Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[Gianfranco]

What would be an acceptable fee ?

I’d guess north of 800k with a sizeable sell on fee.

[happyaccie]

Just now, Gianfranco said:

 

I’d guess north of 800k with a sizeable sell on fee.

 

Just checked how I worded my post and I said acceptable not unrealistic ffs.

[capt_oats]

1 hour ago, happyaccie said:

What would be an acceptable fee ?

 

49 minutes ago, Gianfranco said:

I’d guess north of 800k with a sizeable sell on fee.

 

After Hearts were laughed out the room with their £100k offer Robinson mentioned in a press conference that if Cadden was out of contract we'd be due about £650k in development fee. He may have embellished that number a bit but given we got £500k from Leeds for Erwin and £230k from Brighton for Hall (who had been at the Academy for less time) it doesn't seem too far off the mark for a player who will still be under 23 when his contract expires and having been developed through the Academy for the best part of a decade is now approaching 100 first team games.

Either way, if we're saying that out of contract Cadden's worth £650k to us in dev fee then with the greatest respect to Aberdeen I'd say he's going to be out their budget unless they're planning on revisiting the days of Paul Bernard level spending. Also I get the impression that, like Moult, Cadden will see his move from Motherwell as being straight to the English Championship rather than to another club in the same league.

I could see the club thinking that they might have a shot at £1m+ depending on who's interested but if a Championship club comes along with an £800k+ offer + sell on % and it was a move that would be good for Cadden's development and he was interested I wouldn't see us standing in his way.

Edit: I totally forgot we apparently kb'd £400k from Oxford for him on deadline day as well.

Edited January 22, 2018 by capt_oats

[capt_oats]

On 1/20/2018 at 23:43, Swello said:

It might be total shite - it was just one of the guys I sit near that told me - could well be fake news. If it turns out to be true - I'll delete this and look as if i'm ITK.

According to The Sun's interview with Hammell that just went up Bowman's got a fractured eye socket.

[Swello]

20 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

According to The Sun's interview with Hammell that just went up Bowman's got a fractured eye socket.

Close enough - ITK

Worst possible timing for Bowman with new strikers coming in as you would think it would also scupper his chances of a move (if there was ever a possibility of that) and leaves him in the cold while Main and Ciftci develop an understanding/get fit.

[happyaccie]

39 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

 

After Hearts were laughed out the room with their £100k offer Robinson mentioned in a press conference that if Cadden was out of contract we'd be due about £650k in development fee. He may have embellished that number a bit but given we got £500k from Leeds for Erwin and £230k from Brighton for Hall (who had been at the Academy for less time) it doesn't seem too far off the mark for a player who will still be under 23 when his contract expires and having been developed through the Academy for the best part of a decade is now approaching 100 first team games.

Either way, if we're saying that out of contract Cadden's worth £650k to us in dev fee then with the greatest respect to Aberdeen I'd say he's going to be out their budget unless they're planning on revisiting the days of Paul Bernard level spending. Also, I get the impression that, like Moult, Cadden will see his move from Motherwell as being straight to the English Championship rather than to another club in the same league.

I could see the club thinking that they might have a shot at £1m+ depending on who's interested but if a Championship club comes along with an £800k+ offer + sell on % and it was a move that would be good for Cadden's development and he was interested I wouldn't see us standing in his way.

I understand the compensation for player development is incorporated into any attainable fee, but the relevance of Paul Bernard and Moult in your post are slightly murking the actual fee which Cadden will achieve.

We all know that proven goalscorers fetch premium transfer fees, even ones which have entered the last few months of his contract, Motherwell as has previously been stated on here probably got the maximum fee possible for Moult. The current day market place is weak in Scotland but thriving down south. as you say Cadden in your opinion is most likely to head south if he is attracting interest from that area.But I take a pragmatic view of the valuations of players from the ScottishPremier league being suggested by fans of the clubs involved.

At the end of the day a players value is determined by that of a buying club, if for instance Preston were to come in with a bid of £500,000 for Cadden it would then be Motherwell's decision whether that's acceptable or not, if the bid was rejected and Preston then walked away that would give a clear indication into a player's value to a buying club.

I think that the market down south has also changed since the two James's left us, the fees we recieved were way in excess of what clubs are now prepared to pay for young lads from the Premiership.

With relation to both Cadden and Docherty at ours I feel both clubs although wishing for larger fees will eventually conclude deals in the £500,000 area with improved sell on clauses.

[Swello]

I think it's easy to over-estimate the value of your own players - but given the concrete examples (Hall and Erwin) of academy players that have gone down south for development fees - and the fact that we sold Ben Heneghan, a player of little pedigree and a year's service for £350k+ to the Championship- Cadden will almost certainly be out of Aberdeen's price range at this point in his contract which was the main point of this. It doesn't feel like a realistic prospect given where Aberdeen's limit was for arguably the best striker outside of the OF, where you would imagine they would be more likely to push the boat out.

The other fact is that in the transfers of Moult and Marvin Johnson, where we have raked in a 7-figure sum - the club has been very robust in kicking low-ball offers out (which historically hasn't been the case) - our approach where Cadden (and others) is involved can only be further bolstered by the fact that we are in a stronger financial position than we were a year ago..

[capt_oats]

56 minutes ago, Swello said:

I think it's easy to over-estimate the value of your own players - but given the concrete examples (Hall and Erwin) of academy players that have gone down south for development fees - and the fact that we sold Ben Heneghan, a player of little pedigree and a year's service for £350k+ to the Championship- Cadden will almost certainly be out of Aberdeen's price range at this point in his contract which was the main point of this. It doesn't feel like a realistic prospect given where Aberdeen's limit was for arguably the best striker outside of the OF, where you would imagine they would be more likely to push the boat out.

The other fact is that in the transfers of Moult and Marvin Johnson, where we have raked in a 7-figure sum - the club has been very robust in kicking low-ball offers out (which historically hasn't been the case) - our approach where Cadden (and others) is involved can only be further bolstered by the fact that we are in a stronger financial position than we were a year ago..

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

We've a rough idea of how much the player is worth at the end of his contract (£650k) then, assuming the player is happy at Motherwell and everything points to that being the case, we're not going to sell him for less than that. Us kicking a £400k bid from Oxford into touch backs that up to a point. It appears that the preference from the club's point of view is that they'd rather get another season and a half out the player and bank the development fee money than sell him for an equivalent amount just now. Which is fair enough IMO.

Of course it's entirely possible we could end up in a Sibbald style situation where no one's willing to pay what's owed and the outcome is that the player signs on for another season. Again, I'm reasonably sure the club would be happy enough to retain the player's services in that scenario.

Aberdeen's record signing is (as far as I'm aware) still Paul Bernard for £1m in 1995. Last summer they maxed out at £350k + £50k add-on for Moult (an amount we've already knocked back for Cadden from Oxford last deadline day). That being the case, it seems unlikely that they'll be in a position to make an offer that would incentivise Motherwell to sell a key player, which Cadden is, to a league rival. We ended up getting more for Moult from Preston with 6 months on his deal than Aberdeen were apparently willing to offer for the player with a full year to run.

None of that is a dig at Aberdeen but it kind of points to why Cadden seems a pretty unrealistic target for them at the moment.

That's even before you factor in the money banked from the sales of Moult, Heneghan along with the Johnson sell on %. Not to mention the unbudgeted income from the LC run which was supposedly around £1m.

Edited January 22, 2018 by capt_oats

[happyaccie]

24 minutes ago, Swello said:

I think it's easy to over-estimate the value of your own players - but given the concrete examples (Hall and Erwin) of academy players that have gone down south for development fees - and the fact that we sold Ben Heneghan, a player of little pedigree and a year's service for £350k+ to the Championship- Cadden will almost certainly be out of Aberdeen's price range at this point in his contract which was the main point of this. It doesn't feel like a realistic prospect given where Aberdeen's limit was for arguably the best striker outside of the OF, where you would imagine they would be more likely to push the boat out.

The other fact is that in the transfers of Moult and Marvin Johnson, where we have raked in a 7-figure sum - the club has been very robust in kicking low-ball offers out (which historically hasn't been the case) - our approach where Cadden (and others) is involved can only be further bolstered by the fact that we are in a stronger financial position than we were a year ago..

Whilst being in a stronger financial position than last year, being prudent is still the byword most clubs need to pay heed to. The game in Scotland since the late 80s has been so up and down it has resulted in the loss of 4 of our professional clubs due to poor management of their finances.

Many more clubs have been impacted on in a negative way by poor finance management, irrespective of any clubs current financial health it would be foolish to employ im all right jack attitudes and refuse to increase the club's longevity by knocking back any reasonable bids for their players.

[happyaccie]

15 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

We've a rough idea of how much the player is worth at the end of his contract (£650k) then, assuming the player is happy at Motherwell and everything points to that being the case, we're not going to sell him for less than that. Us kicking a £400k bid from Oxford into touch suggests that. It appears that the preference from the club's point of view is that they'd rather get another season and a half out the player and bank the development fee money than sell him for an equivalent amount just now. Which is fair enough IMO.

Of course it's entirely possible we could end up in a Sibbald style situation where no one's willing to pay what's owed and the outcome is that the player signs on for another season. Again, I'm reasonably sure the club would be happy enough to retain the player's services in that scenario.

Aberdeen's record signing is (as far as I'm aware) still Paul Bernard for £1m in 1995. Last summer they maxed out at £350k + £50k add-on for Moult (an amount we've already knocked back for Cadden from Oxford last deadline day). That being the case, it seems unlikely that they'll be in a position to make an offer that would incentivise Motherwell to sell a key player, which Cadden is, to a league rival. We ended up getting more for Moult from Preston with 6 months on his deal than Aberdeen were apparently willing to offer for the player with a full year to run.

None of that is a dig at Aberdeen but it kind of points to why Cadden seems a pretty unrealistic target for them at the moment.

That's even before you factor in the money banked from the sales of Moult, Heneghan along with the Johnson sell on %. Not to mention the unbudgeted income from the LC run which was supposedly around £1m.

In the event the player remains at Motherwell, and Motherwell base any future fee on the development fee it could result in Cadden leaving for pennies, although I can't confirm this I believe any development fee does not apply once a player reaches a certain age, I have heard 22-23 being banded about with regard to this.

If this is actually the case I would imagine clubs like Motherwell & Accies are in no position to knock back acceptable offers prior to the player reaching the age that infringes on their value.

[thisGRAEME]

6 minutes ago, happyaccie said:

In the event the player remains at Motherwell, and Motherwell base any future fee on the development fee it could result in Cadden leaving for pennies, although I can't confirm this I believe any development fee does not apply once a player reaches a certain age, I have heard 22-23 being banded about with regard to this.

If this is actually the case I would imagine clubs like Motherwell & Accies are in no position to knock back acceptable offers prior to the player reaching the age that infringes on their value.

[YassinMoutaouakil]

41 minutes ago, happyaccie said:

Whilst being in a stronger financial position than last year, being prudent is still the byword most clubs need to pay heed to. The game in Scotland since the late 80s has been so up and down it has resulted in the loss of 4 of our professional clubs due to poor management of their finances.

Many more clubs have been impacted on in a negative way by poor finance management, irrespective of any clubs current financial health it would be foolish to employ im all right jack attitudes and refuse to increase the club's longevity by knocking back any reasonable bids for their players.

 

 

[WellView]

I was under the impression that Oxford offered £450,000 for Cadden and were knocked back? 

 

 

[RandomGuy.]

The overall deal for Cadden should break £1m.

We got £500k for MOH, and £1.2m for May who only had 12 months left. Cadden is far closer to May in terms of value due to age, experience, and what he's already achieved and achieving. 

[Busta Nut]

12 hours ago, happyaccie said:

Think you will find he will remain a registered player until his contract expires, I think his experience would be invaluable to the youngsters in the development squad.Reading between the lines of Hamell's retirement statement, I think he felt he didn't have the desire to subject his ageing body to the demands of first team football, and with Scott Leitch leaving his post it was an opportunity which became available at the right time.

You will see him registered until the 31st. Unless things change he's not allowed to be registered as Head of Academy and a player under the Project Brave Rules or some shite.

[happyaccie]

15 minutes ago, Busta Nut said:

You will see him registered until the 31st. Unless things change he's not allowed to be registered as Head of Academy and a player under the Project Brave Rules or some shite.

That is a new one on me then busta, I believe Imrie is heavily involved in our youth set up but remains a contracted and registered player, I think this maybe a breach of European employment law and as these laws have yet to be repealed then there should be no reason for Hamell's playing registration to be revoked to allow him to take up his appointed post.

[thisGRAEME]

12 minutes ago, happyaccie said:

That is a new one on me then busta, I believe Imrie is heavily involved in our youth set up but remains a contracted and registered player, I think this maybe a breach of European employment law and as these laws have yet to be repealed then there should be no reason for Hamell's playing registration to be revoked to allow him to take up his appointed post.

[YassinMoutaouakil]

14 minutes ago, happyaccie said:

That is a new one on me then busta, I believe Imrie is heavily involved in our youth set up but remains a contracted and registered player

Debatable 

[Busta Nut]

32 minutes ago, happyaccie said:

That is a new one on me then busta, I believe Imrie is heavily involved in our youth set up but remains a contracted and registered player, I think this maybe a breach of European employment law and as these laws have yet to be repealed then there should be no reason for Hamell's playing registration to be revoked to allow him to take up his appointed post.

The Project brave stuff has to have so many FULL TIME employees in place. Hammell canny do this one part time.

 

[happyaccie]

6 hours ago, Busta Nut said:

The Project brave stuff has to have so many FULL TIME employees in place. Hammell canny do this one part time.

 

Don't think that would infringe on the club retaining his registration till the end of his contract.