weeyin Posted July 2, 2017 Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 Last year we were killed in the second half of the season due to lack of cover at the back. If we have 8 choices there this season, that is fine by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del_Superwell Posted July 2, 2017 Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 I think to fully judge the trialists id go with a back 4 on tuesday night of Tait, Kipre, Dembele and Dunne to see how they handle the step up in opposition, give them 60 mins to see how it works then decide accordingly after that. I think the boy Tuton would've had more out of the game if he was included in our second half team on saturday as we actually played a bit of football and got some balls into the box, rather than the more route 1 approach first half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted July 2, 2017 Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 Given he's here on trial I was quite surprised to read that Tuton's still under contract at Barnsley. Signed a 2+1/2 year deal with them last January window with an option for an extra year. https://www.barnsleyfc.co.uk/news/2016/february/reds-land-striker-shaun-tuton-from-halifax-town/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supermarv Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 Given he's here on trial I was quite surprised to read that Tuton's still under contract at Barnsley. Signed a 2+1/2 year deal with them last January window with an option for an extra year. https://www.barnsleyfc.co.uk/news/2016/february/reds-land-striker-shaun-tuton-from-halifax-town/ Basically a choice between him and coulthrist on who we sign then I take it or if we can even offer coulthrist anything, Tutons goal was a screamer the other day so hopefully he can show what he can offer tomorrow night aswell and try win himself a deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 Following on from the press conference on Friday, some quotes on the contract offers to Moult and McHugh. http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/15385644.Stephen_Robinson_hopes_Louis_Moult_will_stay_at_Motherwell_after_offering_new_deal/ Doesn't sound like we are offering them a significant increase on their basic salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelvinBragg Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 Following on from the press conference on Friday, some quotes on the contract offers to Moult and McHugh. http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/15385644.Stephen_Robinson_hopes_Louis_Moult_will_stay_at_Motherwell_after_offering_new_deal/ Doesn't sound like we are offering them a significant increase on their basic salary. Get 1000 fans to set up a £2 a week direct debit and offer them an extra £1000 a week each.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Stall Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 Get 1000 fans to set up a £2 a week direct debit and offer them an extra £1000 a week each.. I know its a tongue in cheek suggestion and the logistics of it would probably be difficult, let alone all of the politics that would come into play, but didn't Boyle top up Hughes and Porters wages personally? We are now fan owned............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelvinBragg Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 I know its a tongue in cheek suggestion and the logistics of it would probably be difficult, let alone all of the politics that would come into play, but didn't Boyle top up Hughes and Porters wages personally? We are now fan owned............. Tongue in cheek, maybe, but I'd gladly chip in. Probably more than a couple of pounds. Let's call it both players being sponsored by the Well Society... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purestate Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 Moult and McHugh contract offers promoted on BBC football at the moment. Wonder if that's just algorithms or a favour bringing Moults availability to attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdalli10 Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 Those two signing a new deal would be the best business this transfer window by any club in Scotland. However, I can't remember the last time we've had saleable assets actually signing a new deal but fingers crossed. Any rumours on the people we are trying to shift out? I'd assume it's Clay, Blyth and some of the younger ones on loan but I've not seen anyone linked anywhere yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ONeils40yarder Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 Do we reckon bowman will stay was he perhaps frozen out by the style of football we played. With the right style of play could he be seen as part of first team plans ? Or do we reckon he'll go? I think Bowman will stay, I also think he'll be an asset this season. I felt that he was harshly discounted by our fans last year, he is nowhere near as bad as some made out, and he has somehow managed to get lumped in with Jacob Blyth, in the 'get him to fuck' stakes. He never had a proper run in the team, with Moult and McDonald being guaranteed starters, and often when he did play, he was either crowded out by the other two, or shunted out onto the left handside. I'm not suggesting that he'll be a 20 goals a season man, but I'd imagine that he'll offer more this season than he did last. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 I think Bowman will stay, I also think he'll be an asset this season. I felt that he was harshly discounted by our fans last year, he is nowhere near as bad as some made out, and he has somehow managed to get lumped in with Jacob Blyth, in the 'get him to fuck' stakes. He never had a proper run in the team, with Moult and McDonald being guaranteed starters, and often when he did play, he was either crowded out by the other two, or shunted out onto the left handside. I'm not suggesting that he'll be a 20 goals a season man, but I'd imagine that he'll offer more this season than he did last. I am involved in this line of thinking too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ya Bezzer! Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 Moult's injury problems might actually be a boon for us. No doubt if he stays it will because other teams have counted it against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lukemfc1 Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 I try to be realistic but the fact we are saying that we can't offer these guys another £500 quid a week concerns me. These are our best players. Players that could become very rewarding sellable assets. I've heard a few folk say that with fan ownership we are now in the best financial position we have been in for some time. This sort of statement doesn't ring true with the above for me. Don't want to have the whole fan ownership debate because I am not strongly for/against it but this sort of thing makes me think that our budget is probably the worst it's been for some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postiejim Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 Like everyone else I'm hopeful of a better season ,but the reality is it's just like the last few years , are our signing good or aren't they ,time will tell ,and let's be honest guys who really knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 I know its a tongue in cheek suggestion and the logistics of it would probably be difficult, let alone all of the politics that would come into play, but didn't Boyle top up Hughes and Porters wages personally? We are now fan owned............. Indeed. The WS brings in around £12k a month. What's to stop a proportion of that going towards the playing budget if it helps retain our 2 key assets. Having said that, I'd like to think we could offer McHugh and Moult a wage rise within the current budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dezz Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 Agree that £500 a week doesn't seem like a lot of money in isolation but in percentage terms it could be a fair increase if Moult and McHugh are on say £1,500 a week. It's also £4,000 a month extra for the two of them, and in addition there might also be incentives based on a percentage of wage (5% goal bonus for example) that will also increase. Hopefully there's a few quid down the back of the Fir Park sofa because if these two extended their stays the current feel good factor around the place would go through the (newly re-clad Hunter Stand) roof! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 I try to be realistic but the fact we are saying that we can't offer these guys another £500 quid a week concerns me. These are our best players. Players that could become very rewarding sellable assets. I've heard a few folk say that with fan ownership we are now in the best financial position we have been in for some time. This sort of statement doesn't ring true with the above for me. Don't want to have the whole fan ownership debate because I am not strongly for/against it but this sort of thing makes me think that our budget is probably the worst it's been for some time. To be fair, I don't think I've read or heard anyone claim we're now in the best financial position we have been in for some time, more that it's the most stable and secure. Part of that has been budgeting correctly and not putting the club's long-term future at risk as a result, which is something we've been a bit more prone to doing in previous years. Indeed. The WS brings in around £12k a month. What's to stop a proportion of that going towards the playing budget if it helps retain our 2 key assets. Having said that, I'd like to think we could offer McHugh and Moult a wage rise within the current budget. The Well Society already invests most of its income into the club so it's only logical that those sums then come into play in terms of the playing budget. It's obviously a simplistic way to look at it but, ultimately, the more folk paying into the Society the more likely it would be that the playing budget would be able to increase and guys like McHugh and Moult might get the pay increases folk think they deserve. Essentially, the whole idea of fans setting up a direct debit to ensure the club has more money to be successful is exactly what the Well Society is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 I try to be realistic but the fact we are saying that we can't offer these guys another £500 quid a week concerns me. These are our best players. Players that could become very rewarding sellable assets. I've heard a few folk say that with fan ownership we are now in the best financial position we have been in for some time. This sort of statement doesn't ring true with the above for me. Don't want to have the whole fan ownership debate because I am not strongly for/against it but this sort of thing makes me think that our budget is probably the worst it's been for some time. I've been a fan of a lot that Robinson has said to the media and his general approach however there are a couple of times where he's tripped up and not been particularly helpful and this, for me, is one of those occasions. There's really no need for him to put a number on that statement, just say that we're working within our budget and we'll offer both players as competitive a deal as we can and we're hopeful they'll sign. All saying "we can't afford to offer X amount" does is just lead to posts and a general overall perception like Luke's above (no offence) when the message coming from the club doesn't really have to. We have a budget which as far as I'm aware is based on a 10th placed finish, no player sales and no cup run. That's fine. When we were running with an unsustainable budget and chucking wages at players we were consistently posting losses, that's not fine. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellfan10 Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 I think Bowman will stay, I also think he'll be an asset this season. I felt that he was harshly discounted by our fans last year, he is nowhere near as bad as some made out, and he has somehow managed to get lumped in with Jacob Blyth, in the 'get him to fuck' stakes. He never had a proper run in the team, with Moult and McDonald being guaranteed starters, and often when he did play, he was either crowded out by the other two, or shunted out onto the left handside. I'm not suggesting that he'll be a 20 goals a season man, but I'd imagine that he'll offer more this season than he did last. Im likewise thinking maybe he'll fit imto the picture more often this season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 Robinson is spot on and I think it's good that he's setting fans expectations. Given the chat on here, some people need a wee bit of a reality check on what we can afford. When Moult leaves it will likely be for about double his current salary, so paying him and extra 500 quid a week now isn't going to prevent that. The club has admitted in previous years that it let salaries and bonuses get out of hand based on poor planning and an assumption of high league finishes. We need a wage structure at the club and to stick with it. As soon as you make an exception, then you no longer have a structure and you risk causing unrest other players. Of course, there are a lot more creative ways to structure a new deal than a flat weekly increase. Appearance money, goal targets, league position win bonuses, cup bonuses etc. that could average out to more than 500 quid a week. After the last few seasons, it's about time players started doing enough to get some more win bonuses under their belt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergie79 Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 If they both sign a new deal their value instantly goes up. Offer them an increased % of any transfer fee and they will get a tidy bonus when they move on to more than compensate the value of their weekly wage increase...simples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelvinBragg Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 I think Bowman will stay, I also think he'll be an asset this season. I felt that he was harshly discounted by our fans last year, he is nowhere near as bad as some made out, and he has somehow managed to get lumped in with Jacob Blyth, in the 'get him to fuck' stakes. He never had a proper run in the team, with Moult and McDonald being guaranteed starters, and often when he did play, he was either crowded out by the other two, or shunted out onto the left handside. I'm not suggesting that he'll be a 20 goals a season man, but I'd imagine that he'll offer more this season than he did last. I would tend to agree. I thought he might get moved on rather than Blyth only on the basis that his record in non league might mean we would find it easier to find a club to take him rather than Blyth. Having said that, while I agree he's not the worst and has something to offer, he'll probably find himself third choice for the number nine position unless we sell Moult. Don't think any combination of Moult, Fisher and Bowman looks like a partnership that would work... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supermarv Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 I would tend to agree. I thought he might get moved on rather than Blyth only on the basis that his record in non league might mean we would find it easier to find a club to take him rather than Blyth. Having said that, while I agree he's not the worst and has something to offer, he'll probably find himself third choice for the number nine position unless we sell Moult. Don't think any combination of Moult, Fisher and Bowman looks like a partnership that would work... We are also trying to bring in another striker in Tuton or Coulthrist 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 We are also trying to bring in another striker in Tuton or Coulthrist Are we though? Tuton's on trial granted but there's no guarantee we'll take him. In fact going by Robinson's comments post-match he sounded completely non-committal on him pointing out that defenders were our priority while the sole mention of Coulthirst has been a line tagged on to the end of a BBC report and a few posts on here. Darragh MacAnthony indicated Peterborough were discussing a deal re: Coulthirst with a "SPL (sic) side" on June 28th. People seem to have decided that's us because there was a vague mention of interest on our part in January which fell through because he didn't want to move North. He's been linked with both Ross County and Dundee both of whom seem far more in need of a striker than we do tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts