one m in motherwell Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 I think that's spot on - whilst I don't know enough about Fisher to decide whether he's a ready made replacement for McDonald or not, on paper at least striker is one position we're relatively comfortable in (providing Moult stays too, of course). As a few others have said I reckon Bowman will be a bit more involved this year, and I reckon there'll probably be a bit of experimenting between him and Fisher to accompany Louis. I suppose whether we bring anyone in or not depends entirely on who we can shift out. Blyth must surely be on the list, and I wouldn't be surprised if the likes of Luke Watt and Clay are being actively touted to others. I reckon however that there is money still in the kitty for another defender...it's been identified as a weak point in the team since the previous season finished, although it is weird that we seem to be looking to trial market so early. By all accounts Dembele acquitted himself well on Saturday so I'm keen to see how he shapes up tomorrow. Him, McManus and Heneghan all competing for two spots in the centre would be fine by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onthefringes 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? Tuton, I'll give you, nobody backing the same Coulthirst who didn't fancy previous approaches. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goggles & Flippers Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 Yeah, you would expect staff who have one eye on the south of England can't give it everything up here ....... ahem .... former Manager You want to find a guy like Moult who embraced playing here, moved his family up and seems to have integrated well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 Perceived interest in Coulthirst stems from the BBC and Herald articles that followed the press conference on Friday. No truth in it? Personally, I'd be surprised if we are interested but the sources seem solid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdalli10 Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 One of the papers mentioned a fee of 150k from Ross ounty for the Peterborough boy. Can't see him coming to us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 One of the papers mentioned a fee of 150k from Ross ounty for the Peterborough boy. Can't see him coming to us He's been "transfer-listed" by Peterborough (how quaint) but he still has 2 years on his deal. As I say, he didn't fancy us the first time round and given Fir Park hasn't moved any closer to London in the past 6 months I'd imagine he'll end up at whichever League 1 or 2 side in England will stump up some cash for him. Either that or Uncle Roy will chuck some of his millions at him. Edit to add: if the report at the time he signed for Mansfield is correct the two clubs had actually agreed a fee for them to buy at the end of his loan. Stating the obvious a bit but it'd seem they've decided against taking him permanently. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38678519 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KirkySuperSub Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 He's been "transfer-listed" by Peterborough (how quaint) but he still has 2 years on his deal. As I say, he didn't fancy us the first time round and given Fir Park hasn't moved any closer to London in the past 6 months I'd imagine he'll end up at whichever League 1 or 2 side in England will stump up some cash for him. Either that or Uncle Roy will chuck some of his millions at him. Edit to add: if the report at the time he signed for Mansfield is correct the two clubs had actually agreed a fee for them to buy at the end of his loan. Stating the obvious a bit but it'd seem they've decided against taking him permanently. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38678519 Forgive my ignorance, but... Uncle Roy...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfc Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 coulthirst while still relatively young has scored very few goals despite a number of loan moves to the lower leagues in england,i hope were not after him especially if there's a fee involved.the thought of goal into the season with moult,fisher,blyth and bowman as our striking options gives me the fear a bit,we badly need a different type of forward to what those 4 are. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dezz Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 Forgive my ignorance, but... Uncle Roy...? Ross County owner Roy MacGregor, who essentially funds the club. Owner of Global Energy. County would still be floating about the seaside leagues if it wasn't for Uncle Roy's millions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KirkySuperSub Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 Cheers 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faddythedaddy Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 That Celtic gimp on twitter has us interested in Sammon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdalli10 Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 No ta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grizzlyg Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 Offer Louis and Carl 2yr extensions but clauses where if we get offered £800k they can talk to team putting in offer. We need to be realistic and know we won't keep them but other team's get good money for players...ie..Boyce leaving Ross co for £500k. So we need to get best offer we can 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelvinBragg Posted July 3, 2017 Report Share Posted July 3, 2017 That Celtic gimp on twitter has us interested in SammonGiven the type of strikers we already have at the club, that is the stupidest rumour I've heard in a while... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goggles & Flippers Posted July 4, 2017 Report Share Posted July 4, 2017 Talking of Celtic, seen an interview with Tierney where he said he was from Muirhouse. I know there's about 5 or so in the central belt but anyone ever heard anything like that before? Where you from mate? Greenacres/Forgewood/Any other area within a town 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superward Posted July 4, 2017 Report Share Posted July 4, 2017 Talking of Celtic, seen an interview with Tierney where he said he was from Muirhouse. I know there's about 5 or so in the central belt but anyone ever heard anything like that before? Where you from mate? Greenacres/Forgewood/Any other area within a town 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goggles & Flippers Posted July 4, 2017 Report Share Posted July 4, 2017 Did you learn your analysis skills at Sportscene? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kat Posted July 4, 2017 Report Share Posted July 4, 2017 Talking of Celtic, seen an interview with Tierney where he said he was from Muirhouse. I know there's about 5 or so in the central belt but anyone ever heard anything like that before? Where you from mate? Greenacres/Forgewood/Any other area within a town Yeah he is from the local area. Stays in the new estate on the old Motherwell College site. He's your stereotypical Celtic fan tbh. Going to head along tonight again, hopefully see some of the guys who didn't feature on Saturday. Quite interested to know who Robinson wants to move on, i know Blyth is a likely candidate and perhaps a few youngsters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted July 4, 2017 Report Share Posted July 4, 2017 Doesn't sound like we are offering them a significant increase on their basic salary. An extra £500 per week equates to some £26,000 per year each. Thats not a bad wage rise. Some won't earn anything like that in a year - nurses, NHS porters, cooks etc for example. I don't know our playing budget, but if the club says it can't afford it then I believe them. As some say why don't we test the water and set up a scheme for fans to fund the increase (or more). Its been tried bed fore ie at Dundee? That would gauge whether they would buy into it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goggles & Flippers Posted July 4, 2017 Report Share Posted July 4, 2017 Wouldn't a better option be for the club via commercial means (season tickets, sponsorships, other revenues) and for your week in, week out punter to recruit a few extra bums on seats at FP? Therefore the onus on sustaining a player(s) isn't put on the already laden shoulders of those who already commit enough to the club. I know some look upon the club as a charity and give free time because of the love and they do fill a fuzzy place in our society between a high street Barnados and Starbucks but it still is a business/commercial entity and should function as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted July 4, 2017 Report Share Posted July 4, 2017 An extra £500 per week equates to some £26,000 per year each. Thats not a bad wage rise. Some won't earn anything like that in a year - nurses, NHS porters, cooks etc for example. I don't know our playing budget, but if the club says it can't afford it then I believe them. As some say why don't we test the water and set up a scheme for fans to fund the increase (or more). Its been tried bed fore ie at Dundee? That would gauge whether they would buy into it or not. I'm a little lost on this idea for fans to start direct debits in order to pay for a player's wage increase at a time when we already have fan-ownership... Don't get me wrong, I understand that paying into the Society means the money, when invested into the club, could be used for many things and not necessarily a specific top-up on Moult's contract, but it's all part of the same objective IMO. At the moment, the Well Society raises around £120,000 a year and the vast majority of that is invested in the club. That means that when the club are setting budgets for a coming season, they will be factoring in the expected investment from the Society. Those budgets include the playing budget. So logically, the more money the Motherwell support is paying into the Well Society, the higher the level of Society investment and, subsequently, the more funds are available to the club when they are budgeting for the season. That's what the Well Society is now, it's a majority shareholder which invests in the club on behalf of its members and, like any investor - be it a lottery winner, successful businessman, or fans' group - the more finance invested, the healthier the club's budget. It is, of course, completely hypothetical and doesn't take into account any wage caps we might have at the club, but it's not entirely outwith the realms of possibility that the club could have been in the position to offer Louis Moult the wage increase touted on here had there been three or four thousand Well Society members, or if the current 1,400+ were all paying a bit more on a regular basis. Now that fan ownership exists at Fir Park, you can essentially draw a solid connection between a monthly pledge from a Well Society member and player wages, pitch improvements, stadium upgrades etc. It goes without saying that the more Motherwell fans who contribute to the Well Society, the larger a budget the club has. And that's before you even consider the Les Hutchison "Double Your Money" deal this year. With all that in mind, I would argue here that if anyone wants to fire a few quid into the club, it would make far more sense to do so via the Well Society rather than some sort of Louis Moult Crowdfunder. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted July 4, 2017 Report Share Posted July 4, 2017 I think that's spot on - whilst I don't know enough about Fisher to decide whether he's a ready made replacement for McDonald or not, on paper at least striker is one position we're relatively comfortable in (providing Moult stays too, of course). As a few others have said I reckon Bowman will be a bit more involved this year, and I reckon there'll probably be a bit of experimenting between him and Fisher to accompany Louis. I suppose whether we bring anyone in or not depends entirely on who we can shift out. Blyth must surely be on the list, and I wouldn't be surprised if the likes of Luke Watt and Clay are being actively touted to others. I reckon however that there is money still in the kitty for another defender...it's been identified as a weak point in the team since the previous season finished, although it is weird that we seem to be looking to trial market so early. By all accounts Dembele acquitted himself well on Saturday so I'm keen to see how he shapes up tomorrow. Him, McManus and Heneghan all competing for two spots in the centre would be fine by me. I'm not sure it's that weird tbh. Most of the teams around us have a few trialists in at the moment, if Dundee fans are to be believed they've got up to half a dozen in at the moment. I understand the point in that for a key area that's been known to need addressed by everyone including the manager you'd have thought we'd have targets in mind that we'd have gone out and signed straight away in the same way that we've done business early for other areas of the park but when you strip it back it is there that much difference between us ending up with a player having had him in for a fortnight to have a look at him then deciding he's a good fit over just signing him straight away? It's possible that they're players we've identified but wanted to have a look at before committing to. Speaking hypothetically, had we just straight out signed Dembele and he had slotted in as he did on Saturday there's a fair chance people would feel a lot more comfortable about us having made positive steps to "address" the defensive area of the park however because he and others are trialists there's, rightly or wrongly, an implication that they're inferior players vs someone we've signed straight away. Similarly, again hypothetically, I'd imagine people would be a bit more comfortable had we gone out and signed someone like Meekings because he's known name in this league, yet he hasn't kicked a ball due to injury since December and has a patchy injury record in general. In honesty I'm a lot happier if we've got trialists in early in order for us to take a look at them and make a decision early. If the process is us taking a look at them and making a genuine appraisal on whether they fit in/are good enough then fine. It becomes more of a problem if we just end up taking them regardless simply to fill a jersey. In truth I think there's more chance of the latter happening at the end of the window than at this stage. In other news I see that's Everton chucking stacks of cash at Burnley for Michael Keane, if Burnley want to follow up their reported interest in Ben Heneghan then now's the time for them to do it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn_Broomfield Posted July 4, 2017 Report Share Posted July 4, 2017 Are folk genuinely suggesting directly donating some of their wages to pay the wages of a professional footballer? 16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmostFrazzled Posted July 4, 2017 Report Share Posted July 4, 2017 I'm not sure it's that weird tbh. Most of the teams around us have a few trialists in at the moment, if Dundee fans are to be believed they've got up to half a dozen in at the moment. I understand the point in that for a key area that's been known to need addressed by everyone including the manager you'd have thought we'd have targets in mind that we'd have gone out and signed straight away in the same way that we've done business early for other areas of the park but when you strip it back it is there that much difference between us ending up with a player having had him in for a fortnight to have a look at him then deciding he's a good fit over just signing him straight away? It's possible that they're players we've identified but wanted to have a look at before committing to. Speaking hypothetically, had we just straight out signed Dembele and he had slotted in as he did on Saturday there's a fair chance people would feel a lot more comfortable about us having made positive steps to "address" the defensive area of the park however because he and others are trialists there's, rightly or wrongly, an implication that they're inferior players vs someone we've signed straight away. Similarly, again hypothetically, I'd imagine people would be a bit more comfortable had we gone out and signed someone like Meekings because he's known name in this league, yet he hasn't kicked a ball due to injury since December and has a patchy injury record in general. In honesty I'm a lot happier if we've got trialists in early in order for us to take a look at them and make a decision early. If the process is us taking a look at them and making a genuine appraisal on whether they fit in/are good enough then fine. It becomes more of a problem if we just end up taking them regardless simply to fill a jersey. In truth I think there's more chance of the latter happening at the end of the window than at this stage. In other news I see that's Everton chucking stacks of cash at Burnley for Michael Keane, if Burnley want to follow up their reported interest in Ben Heneghan then now's the time for them to do it. I would much rather we didn't give anyone a trial and just signed guys out of nowhere. I mean it worked so well last season with Belic & Jules. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted July 4, 2017 Report Share Posted July 4, 2017 I would much rather we didn't give anyone a trial and just signed guys out of nowhere. I mean it worked so well last season with Belic & Jules. Sound strategy IMO. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts