2019/2020 Game 2: Celtic (H) August 10th 12pm Kick off

[Winning by Name]

1 hour ago, Neilwell86 said:

It's not a risk worth taking though, Dundee utd are the perfect example of this. Had boys on 5yr contracts, brought in 10m plus on transfers and it still left them riddled with debt. Even now, contracts mean next to nothing the players and agents actually have so much power. If they want away, they will be away. Motherwell as a rule, don't do to badly on that front, from this years pool we lost Hastie, from a group of 5-6 players. The younger boys, Mckinstry and Mcalear we are pretty powerless with, as are most clubs in scotland, Rangers and Celtic included. 

If we don't think its a risk worth taking we shouldn't complain when the old firm come calling.

[steelboy]

2 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

We've seen this scenario at Fir Park for a good number of years now....remember the Jim Gannon days?  Its now commonplace amongst middle and lower ranking Premiership clubs as budget cuts bite.  I'd say to them welcome to the real world.  One possible exception is St Johnstone who have managed to retain a relatively stable squad although even they are beginning to experience higher rates of turnover. 

I'd say this year has been the most extreme for us. Replacing 7 outfield starters only two years after another full rebuild is extreme.

Our squad building has been terrible.

[steelboy]

1 hour ago, Neilwell86 said:

It's not a risk worth taking though, Dundee utd are the perfect example of this.IHad boys on 5yr contracts, brought in 10m plus on transfers and it still left them riddled with debt. Even now, contracts mean next to nothing the players and agents actually have so much power. If they want away, they will be away. Motherwell as a rule, don't do to badly on that front, from this years pool we lost Hastie, from a group of 5-6 players. The younger boys, Mckinstry and Mcalear we are pretty powerless with, as are most clubs in scotland, Rangers and Celtic included. 

It's not a risk at all. Having five young boys on extended contracts might amount to 100 grand a year which is fairly inconsequential compared to our total turnover. Saying it' a risk is like saying Mazinga, Mbulu, Petravicius etc are huge risks. I agree about the 16-17 year olds there's not much we can do about that.

Dundee United's debt was mainly run up by Eddie Thompson long before anyone had heard of Armstrong, Robertson, Ciftci or GMS.

 

[Neilwell86]

Tying someone into a 3-4 year deal who may or may not turn out good is daft, this year it seems like a reasonable idea because it's Turnbull and Hastie, Different story if it's Luke Watt, Bob Mchugh, Craig moore we are referring to. 100 grand a year but for 3-4 years and it quickly adds up. Mazinga, Mbulu and Petra are 100% low risk, 1 year deals, Probably very minimal wages. if it works, we have landed on our feet, if not thank you, see you later.

Granted you can apply the same logic to our own youngsters with regards to it working but why change something that doesn't appear to be broken, it's not an area we struggle in year on year, Hastie, Hall, Erwin from the top of my head are the only 3 I can think of that we could say would have done a job?

 

[steelboy]

Bob McHugh and Craig Moore are better than what we have at the moment!

No one is saying sign up every young player just the best ones. We are actually already doing it with Scott tied up until 2022 and Semple until 2021.

[weeyin]

Of course it's a risk. If you tie up a 15 year old on a 6 year (Dundee Utd special) contract you end up with a squad of Dom Thomas, Craig Moore and Bob McHugh etc.. We have streamlined our acadmey this year and are focusing on developing a smaller group of better players with targeted positions.

It's all very well saying sign up half a dozen youngsters on 6 year contracts, but that is assuming all 6 will be good enough to be around for the entire 6 years. More likely half of them (or more) will be punted each year - which is the norm at most clubs - and you need to bring in another 3 or 4 on the same 6 year contracts. So over those years, you will have, conservatively, invested in over 20 players on those 6 year contracts. Suddenly not so cheap.

And that's assuming youngsters would sign up for that length of time which, given the number of agents sniffing around with their advice, is extremely unlikely.

[weeyin]

6 minutes ago, steelboy said:

Bob McHugh and Craig Moore are better than what we have at the moment!

 

If we were playing two leagues lower, yes.

[steelboy]

 

18 minutes ago, weeyin said:

Of course it's a risk. If you tie up a 15 year old on a 6 year (Dundee Utd special) contract you end up with a squad of Dom Thomas, Craig Moore and Bob McHugh etc.. We have streamlined our acadmey this year and are focusing on developing a smaller group of better players with targeted positions.

We can only sign 16 year olds for two years. So it's a question of giving out appropriate contracts when players turn 18 and extending when required.

Letting Turnbull and Hastie enter the last years of their deals without offering extensions was a mistake.

[Yodo]

2 hours ago, weeyin said:

If we were playing two leagues lower, yes.

None of new signings are anywhere near the standard needed for the SPFL  except Gallagher 

[Wellfan1984]

2 hours ago, Yodo said:

None of new signings are anywhere near the standard needed for the SPFL  except Gallagher 

Absolute nonsense.  They'd all cruise through league 1 and 2.  Most likely the Championship too.  That is 3/4 of the SPFL right there...