bert the Sailor]

Aye cos bringing in players to our club to actually play in our first team is exactly the same as laundering a player through a third party team to avoid paying a fee.