2023/24 ins & outs discussion

[steelboy]

Aye but looking at it like that the likes of Maguire and Shields could be thinking sit tight and block new bodies coming in and they'll be in the match day squad come September. 

[David]

Just now, steelboy said:

Aye but looking at it like that the likes of Maguire and Shields could be thinking sit tight and block new bodies coming in and they'll be in the match day squad come September. 

Maguire and Shields will be looking to prove to the manager that they're worth a place in his squad. And if they can't do that they'll end up going out on loan again this season.

[MelvinBragg]

I see we're looking at bringing Furlong back on loan. Wouldn't be be a bad thing....

[Onthefringes]

51 minutes ago, Spit_It_Out said:

Thats the worrying part when you think about it alot of players have left brought some money on KVV and Max and we still need to get rid of players before we can bring anyone according to the manager.

I wouldn't be shocked a few clubs reading that might put in a bid for Kelly see if we could be tempted to sell.

The glory days of Alan Burrows  keeping in touch with us are sorely missed I feel now.

Worrying. I’m not so sure 🤔

This money you speak of - are we guaranteed of being paid up front? Fees are generally paid over the course of the players contract.

And again, players out before players in being misconstrued.

Think the Kelly analogy is poor. Anybody is free to bid, not on the strength of a press release that some of our support aren’t understanding, every player has a price though & we’d be expecting the going rate.

On Burrows - unique to that role. Halcyon days, unfortunately another fanbase now gets the benefit. We move on.

[Onthefringes]

20 minutes ago, steelboy said:

Aye but looking at it like that the likes of Maguire and Shields could be thinking sit tight and block new bodies coming in and they'll be in the match day squad come September. 

Both players will be aware of club plans & match day squads won’t feature high on priorities.

[DunnyMFC]

I really don't see how Maguire or Shields could block new recruits. If the gaffer didn't rate them he would punt them out on loan. 

 

[Spit_It_Out]

I see we are trying to get Furlong back on loan be fantastic to get him for another season.

Soon as he found his feet he was a solid week in week out.

[fizoxy]

54 minutes ago, DunnyMFC said:

I really don't see how Maguire or Shields could block new recruits. If the gaffer didn't rate them he would punt them out on loan. 

 

They need to agree to go to start with. If they genuinely feel that they can work their way into first teams plans they'll want to hang around.

[wellfan]

2 hours ago, Onthefringes said:

Odd? If you take the manager’s words too literally, maybe.

The key point being made was we need to move players out before we bring others in which is a different thing to not having money to sign players unless we move players on. Simply, the numbers don’t stack up squad wise.

Leading to your next point, moving the players out is the clearing the decks of rubbish as you put it. Nothing to suggest the board aren’t backing Kettlewell. Too many variables, the process is a slow burner - some just need to suck it up.

Proactive or Reactive decisions by the board are for another debate, I’m not sure Kettlewell was bemoaning anything at all and favour it was a thinly veiled dig at previous management.

I don't disagree that players need to move out before a club can bring others in to balance their squad. However, a significantly greater number of players have left than have come in, and the new 45-man squad list contains only approx. 17 recognised 1st team players, and that's me being generous. Instead of replacing the likes of Casey, Goss, KVV, Cornelius, Johnston, and Furlong, we've filled the 2023/24 squad with the boys, and then the manager has come out in the press and said we need to reduce this squad to bring in new signings. That is why I've used the 'odd' terminology and alluded to a lack of cash, be that correct or otherwise.

My point is that the squad has already been reduced by a factor much greater than the two signings, and that's even when it's acknowledged that the squad was bloated due to Kettlewell inheriting the (re)signings of two previous managers. Considering that reality, perhaps the plan is to operate with a much smaller playing budget and reduced squad, which is fine but means we will undoubtedly struggle if we fail to move certain players on this window, and Kettlewell knows that. 

So, perhaps Kettlewell's dig was at previous management and their poor recruitment and forward planning apropos the promising youth, or it was directed at the Board and their 2023/24 budget because he knows they have the wages of KVV et al in their coffers. Whichever it is is a matter of opinion because neither of us knows what he meant. 

Let's see what the next few weeks bring, and I include the forthcoming League Cup performances in that.

[FirParkCornerExile]

6 minutes ago, wellfan said:

I don't disagree that players need to move out before a club can bring others in to balance their squad. However, a significantly greater number of players have left than have come in, and the new 45-man squad list contains only approx. 17 recognised 1st team players, and that's me being generous. Instead of replacing the likes of Casey, Goss, KVV, Cornelius, Johnston, and Furlong, we've filled the 2023/24 squad with the boys, and then the manager has come out in the press and said we need to reduce this squad to bring in new signings. That is why I've used the 'odd' terminology and alluded to a lack of cash, be that correct or otherwise.

My point is that the squad has already been reduced by a factor much greater than the two signings, and that's even when it's acknowledged that the squad was bloated due to Kettlewell inheriting the (re)signings of two previous managers. Considering that reality, perhaps the plan is to operate with a much smaller playing budget and reduced squad, which is fine but means we will undoubtedly struggle if we fail to move certain players on this window, and Kettlewell knows that. 

So, perhaps Kettlewell's dig was at previous management and their poor recruitment and forward planning apropos the promising youth, or it was directed at the Board and their 2023/24 budget because he knows they have the wages of KVV et al in their coffers. Whichever it is is a matter of opinion because neither of us knows what he meant. 

Let's see what the next few weeks bring, and I include the forthcoming League Cup performances in that.

We get this story every transfer window. They said that in January window and just about every transfer window in the last 10 years. Yet we still signed 9 players in January. It's like a broken record that I now pay little attention to. 

[Coatsy]

On 7/9/2023 at 6:15 PM, santheman said:

You could also look at it from the point of view that we're guaranteed 380k/400k as a development fee plus potential add ons if we do some kind of a deal with Sturm Graz.

Would we have got much more than that as a transfer fee if he had done a Turnbull and signed a new contract. I'm not so sure we would have.

 

How can we get an add on if he's not a signed Motherwell player when the transfer happens

[davkel]

Something that Ketts didn’t mention on Saturday was the chunk of money that it took to fix the front of the Hunter Stand .. that was a big outlay that hadn’t been planned for ..

[davkel]

As for Furlong returning .. the goalposts have moved now with the English Premier League bringing in a new rule that clubs can only put a max of 7 players out on loan ..

With Furlong out on loan with us last season and proving a hit , you might find that they won’t have him as 1 of their 7 this season

[santheman]

1 hour ago, Coatsy said:

How can we get an add on if he's not a signed Motherwell player when the transfer happens

The club is due approx 380k/400k as a development fee. We could potentially suggest a lower fee and a percentage of any future transfer as an example if the buying club agreed. 

[fizoxy]

1 hour ago, Coatsy said:

How can we get an add on if he's not a signed Motherwell player when the transfer happens

We can negotiate the development fee, i.e. take a smaller fee with an add on instead. Pretty sure that's what we did with Campbell.

[dennyc]

32 minutes ago, Coatsy said:

How can we get an add on if he's not a signed Motherwell player when the transfer happens

The Development Fee scheme was introduced to provide a guarantee that clubs who invested in youth were not left with nothing when bigger clubs came calling. But the Development Fee is really a minimum guarantee. Unless the player signs on to a team from an Association that has not yet entered the Scheme. Think Cadden to The States.

Clubs can come to an agreement to dispense with the standard Development Fee and instead negotiate a reduced fee with specific add ons included. The new club benefit by paying out less up front and the former club hope that any add ons will in time generate substantially more income than the fee reduction.  A future big money transfer being the jackpot.

If the switch is made under the basic Development Fee arrangements, then it is a once and for all payment with no future income benefits to the former club.

There are pros and cons for each club whatever way the deal is done. For example.  The basic Dev Fee must be paid in full within a short period (30 days rings a bell) but any alternative deal might involve staged payments over a longer timescale. Add ons might never come to fruition (as per Jake Hastie) which is clearly a disappointment for the former club. Any add ons that come into play can substantially reduce transfer income for the new Club. Essentially it is a gamble but the financial situation of both clubs at the time the player moves will play a part.

[Onthefringes]

2 hours ago, wellfan said:

I don't disagree that players need to move out before a club can bring others in to balance their squad. However, a significantly greater number of players have left than have come in, and the new 45-man squad list contains only approx. 17 recognised 1st team players, and that's me being generous. Instead of replacing the likes of Casey, Goss, KVV, Cornelius, Johnston, and Furlong, we've filled the 2023/24 squad with the boys, and then the manager has come out in the press and said we need to reduce this squad to bring in new signings. That is why I've used the 'odd' terminology and alluded to a lack of cash, be that correct or otherwise.

My point is that the squad has already been reduced by a factor much greater than the two signings, and that's even when it's acknowledged that the squad was bloated due to Kettlewell inheriting the (re)signings of two previous managers. Considering that reality, perhaps the plan is to operate with a much smaller playing budget and reduced squad, which is fine but means we will undoubtedly struggle if we fail to move certain players on this window, and Kettlewell knows that. 

So, perhaps Kettlewell's dig was at previous management and their poor recruitment and forward planning apropos the promising youth, or it was directed at the Board and their 2023/24 budget because he knows they have the wages of KVV et al in their coffers. Whichever it is is a matter of opinion because neither of us knows what he meant. 

Let's see what the next few weeks bring, and I include the forthcoming League Cup performances in that.

Considering that reality, probably nothing to add here.

I’ll take your last statement. Cup performances don’t matter a jot if we proceed through the group stage. For many, not a great barometer of where we’ll be the month after.

[Yorkyred]

7 hours ago, steelboy said:

Aye but looking at it like that the likes of Maguire and Shields could be thinking sit tight and block new bodies coming in and they'll be in the match day squad come September. 

I think we’re past that point and they both know it. They need to be playing first team games and it’s going to be limited at Motherwell as neither are quite up to Premiership level.

[FirParkCornerExile]

10 hours ago, Yorkyred said:

I think we’re past that point and they both know it. They need to be playing first team games and it’s going to be limited at Motherwell as neither are quite up to Premiership level.

Exactly. 

[David]

8 hours ago, Yorkyred said:

I think we’re past that point and they both know it. They need to be playing first team games and it’s going to be limited at Motherwell as neither are quite up to Premiership level.

Regarding Shields in particular, it all depends on the players we bring in being closer to Premiership level than he is. I'm thinking when the window "slams shut" we'll have signed more than a few unknown commodities who could either succeed or be dismal failures.

It could end up being that Shields has more of a chance if the new players aren't quite up to scratch. 

[weeyin]

This is what we're competing against with players like Johnston
 

Quote

 

England had looked to be the Scottish Football Writers’ young player of the year’s next destination but Graz have thrown their hat firmly in the ring with a full-on sales pitch. The Austrian side has offered a lucrative five figure deal-a-week wage on a four year contract and offered to make him one of their top earners.

Graz officials have also made it clear that Johnston would be a key first-team players and they can also offer the additional carrot of European football.

 

For all this talk about "protecting our investment" you know his agent was telling him "just wait and I'll guarantee you a big move"

[Coatsy]

17 minutes ago, weeyin said:

This is what we're competing against with players like Johnston
 

For all this talk about "protecting our investment" you know his agent was telling him "just wait and I'll guarantee you a big move"

Was his agent saying that last year when he was farmed out to Cove?

[Stuwell2]

I understand the principle of the one off development fee or going for a sell on fee instead but I seem to recall a story a few years back about an a mature team from Aberdeenshire getting something like &100k for a player who they had as a kid who had been picked up by a pro club who in turn sold him on to an English club before they then sold him on again for big money and this was where the £100k came from. In short this makes me think that potentially we get some cash - all be it small amounts - every time the player is transferred. 

[santheman]

20 minutes ago, Stuwell2 said:

I understand the principle of the one off development fee or going for a sell on fee instead but I seem to recall a story a few years back about an a mature team from Aberdeenshire getting something like &100k for a player who they had as a kid who had been picked up by a pro club who in turn sold him on to an English club before they then sold him on again for big money and this was where the £100k came from. In short this makes me think that potentially we get some cash - all be it small amounts - every time the player is transferred. 

Sure I read somewhere that Accies received some kind of payment for James McCarthy every time he was transferred.

[David]

Just now, Coatsy said:

Was his agent saying that last year when he was farmed out to Cove?

Bearing in mind he was "farmed out" to gain experience and not because he was rubbish, I'd say so, yeah. 

I think he's always been earmarked as one of the players who could make the breakthrough, and in this day and age any player who has anything about them would need to be an absolute mug to sign anything that ties them down to a deal they could easily improve upon a few years later.

There's every chance if there was a sizeable fee involved he wouldn't be seeing the kind of interest and financial packages he's being offered at present.