The Small-Medium Rebuild 2018'19

[Kmcalpin]

6 minutes ago, stuwell said:

Mbulu not going to make the grade or the forgot man?

At the moment not amongst the front runners.  The jury is still out due to his injury and lack of game time. 

[stuwell]

1 hour ago, Kmcalpin said:

At the moment not amongst the front runners.  The jury is still out due to his injury and lack of game time. 

Personally I think he will come good and within a year will be a mainstay in our defence but I’m not yet convinced he will go on to greater things - although  I do have high hopes for the guy. 

[Yorkyred]

A little early to tell I think, rather like Gorrin regardling injuries and game time, just about getting a run in the team and see how he beds in.

[Yorkyred]

9 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

Oddly enough I see our defensive formation depending to a large extent on mattters further up the field specifically the wings.  if Hastie and Aryibi and maybe even Frear move on then we may revert to a back 5 although I hope not. Presumably Tom Aldred will move on. Assuming that it will be a back 4 I'd see Gallagher (if he signs) partnering Charles Dunne with Barry Maguire as first back up in the middle.  I don't know where this leaves Peter Hartely though.  At full back Richard Tait will be guaranteed a start either on the left or on the right.  If pushed I'd say on the left with Liam Grimshaw on the opposite side.  This is hypothetical of course and the manager's ideas may change after the first few league games ie Barry Maguire may not make the necessary step up or equally he could be outstanding and force his way into the starting line up.  Gallagher might be the real thing or he may struggle.  

I’m quietly optimistic about Maguire having watched him a couple of times this season. He still has a fair way to go but looks to have the basics needed to progress given time.

[Yorkyred]

17 hours ago, dennyc said:

Apologies if I misunderstood. No offence intended. I'm enjoying the Debate though.

No problem. I’m also enjoying the debate, some good posters on here. 

[David]

On 3/17/2019 at 4:43 PM, Shaka said:

We got lucky with Maguire & Turnbull, but look to have lost Hastie, for the sake of potentially £10k! That is utter insanity and shows just how small time and amateurish our club is sometimes. 

Or, the club got it right two out of three times in this situation? Or are we operating on the basis that when they manage to get a player to sign a new deal we're "lucky," but when they don't manage to convince them we're "amateur?"

The bottom line is, regardless of fans liking or not, that we'll never be in a position to cover all bases, especially when it comes to the unpredictability of youth football. The very fact that we've managed to retain two of our three highest-rated prospects (including the top prospect of the three in my opinion in Turnbull) is an accomplishment.

Would it be great if Hastie stayed? Absolutely, but that's how the cookie crumbles. I'd be more concerned if we had lost all three, or if we were regularly shipping out players for nothing who then went on to have great careers elsewhere.

The club, for the most part, has gotten it right over the years.

[Busta Nut]

What do people think Richard Tait loses on the left that he could offer on the right?

 

I think he's as natural on the left as he is on the right.

[Guest]

19 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

At the moment not amongst the front runners.  The jury is still out due to his injury and lack of game time. 

Give it 12 months, folk will be telling you they knew he was a dead cert star when he goes to Charlton on a free.

[dennyc]

19 minutes ago, Busta Nut said:

What do people think Richard Tait loses on the left that he could offer on the right?

 

I think he's as natural on the left as he is on the right.

Until Easter Road I would have agreed with you, particularly with Grimshaw doing well on the right. But I thought Tait had his poorest game for a while on Saturday and Grimshaw was also a bit below par. Hopefully a "one off" as that formation has worked extremely well of late.  But it did get me thinking again about players being set up in their best positions. Hibs certainly seemed to get in behind both on a regular basis, perhaps because both of them naturally were drawn inside?  But as I say, that set up has worked well of late.

[Busta Nut]

I have witnessed Richard Tait have some shockers on the right as well. I actually think he's always been a bit suspect defensively.

There is no noticable difference for me regardless of the side he plays on.

[Richie]

Yeah, Tait was well off it on Sat.
Not sure if it was because of a particularly heavy pitch, but he looked very leggy.

 

[superward]

What I've found very interesting in the youth contract debate here is that the theory many have put across is absolutely sound and I completely agree.  

In short, where we have a promising youth player,  do not let them enter the last year of their contract without at least an offer on the table early doors that they will accept, and certainly before they hit the ground running in the first team, unless we have no intention of keeping them anyway. 

It's the application of the theory that I've yet to see any realistic suggestions as to how it can be applied to 100% success each time at a club with our budget.

If we had the money of a bigger team, youth players would be renewed well ahead of time to protect the chance of losing them and the fee that goes along with them. We'd accept the risk that we will pay out an extra season or two in wages perhaps to the majority of the youth squads ongoing to ensure we don't lose on the value of that special 1 or 2 where we could sell on for big profit.

But, in reality we don't, and it's a balancing act with a small overall football budget. The football staff in the club need to find that sweet spot where they pretty much know a youth player is going to make it and an early, and extended contract offer is a worthwhile investment. That's hard and they won't get it right every time. 

It's easy to talk about the players currently in the headlines and how the club should have, shouldn't have, or were lucky or not lucky. What about the current youth players...views?

* Adam Livingstone - due up in May 2019 - going by the argument, he's a promising youth player kept back from loan to push for the first team like Turnbull so  should already be on a renewal. 

*Peter Morrison -due up in May 2019 - on loan to Albion for games. SPFL team of the week last week. Renew to 2021? Other goalies now pushing up though. Do we safeguard our investment and give him a 2 year deal? Or gamble that he wont actually make it and invest elswhere.

*Shaun Bowers, Liam Brown, Jamie Semple - all up in May 2019. All looked great in the reserves. Couple more years?

*Broque Watson - up in May 2019 - looked good in the reserves. Not really kicked on out on loan at East Fife. Also not a long term youth so not much compo due. Do we renew him? Or is ti purely about protecting our youth investment?

...and that's just a handful. Not an easy task.

 

 

 

[superward]

22 minutes ago, Busta Nut said:

I have witnessed Richard Tait have some shockers on the right as well. I actually think he's always been a bit suspect defensively.

There is no noticable difference for me regardless of the side he plays on.

For me, we lose a bit from Tait in an attacking sense on the left. He's also much easier turned on the left than he is on the right, by the better players he comes up against.

That said, he does do a sterling job left or right, and there isn't much in it.

[Ross]

What I've found very interesting in the youth contract debate here is that the theory many have put across is absolutely sound and I completely agree.  
In short, where we have a promising youth player,  do not let them enter the last year of their contract without at least an offer on the table early doors that they will accept, and certainly before they hit the ground running in the first team, unless we have no intention of keeping them anyway. 
It's the application of the theory that I've yet to see any realistic suggestions as to how it can be applied to 100% success each time at a club with our budget.
If we had the money of a bigger team, youth players would be renewed well ahead of time to protect the chance of losing them and the fee that goes along with them. We'd accept the risk that we will pay out an extra season or two in wages perhaps to the majority of the youth squads ongoing to ensure we don't lose on the value of that special 1 or 2 where we could sell on for big profit.
But, in reality we don't, and it's a balancing act with a small overall football budget. The football staff in the club need to find that sweet spot where they pretty much know a youth player is going to make it and an early, and extended contract offer is a worthwhile investment. That's hard and they won't get it right every time. 
It's easy to talk about the players currently in the headlines and how the club should have, shouldn't have, or were lucky or not lucky. What about the current youth players...views?
* Adam Livingstone - due up in May 2019 - going by the argument, he's a promising youth player kept back from loan to push for the first team like Turnbull so  should already be on a renewal. 
*Peter Morrison -due up in May 2019 - on loan to Albion for games. SPFL team of the week last week. Renew to 2021? Other goalies now pushing up though. Do we safeguard our investment and give him a 2 year deal? Or gamble that he wont actually make it and invest elswhere.
*Shaun Bowers, Liam Brown, Jamie Semple - all up in May 2019. All looked great in the reserves. Couple more years?
*Broque Watson - up in May 2019 - looked good in the reserves. Not really kicked on out on loan at East Fife. Also not a long term youth so not much compo due. Do we renew him? Or is ti purely about protecting our youth investment?
...and that's just a handful. Not an easy task.
 
 
 

Punt Morrison and keep the rest


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stuwell]

Heard today from a friend with contacts within Rangers, that Hastie has had a medical at Ibrox but more interesting was the guys comments that not everyone at Rangers rates him and the guy referred to him as Gareth Hastie because of his comments re Gareth Bale. His words were “he better live up to that or he will get slaughtered” 

[DunnyMFC]

Regarding the whole debate giving promising youth players longer contracts. Surely it's possibly cheaper and less risky tying down the promising youth players hoping to sell them on than possibly paying higher wages for a guy in the English lowers and hoping we can make a profit from them? 

I was just wondering if it's better to try and use youth players as backup instead of signing bench warmers like last summer. 

[Brazilian]

3 hours ago, Busta Nut said:

What do people think Richard Tait loses on the left that he could offer on the right?

 

I think he's as natural on the left as he is on the right.

5-10 goal assists per season from a LB/Tait are lost , he just doesn't get as far up the park and into an assist position anything like his norm when he's on the left  ( in any formation/team)

[Onthefringes]

1 hour ago, stuwell said:

Heard today from a friend with contacts within Rangers, that Hastie has had a medical at Ibrox but more interesting was the guys comments that not everyone at Rangers rates him and the guy referred to him as Gareth Hastie because of his comments re Gareth Bale. His words were “he better live up to that or he will get slaughtered” 

Don’t believe everything you hear... and for the record another offer has been made to retain him.

[dennyc]

1 hour ago, superward said:

What I've found very interesting in the youth contract debate here is that the theory many have put across is absolutely sound and I completely agree.  

In short, where we have a promising youth player,  do not let them enter the last year of their contract without at least an offer on the table early doors that they will accept, and certainly before they hit the ground running in the first team, unless we have no intention of keeping them anyway. 

It's the application of the theory that I've yet to see any realistic suggestions as to how it can be applied to 100% success each time at a club with our budget.

If we had the money of a bigger team, youth players would be renewed well ahead of time to protect the chance of losing them and the fee that goes along with them. We'd accept the risk that we will pay out an extra season or two in wages perhaps to the majority of the youth squads ongoing to ensure we don't lose on the value of that special 1 or 2 where we could sell on for big profit.

But, in reality we don't, and it's a balancing act with a small overall football budget. The football staff in the club need to find that sweet spot where they pretty much know a youth player is going to make it and an early, and extended contract offer is a worthwhile investment. That's hard and they won't get it right every time. 

It's easy to talk about the players currently in the headlines and how the club should have, shouldn't have, or were lucky or not lucky. What about the current youth players...views?

* Adam Livingstone - due up in May 2019 - going by the argument, he's a promising youth player kept back from loan to push for the first team like Turnbull so  should already be on a renewal. 

*Peter Morrison -due up in May 2019 - on loan to Albion for games. SPFL team of the week last week. Renew to 2021? Other goalies now pushing up though. Do we safeguard our investment and give him a 2 year deal? Or gamble that he wont actually make it and invest elswhere.

*Shaun Bowers, Liam Brown, Jamie Semple - all up in May 2019. All looked great in the reserves. Couple more years?

*Broque Watson - up in May 2019 - looked good in the reserves. Not really kicked on out on loan at East Fife. Also not a long term youth so not much compo due. Do we renew him? Or is ti purely about protecting our youth investment?

...and that's just a handful. Not an easy task.

 

 

 

I agree to a great extent.  It is a balancing act.  I just wonder if we are being as smart as we could be. Perhaps we have also been victims  of our own success, or more accurately the success of our recruitment and youth development strategy. To produce such a group of outstanding youngsters at the same time is fantastic, but it is exceptional and does have financial implications. 

My argument is that I think a further investment in Turnbull, McGuire, Scott and Hastie......all players who had passed every test with flying colours, had featured in first team squads and and were clearly thought by our coaches to have a better chance than most.....would have given us a better return and been less of a risk than some of the decisions that were made last summer. Even if only two of the four actually went on to higher and greater things, the income from that would more than offset the cost of the two that did not move on ( £20/25k as a guesstimate). And how often are we likely to be lucky enough to have four exceptional youth players emerge at the same time? Two would be great but in reality zero is also a possibility. If Hastie does move on, how much more would we have received if he were on a higher wage with a year to run on his contract? We would be in a much stronger position. Even if he sat out that contract and then moved on, we would be entitled to a greater Development Fee. I think it was a risk worth taking last summer with him (and the others). Yes Weeyin, that is subject to us persuading him to sign . But I honestly believe we had a greater chance then than we have now.

On that note, can anyone who watches  the current Reserve Team on a regular basis  honestly say they witness players of the quality of Turnbull etc etc?  From what I've seen, only  Semple might be approaching that level with Livingstone another possibility. Beyond that I am struggling but it is a time of transition, player and coach wise. Semple was approached by several other Clubs when he joined us at age 14 and I know of one at least who are keeping an eye on his situation. As you say he is out of Contract in May and he will have a decision to make.

Despite what some folk are suggesting on here, I'm not talking about huge wage increases or four year deals with the potential of bankrupting the Club.  A 12 month  (18 months max) contract, to be reviewed  if the player graduated to the first team seems reasonable . A mini Hibs deal if you like. Also not every player will tick all the boxes like the four I mentioned . So , again contrary to what some folk are suggesting, I am not proposing that every youngster who has a couple of good games should be regarded as the next Lionel Messi and offered mega bucks. I am talking about players who have arrived at Reserve level having passed all the quality lines and who are....just about...first team ready.

I can understand us losing younger players , McKinstrey to Leeds and Miller to Rangers as examples. Tom Leighton,  who opted for Watford and went on to Captain Northern Ireland U19s is another, He is currently doing well in Watfford's U20s. There can be many reasons why players such as those move elsewhere at a young age, and not all under the control of the parent club. And different Contract Laws apply. It's the outstanding kids that are almost there that I think we need to be more clever with. They are our future both on the pitch and financially. Particularly if Project Brave is still a factor (seems to have gone all quiet on that front) and we get highly rated youngsters placed with us for development.

[superward]

1 hour ago, DunnyMFC said:

Regarding the whole debate giving promising youth players longer contracts. Surely it's possibly cheaper and less risky tying down the promising youth players hoping to sell them on than possibly paying higher wages for a guy in the English lowers and hoping we can make a profit from them? 

I was just wondering if it's better to try and use youth players as backup instead of signing bench warmers like last summer. 

Again, in theory, of course it is. Some will sink and some will swim. Its again that sweet spot of exposing them too early or too late.

Would Hastie, for example, have been better sitting on our bench the first half of the season or getting full games every week at Alloa? Would he have developed as much as he did by getting cameos? Maybe he would have...maybe not 

It's not an easy task to manage youth

The club can definitely improve and they've said as much with the review of the youth system and pathway to the first team.

 

[Busta Nut]

1 hour ago, Brazilian said:

5-10 goal assists per season from a LB/Tait are lost , he just doesn't get as far up the park and into an assist position anything like his norm when he's on the left  ( in any formation/team)

I don't believe that.

[Gadgey]

Am I the only one to see the irony in this youth debate ?

It wasn’t all that long ago that the manager was being criticised on this thread for not putting the youngsters into the first XI

[stuwell]

Denyc,

while I see some merit in your idea of offering longer contracts to a couple of young players that you think will make the first team, doing so would create an “elite” within the youth squad which could be counter productive to squad unity as the others would feel undervalued and if one of them develops into something special you then run the risk of him leaving at the first opportunity.

Although not perfect I believe that the present system works to an extent and changing it would  create greater problems. 

[Brazilian]

7 hours ago, Busta Nut said:

I have witnessed Richard Tait have some shockers on the right as well. I actually think he's always been a bit suspect defensively.

There is no noticable difference for me regardless of the side he plays on.

 

4 hours ago, Brazilian said:

5-10 goal assists per season from a LB/Tait are lost , he just doesn't get as far up the park and into an assist position anything like his norm when he's on the left  ( in any formation/team)

 

2 hours ago, Busta Nut said:

I don't believe that.

Ok

[fizoxy]

When we were playing wing backs I felt we needed someone on the other side from Tait, preferably on the left. However, we’re now playing a different system with two more traditional full backs, so that could also be a factor in the drop of assists for Tait.  Grimshaw is also playing well at right back. 

Add to this the small concern of who Tait would be assisting, he could put crosses into the box all day, but other than Moult he hasn’t had the benefit of a striker who is capable of heading a cross. Bowman and Main have been two of the worst penalty box strikers I’ve seen in a long time. 

Any Motherwell player is prone to bad spells, but Tait has played on the left most of this season and is up there for player of the year, so I don’t know if we’re going to find a better left back on our budget.