Are Motherwell Entertaining?

[FirParkCornerExile]

On 1/13/2025 at 5:27 PM, Kmcalpin said:

I agree with some of your points. In terms of attendances last season, yes, we were 10th. In terms of averages, St Johnstone were 1,200 below us, Kilmarnock about 800 above us; and St Mirren about 900 above us. If St Mirren have a poor season(or average for them)  then watch their attendances drop.  Yes, Falkirk does have quite a big support but teams winning the Championship generally do.  If the Grangemouth petrochemical complex closes then watch their crowds plummet.  Its always dangerous to quote one off figures, but our attendance against Aberdeen was badly affected by the weather that day.

We are a bottom 6 club in the pecking order; but still one of Scotland's biggest clubs. Success for me this season will be 7th or 8th place, as that represents progress compared to last season and I agree with your general point about a top 6 finish. 

In terms of turnover, I don't know how St Johnstone do it. Yes, they cashed in on a dream move to McDiarmid Park but now "only" have £2.8m of that windfall left in the bank. In their most recent set of accounts, they achieved a turnover of over £6m with smaller crowds than us and no transfer income. They do have a thriving hopsitlaity stream but that wouldn't account for huge sums. 

I'm quite content to see us win and pick up points.  Personally I'd be quite happy to for us to emulate Jim MacLean's Dundee United. 20% possession, 2 shots on goal, 1 goal scored and none conceded. In an ideal world I'd like to see us play open attacking football but that isn't always possible.    

I doubt St J have any windfall from moving to McDiarmid Park, they move there 35 years ago!!! They were gifted the land and a supermarket built their ground. They didn't get a cash windfall that would last 35 years. Geoff Brown invested a ton of money into them. They also won two domestic cups in one season. 

[joewarkfanclub]

Dundee showed tonight how to play counter attack from very low levels of possession.

Keeping it on the ground and playing into feet is the key.

If only we had a rapid diminutive player who was great with the ball at his feet......

[FirParkCornerExile]

18 minutes ago, joewarkfanclub said:

Dundee showed tonight how to play counter attack from very low levels of possession.

Keeping it on the ground and playing into feet is the key.

If only we had a rapid diminutive player who was great with the ball at his feet......

I was going to post the same and they did the same against Rangers but knew I'd get the " we played well against Rangers" as the counter argument and that's not really the point. It was the style of play they adopt and they don't just play like thst against the OF they have a recognised style of play that suits them and even when they don't win you can see what they are trying to do. That's my issue with many of our games I have no clue what it is SK is trying to do. So much of it is blooter it long, lose possession rinse and repeat. I could even accept the long ball game if we had a target man who regularly wins the ball and lays it off allowing us to follow up and attack but we don't so why the fuck do we play like that. I remember the Wimbledon team of the 80s they got dogs abuse for playing the long ball game but they were bloody good at it they had big target men who could muscle the opposition of the ball and win the second ball and yes that long ball game could be entertaining. Compare that to the aimless / pointless shite we play. We play a style that we do not have the players who can make it work so why the fuck do we percivere with it.  Add to that we have a powder puff midfield, who when they do win the ball are utterly devoid of doing anything with it. Davor runs about like a headless chicken, and Andy Halliday is far too casual by far. So all in all I just don't get what SK is trying to do. 

[David]

12 hours ago, grizzlyg said:

Just my view but I think this has been covered enough now.  Let's now focus on Saturday.....any win will do as Joseph sang about his technicolour dreamcoat

So you’ve posted in the thread titled "Are Motherwell Entertaining?" only to propose that we abandon the discussion and focus instead on Saturday’s match—which already has its own thread?

The whole point of having multiple threads is to allow for different discussions to take place 😆

[grizzlyg]

4 hours ago, David said:

So you’ve posted in the thread titled "Are Motherwell Entertaining?" only to propose that we abandon the discussion and focus instead on Saturday’s match—which already has its own thread?

The whole point of having multiple threads is to allow for different discussions to take place 😆

OK, that's me telt.    Hold on while I go and try and find my nose 🤪

[David]

37 minutes ago, grizzlyg said:

OK, that's me telt.    Hold on while I go and try and find my nose 🤪

😂

[wellgirl]

16 hours ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

I hate watching Motherwell this season. Most of our games are aimless games of hoofball. Wouldn't even be so bad if we won the ball but all it does is give the ball away and keeps us on the back foot. Despite early promising signs this season we still do not have a good defence and our mind numbing style of play will always ensure we concede goals. I'm not expecting us to be world beaters but we have a bigger squad than we've had in years, we have a squad that's as good (or bad) as half the league but I seriously think we play the worst style of football. Sure the happy clappers will say we are 5th but unless we start playing a different formation /style  that will very quickly turn to "yeah but we are 6th, yeah but we are 7th, yeah but we are 8th"

I agree with you that we have a squad as good as any other in the league but we've also been battered by injuries. It can't help when you can't play a consistent team - I also get that we aren't the only club in this position but - someone can correct me if I'm wrong - we've probably played quite defensively for some time now, although looking at our placing in the table last year we scored a decent amount of goals and let in almost as many. I think part of the issue is that we didn't replace Spittal effectively although I completely get that you aren't just going to get a like for like player. Bair moved on and we don't yet have a consistent goal scorer. We've had important players out too as I'm sure you don't need me to tell you. Miller. McGinn. Slattery. Gordon. Now Ox. 

As a self confessed "happy clapper" of course I want to see my team do well - I personally think we should be challenging for top 6 - but I'll stand by saying I think survival is the most important thing 

I don't want to see us in free fall either - but hopefully if we get a couple of good signings in the transfer window it might stop the decline. 

It doesn't help that we are competing in a market with teams who can offer better terms 

[thewelllfan]

I think that in order to play a more attractive style we'd need better recruitment. Like I don't know if it's just me but other than Mcginn who's constantly injured none of our Cbs can consistently play a ball that breaks lines through midfield as well as Ox who never looks comfortable with the ball, so to counter this we go long. It's not the most entertaining to watch but it's the most effective for the skillsets of the players we have. We also don't have a big striker that can make the ball stick and it just results in lots of cheap turnovers.

I think in order to get better we'd have to develop patterns that allow us to build out. Like the CCB stepping into midfield when we have the ball with the GK like Butcher did for a period of time before his legs went with the 2 WCBs splitting to outnumber the press. But trying to develop this mid-season will 100% result in us conceding goals from mistakes playing out similar to the Hammell era. 

With the signing of Andrews and Slattery returning we now have 4 Cms capable of handling the ball and progressing it. Andrews. Slattery, Miller, Paton which should help us create more chances and maybe reduce the need to play long as often.

With Sparrow, Halliday and Davor all probably being better at recycling it than progressing.

Down the right I actually think we build the game relativley okay with Kaleta and even SOD in the early games of the season. Down the left is where we struggle.

Once the ball gets to Stam and Maswanhise I think both have been decent chipping in with Goals and assists it just has to get there more often. Watt been okay in spells and as I said earlier in the season Robinson was extremely useful in getting us up the pitch.

Now we have to recruit a LWB and a Striker with a bit more of a presence ideally in the mould of Moult or KVV where they are physical with a bit of mobility.

If he was given these things as well as maybe a ball player at CB we should in theory become easier on the eye.

[FirParkCornerExile]

4 hours ago, wellgirl said:

I agree with you that we have a squad as good as any other in the league but we've also been battered by injuries. It can't help when you can't play a consistent team - I also get that we aren't the only club in this position but - someone can correct me if I'm wrong - we've probably played quite defensively for some time now, although looking at our placing in the table last year we scored a decent amount of goals and let in almost as many. I think part of the issue is that we didn't replace Spittal effectively although I completely get that you aren't just going to get a like for like player. Bair moved on and we don't yet have a consistent goal scorer. We've had important players out too as I'm sure you don't need me to tell you. Miller. McGinn. Slattery. Gordon. Now Ox. 

As a self confessed "happy clapper" of course I want to see my team do well - I personally think we should be challenging for top 6 - but I'll stand by saying I think survival is the most important thing 

I don't want to see us in free fall either - but hopefully if we get a couple of good signings in the transfer window it might stop the decline. 

It doesn't help that we are competing in a market with teams who can offer better terms 

The competing with teams who a pay more is overblown. SureSt Mirren and Killie have bigger crows but jesus christ it's in the hundreds not in the thousands. A decent commercial side, small gains in the transfer market and running slightly smaller squad should able to negate most of that advantage. We have 4 teams that we should be able to compete with financially and that's Killie, St Mirren, Ross County and St Johnstone. To suggest otherwise is over egging it. 

[wellfan]

Kettlewell is almost 2 years into the job and currently into his fourth transfer window, yet it’s still not clear to me what type of team he’s trying to build.

Other than the often-cited hoofball tactic, and considering the ‘entertainment’ on show across the past 2 years, this Motherwell team lacks any sort of notable style or identity.

[wellgirl]

55 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

The competing with teams who a pay more is overblown. SureSt Mirren and Killie have bigger crows but jesus christ it's in the hundreds not in the thousands. A decent commercial side, small gains in the transfer market and running slightly smaller squad should able to negate most of that advantage. We have 4 teams that we should be able to compete with financially and that's Killie, St Mirren, Ross County and St Johnstone. To suggest otherwise is over egging it. 

I don't agree. Not to do with the crowds. To do with the budget and what we can afford to spend on players. Just because they have slightly bigger crowds doesn't mean we have similar budgets to spend on players - both Killie and St Mirren priced us out of going for KVV - Killie had over a thousand fans more than us over last season - but I don't think crowds translate to budgets - they both offered twice what we did for KVV - if you have someone prepared to pay from their own pocket to sign a striker like Killie did with Kev the fact that we have similar crowds is irrelevant 

[FirParkCornerExile]

2 hours ago, wellgirl said:

I don't agree. Not to do with the crowds. To do with the budget and what we can afford to spend on players. Just because they have slightly bigger crowds doesn't mean we have similar budgets to spend on players - both Killie and St Mirren priced us out of going for KVV - Killie had over a thousand fans more than us over last season - but I don't think crowds translate to budgets - they both offered twice what we did for KVV - if you have someone prepared to pay from their own pocket to sign a striker like Killie did with Kev the fact that we have similar crowds is irrelevant 

We could have paid KVV what he was asking for, to suggest we couldn't is nonsense.  Kilmarnock paid him £7 grand a week for 20 weeks £140,000, a Kilmarnock Director was willing to pay that from his own money, thankfully we dont have any idiots whod do that...... we spent more than that to bring Stamma in. So its not that we dont have access to money but we wisely chose not to pay KVV that money cos he wasn't worth it . If you think St Mirren and Kilmarnock pay vastly greater wages you are wrong. 

 

Last published Accounts online and at companies house to 2023

Motherwells staff costs were £5.2 million 

St Mirrens staff costs were £3.82 million 

Kilmarnocks staff costs were £3.71 million

St Johnstones staff costs were £3.96 million

Going forward this scenario will ebb and flow as I expect with both St Mirren Kilmarnock getting into Europe the bonuses would be better whilst we ended up bottom half but on basic salaries its just not true these clubs pay far more than us.. Although Motherwell do love to whinge how they have the lowest budget ibn the league...   

[0Neils40yarder]

9 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

We could have paid KVV what he was asking for, to suggest we couldn't is nonsense.  Kilmarnock paid him £7 grand a week for 20 weeks £140,000 .. we spent more than that to bring Stamma in. We wisely chose not to pay KVV that money cos he wasn't worth it . If you think St Mirren and Kilmarnock pay vastly greater wages you are wrong. 

 

Last published Accounts online and at companies house to 2023

Motherwells staff costs were £5.2 million 

St Mirrens staff costs were £3.82 million 

Kilmarnocks staff costs were £3.71 million

St Johnstones staff costs were £3.96 million

Going forward this scenario will ebb and flow as I expect with both St Mirren Kilmarnock getting into Europe the bonuses would be better whilst we ended up bottom half but on basic salaries its just not true these clubs pay far more than us.. Although Motherwell do love to whinge how they have the lowest budget ibn the league...   

Cannae beat facts

[David]

19 hours ago, thewelllfan said:

Now we have to recruit a LWB and a Striker with a bit more of a presence ideally in the mould of Moult or KVV where they are physical with a bit of mobility.

If he was given these things as well as maybe a ball player at CB we should in theory become easier on the eye.

It goes without saying that the club would love nothing more than to dive into the transfer market and secure a top-quality left wing-back with similar attributes to Kaleta on the opposite side, for instance, as well as a striker in the mould of Moult or Van Veen.

If such players were available, affordable, and interested in joining Motherwell, there’s no doubt we’d pursue them, just as we have done successfully in the past. However, the reality is that the market largely dictates our options. We operate within a specific bracket of the transfer market during both the summer and January windows, where our focus is on identifying players who meet our criteria, fit within our wage structure, and, most critically, are willing to make the move to Motherwell. This typically means they have a personal reason for relocating to this part of Scotland, they’re coming on loan with their parent club viewing the move as beneficial to their development, or they don’t have stronger offers from elsewhere.

The challenge arises when these opportunities aren’t materialising during a particular window. What then? While we’ve managed to recruit quality players in the past, it often requires everything falling perfectly into place to make it happen.

14 hours ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

The competing with teams who a pay more is overblown.

The reality is, not only are we holding our own against teams that often have the means to spend more on players, but we’re actually outperforming them more often than not.

In the past five seasons, Kilmarnock have only finished above us in the league once. St Mirren have managed it twice, St Johnstone once, and Ross County haven’t done so at all. And this season so far? Not a single one of those teams is ahead of us in the table.

12 hours ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

We could have paid KVV what he was asking for, to suggest we couldn't is nonsense.  Kilmarnock paid him £7 grand a week for 20 weeks £140,000, a Kilmarnock Director was willing to pay that from his own money, thankfully we dont have any idiots whod do that...... we spent more than that to bring Stamma in. So its not that we dont have access to money but we wisely chose not to pay KVV that money cos he wasn't worth it .

Transfer fees often involve structured payment plans, with specific milestones triggering additional payments. In many cases, these fees are spread over several years. The expectation is usually that the investment will yield returns, whether through the player’s on-field contributions or future sell-on potential – especially when signing a 25-year-old with resale value.

Wages, however, are a completely different matter. For a start, bringing in a player on a significantly higher salary than anyone else at the club can create tension within the squad. It also establishes a benchmark that complicates future contract negotiations.

As for your point about Van Veen, you suggest we could have matched his wage demands. Surely, by that logic, Kilmarnock could have done the same, couldn’t they? If so, why did a director have to personally contribute from his own funds?

12 hours ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

Last published Accounts online and at companies house to 2023

Motherwells staff costs were £5.2 million 

St Mirrens staff costs were £3.82 million 

Kilmarnocks staff costs were £3.71 million

St Johnstones staff costs were £3.96 million

Do the reported staff costs include all club employees or just the playing staff? I wonder if they also account for payments made to the various managers we've had in the year or so leading up to those accounts, along with their coaching teams and associated costs.

As with most things, it’s not a straightforward matter. What’s frustrating is that if many of our supporters had their way, we’d constantly be paying out to replace managers and coaching staff, which would only serve to keep our staff expenses consistently high.

[wellgirl]

3 minutes ago, David said:

It goes without saying that the club would love nothing more than to dive into the transfer market and secure a top-quality left wing-back with similar attributes to Kaleta on the opposite side, for instance, as well as a striker in the mould of Moult or Van Veen.

If such players were available, affordable, and interested in joining Motherwell, there’s no doubt we’d pursue them, just as we have done successfully in the past. However, the reality is that the market largely dictates our options. We operate within a specific bracket of the transfer market during both the summer and January windows, where our focus is on identifying players who meet our criteria, fit within our wage structure, and, most critically, are willing to make the move to Motherwell. This typically means they have a personal reason for relocating to this part of Scotland, they’re coming on loan with their parent club viewing the move as beneficial to their development, or they don’t have stronger offers from elsewhere.

The challenge arises when these opportunities aren’t materialising during a particular window. What then? While we’ve managed to recruit quality players in the past, it often requires everything falling perfectly into place to make it happen.

The reality is, not only are we holding our own against teams that often have the means to spend more on players, but we’re actually outperforming them more often than not.

In the past five seasons, Kilmarnock have only finished above us in the league once. St Mirren have managed it twice, St Johnstone once, and Ross County haven’t done so at all. And this season so far? Not a single one of those teams is ahead of us in the table.

Transfer fees often involve structured payment plans, with specific milestones triggering additional payments. In many cases, these fees are spread over several years. The expectation is usually that the investment will yield returns, whether through the player’s on-field contributions or future sell-on potential – especially when signing a 25-year-old with resale value.

Wages, however, are a completely different matter. For a start, bringing in a player on a significantly higher salary than anyone else at the club can create tension within the squad. It also establishes a benchmark that complicates future contract negotiations.

As for your point about Van Veen, you suggest we could have matched his wage demands. Surely, by that logic, Kilmarnock could have done the same, couldn’t they? If so, why did a director have to personally contribute from his own funds?

Do the reported staff costs include all club employees or just the playing staff? I wonder if they also account for payments made to the various managers we've had in the year or so leading up to those accounts, along with their coaching teams and associated costs.

As with most things, it’s not a straightforward matter. What’s frustrating is that if many of our supporters had their way, we’d constantly be paying out to replace managers and coaching staff, which would only serve to keep our staff expenses consistently high.

All club expenses - including paying off of former managers, bonuses for getting into Europe and match day staff I believe. 

[FirParkCornerExile]

27 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

All club expenses - including paying off of former managers, bonuses for getting into Europe and match day staff I believe. 

..

 

31 minutes ago, David said:

It goes without saying that the club would love nothing more than to dive into the transfer market and secure a top-quality left wing-back with similar attributes to Kaleta on the opposite side, for instance, as well as a striker in the mould of Moult or Van Veen.

If such players were available, affordable, and interested in joining Motherwell, there’s no doubt we’d pursue them, just as we have done successfully in the past. However, the reality is that the market largely dictates our options. We operate within a specific bracket of the transfer market during both the summer and January windows, where our focus is on identifying players who meet our criteria, fit within our wage structure, and, most critically, are willing to make the move to Motherwell. This typically means they have a personal reason for relocating to this part of Scotland, they’re coming on loan with their parent club viewing the move as beneficial to their development, or they don’t have stronger offers from elsewhere.

The challenge arises when these opportunities aren’t materialising during a particular window. What then? While we’ve managed to recruit quality players in the past, it often requires everything falling perfectly into place to make it happen.

The reality is, not only are we holding our own against teams that often have the means to spend more on players, but we’re actually outperforming them more often than not.

In the past five seasons, Kilmarnock have only finished above us in the league once. St Mirren have managed it twice, St Johnstone once, and Ross County haven’t done so at all. And this season so far? Not a single one of those teams is ahead of us in the table.

Transfer fees often involve structured payment plans, with specific milestones triggering additional payments. In many cases, these fees are spread over several years. The expectation is usually that the investment will yield returns, whether through the player’s on-field contributions or future sell-on potential – especially when signing a 25-year-old with resale value.

Wages, however, are a completely different matter. For a start, bringing in a player on a significantly higher salary than anyone else at the club can create tension within the squad. It also establishes a benchmark that complicates future contract negotiations.

As for your point about Van Veen, you suggest we could have matched his wage demands. Surely, by that logic, Kilmarnock could have done the same, couldn’t they? If so, why did a director have to personally contribute from his own funds?

Do the reported staff costs include all club employees or just the playing staff? I wonder if they also account for payments made to the various managers we've had in the year or so leading up to those accounts, along with their coaching teams and associated costs.

As with most things, it’s not a straightforward matter. What’s frustrating is that if many of our supporters had their way, we’d constantly be paying out to replace managers and coaching staff, which would only serve to keep our staff expenses consistently high.

.  

[FirParkCornerExile]

1 hour ago, David said:

It goes without saying that the club would love nothing more than to dive into the transfer market and secure a top-quality left wing-back with similar attributes to Kaleta on the opposite side, for instance, as well as a striker in the mould of Moult or Van Veen.

If such players were available, affordable, and interested in joining Motherwell, there’s no doubt we’d pursue them, just as we have done successfully in the past. However, the reality is that the market largely dictates our options. We operate within a specific bracket of the transfer market during both the summer and January windows, where our focus is on identifying players who meet our criteria, fit within our wage structure, and, most critically, are willing to make the move to Motherwell. This typically means they have a personal reason for relocating to this part of Scotland, they’re coming on loan with their parent club viewing the move as beneficial to their development, or they don’t have stronger offers from elsewhere.

The challenge arises when these opportunities aren’t materialising during a particular window. What then? While we’ve managed to recruit quality players in the past, it often requires everything falling perfectly into place to make it happen.

The reality is, not only are we holding our own against teams that often have the means to spend more on players, but we’re actually outperforming them more often than not.

In the past five seasons, Kilmarnock have only finished above us in the league once. St Mirren have managed it twice, St Johnstone once, and Ross County haven’t done so at all. And this season so far? Not a single one of those teams is ahead of us in the table.

Transfer fees often involve structured payment plans, with specific milestones triggering additional payments. In many cases, these fees are spread over several years. The expectation is usually that the investment will yield returns, whether through the player’s on-field contributions or future sell-on potential – especially when signing a 25-year-old with resale value.

Wages, however, are a completely different matter. For a start, bringing in a player on a significantly higher salary than anyone else at the club can create tension within the squad. It also establishes a benchmark that complicates future contract negotiations.

As for your point about Van Veen, you suggest we could have matched his wage demands. Surely, by that logic, Kilmarnock could have done the same, couldn’t they? If so, why did a director have to personally contribute from his own funds?

Do the reported staff costs include all club employees or just the playing staff? I wonder if they also account for payments made to the various managers we've had in the year or so leading up to those accounts, along with their coaching teams and associated costs.

As with most things, it’s not a straightforward matter. What’s frustrating is that if many of our supporters had their way, we’d constantly be paying out to replace managers and coaching staff, which would only serve to keep our staff expenses consistently high.

You raise many points which can open up into other discussions but do confirm that we do compete with them and had this mythical gulf been so great we certainly wouldn't have out performed them.. 

In relation to some people assertion that the financial gulf between us and 4 or 5 other teams is a severe one , I don't agree , its over blown. That's not to say it never will be if the Well society don't realise their plans to increase or income streams and attendances. 

The staffing costs are the staffing costs and we paid them. You are correct its not straightforward, that's why I said these figures will ebb and flow season to season because clubs will come into funds and have reduced funds depending on the season they have.  Before anyone pipes up I know we ran a deficit in 2023, so did St Mirren, so did Kilmarnock. Kilmarnock's even bigger than ours at £1.9 million.

As for KVV he cost Kilmarnock £140,000 for 6 months. Why the Kilmarnock Director personally funded it is their business, maybe because they were running a £1.9 million pound loss!! . If Motherwell had had an urgent unexpected bill for £200,000 is anyone seriously saying we couldn't have paid for it. Of course we could, so to suggest we couldn't have raised £140,000 to pay for KVV is nonsense. We made a sound financial decision not to sign him. Any club can make stupid irrational signings if they wish. Had the club desperately wanted him they could have raised the money , would have been a crazy decision but they could do it. Christ the Well Society is sitting on £750,000 the club could have asked them had they been so desperate to get him. 

Anyway much of the argument - I realise you are not of the opinion we cant compete - but for those who do think that,  we are arguing about hairs on a bald mans head. For people to suggest we cant compete with RC , Kilmarnock, St Mirren and St Johnstone because they pay far bigger wages is nonsense, albeit the way Motherwell moan you'd think Albion Rovers could give us a run for our money financially.

ALL the clubs discussed are mid ranking teams of a similar size who compete on pretty much a level playing field.

Finally going by the logic offered in the argument that we cant compete financially with clubs mentioned,  that means Hibs cant compete with Hearts , is anyone seriously suggesting that's the case?

[David]

6 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

To suggest we cant compete with RC , Kilmarnock, St Mirren and St Johnstone because they pay far bigger wages is nonsense.  

Did you see where I said the following?

40 minutes ago, David said:

In the past five seasons, Kilmarnock have only finished above us in the league once. St Mirren have managed it twice, St Johnstone once, and Ross County haven’t done so at all. And this season so far? Not a single one of those teams is ahead of us in the table.

So we are competing. And more often than not, we're bettering them.

[FirParkCornerExile]

Just now, David said:

Did you see where I said the following?

So we are competing. And more often than not, we're bettering them.

Apologies I amended my reply to you. I was looking at Wellgirls reply at the time.   

[wellgirl]

2 hours ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

You raise many points which can open up into other discussions but do confirm that we do compete with them and had this mythical gulf been so great we certainly wouldn't have out performed them.. 

In relation to some people assertion that the financial gulf between us and 4 or 5 other teams is a severe one , I don't agree , its over blown. That's not to say it never will be if the Well society don't realise their plans to increase or income streams and attendances. 

The staffing costs are the staffing costs and we paid them. You are correct its not straightforward, that's why I said these figures will ebb and flow season to season because clubs will come into funds and have reduced funds depending on the season they have.  Before anyone pipes up I know we ran a deficit in 2023, so did St Mirren, so did Kilmarnock. Kilmarnock's even bigger than ours at £1.9 million.

As for KVV he cost Kilmarnock £140,000 for 6 months. Why the Kilmarnock Director personally funded it is their business, maybe because they were running a £1.9 million pound loss!! . If Motherwell had had an urgent unexpected bill for £200,000 is anyone seriously saying we couldn't have paid for it. Of course we could, so to suggest we couldn't have raised £140,000 to pay for KVV is nonsense. We made a sound financial decision not to sign him. Any club can make stupid irrational signings if they wish. Had the club desperately wanted him they could have raised the money , would have been a crazy decision but they could do it. Christ the Well Society is sitting on £750,000 the club could have asked them had they been so desperate to get him. 

Anyway much of the argument - I realise you are not of the opinion we cant compete - but for those who do think that,  we are arguing about hairs on a bald mans head. For people to suggest we cant compete with RC , Kilmarnock, St Mirren and St Johnstone because they pay far bigger wages is nonsense, albeit the way Motherwell moan you'd think Albion Rovers could give us a run for our money financially.

ALL the clubs discussed are mid ranking teams of a similar size who compete on pretty much a level playing field.

Finally going by the logic offered in the argument that we cant compete financially with clubs mentioned,  that means Hibs cant compete with Hearts , is anyone seriously suggesting that's the case?

I made a comment about us competing in a market where other teams could offer better terms. That's all I said. I used the example of Van Veen -(note to self completely wrong example) absolutely we made the right decision not to sign him at that point. 

 I'm aware of our league position but the reality is is that if Killie can offer 20 per cent more than us in wages as someone else suggested - even if that translated to 1k or 2k a week we are going to lose out on players we want to other clubs of a similar size.

That's just reality and obviously it is swings and roundabouts as well - we operate in the loan market and try and develop young players. 

It's completely fine to disagree and have opinions surely without people having to be proved wrong for expressing them. 

[David]

1 hour ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

Apologies I amended my reply to you. I was looking at Wellgirls reply at the time.

No worries, it happens to us all at some point, the discussions are so back & forth it's easy to do.

1 hour ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

In relation to some people assertion that the financial gulf between us and 4 or 5 other teams is a severe one , I don't agree , its over blown. That's not to say it never will be if the Well society don't realise their plans to increase or income streams and attendances. 

While I wouldn’t describe it as "severe," I do believe the issue of ownership plays a role. I’m as much of a supporter of our fan ownership model as anyone—of course, I am—but it does impact our ability to compete with clubs that are backed by wealthy owners or majority shareholders. That’s simply the reality of the situation. I’m not complaining about it, particularly since, in the main, we’ve outperformed those clubs where it truly counts—on the pitch.

As we’ve seen, spending more on players doesn’t necessarily guarantee success. However, it’s undeniable that if a club has greater financial resources and uses them wisely, it’s more likely to achieve better results than those with less funds at their disposal.

That said, our recent track record shows we’re actually doing quite well against the clubs around us, for the most part.

1 hour ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

The staffing costs are the staffing costs and we paid them. You are correct its not straightforward, that's why I said these figures will ebb and flow season to season because clubs will come into funds and have reduced funds depending on the season they have.  Before anyone pipes up I know we ran a deficit in 2023, so did St Mirren, so did Kilmarnock. Kilmarnock's even bigger than ours at £1.9 million.

Do bear in mind that having higher staffing costs doesn’t automatically mean we’re paying, or even in a position to pay, more in player wages or transfer fees compared to the other clubs you’ve mentioned.

On the deficits you’ve pointed out, it’s worth highlighting the role ownership plays in that. For instance, a club like Kilmarnock benefits from Billy Bowie, who has the ability to dip into his own resources to cover such shortfalls. We, on the other hand, don’t have that luxury, which is precisely why we need to be cautious about overextending ourselves on player salaries. It’s vital to ensure we avoid putting the club at risk of financial difficulties.

2 hours ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

As for KVV he cost Kilmarnock £140,000 for 6 months. Why the Kilmarnock Director personally funded it is their business, maybe because they were running a £1.9 million pound loss!! . If Motherwell had had an urgent unexpected bill for £200,000 is anyone seriously saying we couldn't have paid for it. Of course we could, so to suggest we couldn't have raised £140,000 to pay for KVV is nonsense. We made a sound financial decision not to sign him. Any club can make stupid irrational signings if they wish. Had the club desperately wanted him they could have raised the money , would have been a crazy decision but they could do it. Christ the Well Society is sitting on £750,000 the club could have asked them had they been so desperate to get him. 

There’s a distinction to be made between an unforeseen, urgent expense and choosing to commit to a cost for a player when it isn’t a necessity, isn’t there? And while it’s true that the Society has funds in reserve, I’m not entirely convinced the board would have been willing to allocate as much as £140,000 of members’ contributions to fund the wages of a player we'd only have at the club on loan.

2 hours ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

Finally going by the logic offered in the argument that we cant compete financially with clubs mentioned,  that means Hibs cant compete with Hearts , is anyone seriously suggesting that's the case?

I’m not entirely sure about the situation with Hibs and Hearts, to be honest. However, when it comes to us and other clubs in a similar position, I believe it largely comes down to the financial support that owners or majority shareholders at those clubs can offer. They often have that safety net to fall back on if needed, whereas we simply don’t have that luxury.

In a way, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. We’re forced to operate within our means, which is how it should be. Clubs that spend beyond their income tend to end up in serious trouble sooner or later—unless, of course, there’s someone willing to absorb the debts.

[wellgirl]

4 minutes ago, David said:

No worries, it happens to us all at some point, the discussions are so back & forth it's easy to do.

While I wouldn’t describe it as "severe," I do believe the issue of ownership plays a role. I’m as much of a supporter of our fan ownership model as anyone—of course, I am—but it does impact our ability to compete with clubs that are backed by wealthy owners or majority shareholders. That’s simply the reality of the situation. I’m not complaining about it, particularly since, in the main, we’ve outperformed those clubs where it truly counts—on the pitch.

As we’ve seen, spending more on players doesn’t necessarily guarantee success. However, it’s undeniable that if a club has greater financial resources and uses them wisely, it’s more likely to achieve better results than those with less funds at their disposal.

That said, our recent track record shows we’re actually doing quite well against the clubs around us, for the most part.

Do bear in mind that having higher staffing costs doesn’t automatically mean we’re paying, or even in a position to pay, more in player wages or transfer fees compared to the other clubs you’ve mentioned.

On the deficits you’ve pointed out, it’s worth highlighting the role ownership plays in that. For instance, a club like Kilmarnock benefits from Billy Bowie, who has the ability to dip into his own resources to cover such shortfalls. We, on the other hand, don’t have that luxury, which is precisely why we need to be cautious about overextending ourselves on player salaries. It’s vital to ensure we avoid putting the club at risk of financial difficulties.

There’s a distinction to be made between an unforeseen, urgent expense and choosing to commit to a cost for a player when it isn’t a necessity, isn’t there? And while it’s true that the Society has funds in reserve, I’m not entirely convinced the board would have been willing to allocate as much as £140,000 of members’ contributions to fund the wages of a player we'd only have at the club on loan.

I’m not entirely sure about the situation with Hibs and Hearts, to be honest. However, when it comes to us and other clubs in a similar position, I believe it largely comes down to the financial support that owners or majority shareholders at those clubs can offer. They often have that safety net to fall back on if needed, whereas we simply don’t have that luxury.

In a way, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. We’re forced to operate within our means, which is how it should be. Clubs that spend beyond their income tend to end up in serious trouble sooner or later—unless, of course, there’s someone willing to absorb the debts.

Absolutely - being fan owned is obviously a reason why we operate under certain conditions (not suggesting that it's a bad thing). Dundee ran up almost a 3 million pound loss to get promoted - maintaining wages when turnover dropped. 

The only concern I have right now is with the injury list (believe it's 9 now) and how we maintain our league position given these issues. Right now it would be good to have a safety net but we'll just need to see how the transfer window pans out.