Well Well Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 Apart from Carson& Kipre wouldn't bet on any other player Robinson signed making us money where is our business model there Hartley, Main, Tanner, Frear, Dunne. They will all be sold and make money...Our business model is working perfectly well so far or are you blind..One or two didnt sell and have been let go, not every business model is 100% guaranteed but we have done bloody well from it so far 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stv Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 Hook ,line and sinker. Fell for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villageman Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 The 40% sell on fee makes a transfer impossible unless it's seven figures. Burrows loves a contract clause. Don't think Carson was bought primarily to be a sell on for profit player. After years of keepers we had little or no confidence in someone at the club obviously saw he could fill that need for us. At 29 yrs old he was given a three year contract and if he remains until the end we will have lost nothing an gained a great deal. If he leaves sooner then the fee will reflect the sell on clause. The 40% sell on clause was probably the means of getting him for a reported £10k. To me this is is another example of your dislike of all Alan Burrows does. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 Bollocks, so for arguments sake we bend over and take the 500k allegedly now on offer from Celtic, we give Hartlepool their wedge i.e 200k and we pocket the other 300k so a nice 290k profit. So when we have paid next to nothing for a player any transfer fee makes us a profit, but obviously we want the most we can get. But then we give Les his cut and we are left with £180k which works out as the equivalent of one position in the league and winning the cup tie against Dundee ie fuck all in the grand scheme of things plus we don't have a guaranteed solid goalie until summer 2020. The only way you can justify selling Carson is if it leaves us with a good bit of money to reinvest in the team this summer. If we were to get £400k after paying Les that would be a couple of marquee signings above what we would usually budget. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fat_tony Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 Alternatively perhaps we should have just kept Samson. You know, instead of signing our best keeper since Randolph for a bargain price. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clackscat Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 But then we give Les his cut and we are left with £180k which works out as the equivalent of one position in the league and winning the cup tie against Dundee ie fuck all in the grand scheme of things plus we don't have a guaranteed solid goalie until summer 2020. The only way you can justify selling Carson is if it leaves us with a good bit of money to reinvest in the team this summer. If we were to get £400k after paying Les that would be a couple of marquee signings above what we would usually budget. With the club having just turned down a second bid it would therefore seem the club agree with your view. Nice they have done something that meets with your approval isn't it? Sent from my SM-A320FL using Tapatalk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 Alternatively perhaps we should have just kept Samson. You know, instead of signing our best keeper since Randolph for a bargain price. Where am I saying that? I'm just saying that some of these clauses come back to bite us on the arse and you have to ask if we really need to make them if you are negotiating with a club that is about to go bust or players that are two steps away from bru office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelvinBragg Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 But then we give Les his cut and we are left with £180k which works out as the equivalent of one position in the league and winning the cup tie against Dundee ie fuck all in the grand scheme of things plus we don't have a guaranteed solid goalie until summer 2020. You do realise that £180k is probably three players' annual salary for a year? So not fuck all in the grand scheme of things? Not that I'm advocating selling Carson for £400k, not with so little time to get a replacement in. But to say £180k is fuck all to a club like ours is patently nonsense... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ONeils40yarder Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 I actually agree with much of what Steelboy says, but I'm fucked if I know what his problem is here...Burrows has been told by Robinson to sign Carson, they've probably been tipped off that Hartlepool were skint and wanted players off the wage bill, we've got the opportunity to sign a potential international class keeper for the cost of Alans weekly shop...but Hartlepool only agree to the deal as long as they profit further down the line, should Motherwells business plan work again ie bring a player in for pennies and punt him back down South at a later date. Burrows agrees, knowing fine well that we have a good goalkeeper on a 3 year deal and that we can knock miserly bids back for at least 2 years. We can all find ways to criticise the Club and the guys that run it, but tying Carson down on a 3 year deal for next to nothing, by all accounts getting the keeper himself to take a wage cut, BUT agree to Hartlepool benefitting from a future sale, surely isnt one of them? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 We bought a top keeper for 10k. The sell-ons are irrelevant. The highly unusual situation we are in now was not planned for by ourselves or Celtic, so all normal negotiations are off the table. If a bid comes in for Carson over the summer, then it's back to business as usual i.e. if the bidder meets the price and we can replace him, then off he goes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yassin Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 Wonder if we're in a position to tell Hartlepool to waive their 40% and accept something smaller or we won't sell him at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well Well Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 Wonder if we're in a position to tell Hartlepool to waive their 40% and accept something smaller or we won't sell him at all. That would be suicidal for our own business model. Then how could we expect clubs to honour our future transfers fees. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ONeils40yarder Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 ....added to the fact that it would be an absolutely, ridiculously, shite thing to do...some would even suggest that would be a Celtic-esque way to deal with Clubs in a worse financial position. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 As much as I understand the frustration of potentially selling a player & losing certain amounts to X, Y & Z, I'm not sure I follow the line of thinking that we need to have a particular amount by the end for it to be worthwhile.Aye, it's not great to be left with just a small percentage of an original fee after you've paid, in this case, Hartlepool, Les & Boyle - but the latter of the two being paid is actually, and pretty obviously, hugely in our interests. If selling a player for good money and "only" having something like £100,000 at the end of it to reinvest in the squad means we are completely debt-free, and subsequently enjoying the benefits of that, sooner then that's still a good thing surely? I just don't quite subscribe to the idea that Robbo needs to be able to have a money shower at the end of all the payments for a deal to have been a success for the club. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ONeils40yarder Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 Jay, I've seen it mentioned elsewhere, is Boyle paid off in full or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well Well Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 I think with Carson i personally would prefer a straight cash deal than any percentage of future transfer as lets face it he will rarely see game time and celtic will just let him go on a free when they are done. This needs to be right for our club, not Hartlepool or Celtic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grizzlyg Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 apparently Sellik closing in on Bain, hopefully a good sign. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 Aye, it's not great to be left with just a small percentage of an original fee after you've paid, in this case, Hartlepool, Les & Boyle - but the latter of the two being paid is actually, and pretty obviously, hugely in our interests. If selling a player for good money and "only" having something like £100,000 at the end of it to reinvest in the squad means we are completely debt-free, and subsequently enjoying the benefits of that, sooner then that's still a good thing surely? I just think with us surely being ahead of plan this season more focus should be on the playing side impact. You would want to balance the impact of Carson leaving now with no proper replacement lined up with extra quality for next season to help us push on. Keeping Moult in the summer facilitated the cup run. Keeping Carson could also make us money so it's not as simple as just the fee. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 Jay, I've seen it mentioned elsewhere, is Boyle paid off in full or not? Well, what I would say is that paying off John Boyle or Les would be really positive news and I imagine Well Society members (and subsequently then everyone else) would be made fully aware of it in some form. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 But then we give Les his cut and we are left with £180k which works out as the equivalent of one position in the league and winning the cup tie against Dundee ie fuck all in the grand scheme of things plus we don't have a guaranteed solid goalie until summer 2020. The only way you can justify selling Carson is if it leaves us with a good bit of money to reinvest in the team this summer. If we were to get £400k after paying Les that would be a couple of marquee signings above what we would usually budget. I think £180K would represent about 2 league places. As long as Robbo is left with some cash from transfers to reinvest in the team, I'm comfortable paying off Les and JB. Debt reduction is no bad thing and when they're both paid off that will leave us debt free for the first time in decades. As far as I know if JB has not already been paid off then we are not far from doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 I just think with us surely being ahead of plan this season more focus should be on the playing side impact. You would want to balance the impact of Carson leaving now with no proper replacement lined up with extra quality for next season to help us push on. Keeping Moult in the summer facilitated the cup run. Keeping Carson could also make us money so it's not as simple as just the fee. I do get that and, in fairness, I'm not really suggesting Carson leaving would be a good thing in any way, it was more just the example at hand. Personally, I'd like to think the club will reject pretty much any offer that comes in this late on in the window. It was more just reference to the kind of stuff I've seen a few times now, that suggests paying Les and Boyle off is an inconvenience and not really considered a worthwhile part of any transfer deal - when in fact, it's really important. From a personal point of view, I'm actually really excited about getting to the point where the debts are all paid - if we continue to do what we are doing, particularly in terms of the successful business model, then the club could be in a hugely positive position once we are no longer having to pass on percentages of transfer fees. I think that's my only real issue - that these percentages paying off the debts are sometimes deemed an annoyance and a negative, like when folk start automatically paying their student loans off their wages. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelvinBragg Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 Any word on the potential new striker we were supposed to be after? Given we have a game in a couple of hours, I'd have thought we would want our business done relatively early today... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamH Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 Scott Bain to Celtic is apparently a done deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 Good news. Nae luck Hartlepool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuwell Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 From bbc website Brendan Rodgers' side are also working on a deal to sign Dundee goalkeeper Scott Bain, 26, who is on loan at Hibernian. The move should go ahead if Celtic midfielder Scott Allan, who is on loan at Dundee, joins Hibernian. Seems strange that Dundee would agree to Bain moving if it means they lose Allan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts