Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[Archie McSquackle]

It's nothing new though, managers have always taken punts on players- some work, some don't. At certain points of Tommy McLean's tenure it seemed like Fir Park had a revolving door fitted to the players' entrance.

[Al B]

I think what works against us now is that we're less of a "draw" to a more special player.

What I mean by that is if you were a player that fancied themselves, could back it up, and wanted to showcase themselves up here, Hearts were in crisis/weren't around, Hibs were out of the league, United had imploded and were out of the league, Aberdeen weren't an attractive prospect, Kilmarnock were the shambles they always were before Sir Steve Clarke came in and made them a genuine attractive prospect.

4/5/6 seasons ago we'd have been the first choice above them all for a player like that (who wasn't quite at Celtic level), whereas now every single one of them would be ahead of us for a players signature, even if we did have the cash to spend.

[Swello]

8 minutes ago, Al B said:

I think what works against us now is that we're less of a "draw" to a more special player.

What I mean by that is if you were a player that fancied themselves, could back it up, and wanted to showcase themselves up here, Hearts were in crisis/weren't around, Hibs were out of the league, United had imploded and were out of the league, Aberdeen weren't an attractive prospect, Kilmarnock were the shambles they always were before Sir Steve Clarke came in and made them a genuine attractive prospect.

4/5/6 seasons ago we'd have been the first choice above them all for a player like that (who wasn't quite at Celtic level), whereas now every single one of them would be ahead of us for a players signature, even if we did have the cash to spend.

Totally agree with this - but money also talks. We didn't get (say) Chris Porter because we were attractive as such - a hefty wedge of cash (and some cross border transfer shenanigans) was the main factor and money is still the main motivating factor for practically everyone in Football.

All things being equal, everything above is correct - they would choose a team that were more attractive - but if (for some bizarre reason) we offered 2 grand more a week than Killie to a player, I doubt many would choose them just because they are in a far better place than us at present.

[well fan for life]

What's actually the script with George Newell? The guy looks like he's blowing out his arse after 10 minutes when I've seen him and he appears to have ankles held together with sellotape and happy thoughts.

[capt_oats]

2 hours ago, Swello said:

I totally agree with the "small-but-high quality 1st team squad" with young players as backup approach - but I wonder how much more we would need to spend to get the level of quality that we would want to see. McCall's tenure was the last time I think we brought in already fairly accomplished players and I genuinely wonder if getting rid of 4 or 5 "deadwood" players would really enable us to sign even 1 "special" player. 

That's pretty much my take tbh.

As I mentioned a couple of posts up we got shot of Griffiths, Plummer, Petravičius, Watt and Dylan King while Hendrie and Ciftci went back to their parent clubs with Aldred obviously coming back. Griffiths has ended up at AFC Fylde, Plummer is without a club, the competition winner is at Falkirk, Watt has signed for a team in the Croatian 3rd tier and Dylan King's now with Glenavon.

I've obviously no idea how much we pay players but I've a gut feeling that even if you totalled those wages together you'd maybe be able to scrape a 'competitive' wage for one 'special' player. It's surely no coincidence that, for example, Scott McDonald was popping up on Sportsound on a weekly basis when he was with us and supplementing his income. Not that I imagine he was skint but it's enough to suggest that we're not in a position to be paying top dollah.

We need bodies to make up a squad and have a budget to use to fill up those positions, I'd say that the challenge to the u20s is to prove to both Craigan and Robinson that they're better than some of the dross we've signed. After all, it's a pretty low bar we're setting.

That's a slightly different point though.

I'm all for signing the best quality we can and supplementing with "youth" but there's definitely nuances there.

Anyway adding to those lists above, I've lifted the times from Transfermarkt so there's a fair chance they're not accurate but here's a who's who of signings over the past few years who offered little by way of contribution. It's a laugh:

Deimantas Petravičius - 353
Jacob Blyth - 169
Ally Gorrin - 164
ATS - 298
Conor Sammon - 552
Stephen Hendrie - 303
Ellis Plummer - 15
George Newell - 233
Wes Fletcher - 456
Jake Taylor - 583
Nathan Thomas - 106
Lee Lucas - 613
Luca Belic - 0
Theo Robinson - 354
David Clarkson  (2nd time) - 107

I've not included sub goalies like Griffiths and Xenodochof because it seems a bit of an occupational hazard that sub goalies won't actually play but that's 15 players and a total of 4306 mins of first team football between them. That's 47.8 games in total or 3.18 games per player. OOOOFT!

Craig Clay, in fairness to him, apparently played 3081 mins.

 

Edited November 8, 2018 by capt_oats

[Swello]

When you consider that the vast majority of those minutes on the park will have been as late subs - it would be almost impossible to argue that young players (of practically any quality) couldn't have fulfilled that role for zero additional cost. 

Scanning that list, I can only think of Lee Lucas (who was clearly a talented player who was broken), Sammon (in 1 game against QOTS) and Wes Fletcher (in 1 game against ICT) have made a contribution that a bog standard U20's player may have been unable to.

Edited November 8, 2018 by Swello

[Luke92]

I think the main thing here is that we are signing guys from the lower reaches of England who aren't any better than what we have in the youth team. Signings will always be hit and miss but we seem to consistently recruit squad guys who have very little proven qualities. Clearly money dictates this somewhat but I'd argue that the boys in the youth team are a better more reliable option in most cases. Clearly there are some exceptions to this rule (Kipre for example) but on the whole I think less should be spent on this level of player.

Spend more on the first team and push through guys from the youth team quicker from the bench. We seem to have at least 4/5 guys always sitting about doing nothing picking up a senior wage. This summer was a prime example of this. James Scott looked decent from his limited sub appearances but instead we went and recruited Sammon. Aye, you can say Sammon scored some SPFL goals last season and has good experience but a blind man could tell you he was not what we required up front.

Maclean, Hastie and Gordon are other examples of this. Maclean in particular has shown on multiple occasions that he has atleast as much quality as the likes of Demi (last year) and at times Frear/ATS this season. Maybe these guys aren't nailed on starters but I think you could have had Maclean and Scott atleast in the first team squad this year.

Questions remain about whether the budget we have at the moment should be increased but to me the club could certainly be spending what they have a bit smarter.

Edited November 8, 2018 by Luke92

[welldaft]

All of the posts are pretty much spot on - but given the budgetary restraints we work under it is hardly surprising that we are going to sign players that will end up offering very little to the club.  Even clubs that have many millions to spend end up signing duds or players that don't settle at their clubs, so it can only be more difficult when you have relative peanuts to play with.

I am quite sure when we were signing the likes of Plummer and Blyth it was NOT on the basis they are shite and wont amount to much. More along the lines they are affordable and may be able to make the step up.

I know this is a healthy and reasoned debate and enjoyable reading.  But if anyone expects Motherwell to sign only players that will prove to be worth every penny - aint NEVER going to happen. Not 100% - not ever.  Arguably we have had as much success as any provincial club the past few seasons with Johnson, Henaghan, Moult + Kipre etc 

As for youth stepping up.  Again I am quite sure most of the duds referenced above were brought in as they had experience and we had the budget.  Hindsight is wonderful and yes for all they offered, one of the reserves / under 21's would have offered just as much if not probably more.

 

[thisGRAEME]

I didn't actually mind Craig Clay.

His ludicrously wind assisted banger against Inverness turned out to be fairly crucial, IIRC.

[capt_oats]

6 minutes ago, thisGRAEME said:

I didn't actually mind Craig Clay.

His ludicrously wind assisted banger against Inverness turned out to be fairly crucial, IIRC.

Yasssss!

 

[well fan for life]

30 minutes ago, thisGRAEME said:

I didn't actually mind Craig Clay.

His ludicrously wind assisted banger against Inverness turned out to be fairly crucial, IIRC.

I can't actually think of a Motherwell player who boiled my piss as much as that workshy, diving, useless b*****d.

[nsr]

I guess signing an experienced player who may or may not turn out to be good is probably seen as less of a risk in the short term.

[Casagolda]

That’s a big part of the problem for me, we retain far too many youth players who we don’t actually play cause we also sign too many average players to simply fill out the squad.

Take a look at our bench on Saturday;

Quote

Gillespie, Frear, Campbell, Johnson, Sammon, Mbulu & Maguire 

You’d have to say, that’s a pretty strong bench in terms of experienced first team players. That was with with us missing the likes of Dunne, Rose, Donnelly, Taylor-Sinclair, Rodriguez-Gorrin and Tanner.

I think I’m right in saying all the injured players above(bar Tanner) are expected back in the next few weeks? At which point you’ll be looking at a minimum of 4 first team players a week picking up a wage while sitting in the stand. That’s before we even begin to mention guys like Newell and Ferguson etc.

Regardless of what these guys are actually on, it all adds up and nobody will ever convince me that that’s an effective use of budget for a club the size of Motherwell. I mean @welldaft mentions budget restraints, by my reckoning we have at least 30(thirty) players currently under contract, who’ve played first team football for Motherwell at some point.

Is that effective or sustainable for a club of our size?

[capt_oats]

13 minutes ago, Casagolda said:

Is that effective or sustainable for a club of our size?

That's a question that's relative to budget I guess. If we're on or under budget then it's sustainable. If we're over budget then it's...not.

The other thing is that assuming you're including the likes of Turnbull, Maguire, Brown, Livingstone, Scott etc in that 30 then it's conflating 2 squads rather than just a match day XI plus the 7 subs. So really it's 36 playing and subs spots rather than the 18.

If it was simply a 30 man first team squad then clearly it's miles over but if it's first team & reserves then, to me at least, it's a bit more manageable and I can get my head round it.

[Casagolda]

10 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

That's a question that's relative to budget I guess. If we're on or under budget then it's sustainable. If we're over budget then it's...not.

The other thing is that assuming you're including the likes of Turnbull, Maguire, Brown, Livingstone, Scott etc in that 30 then it's conflating 2 squads rather than just a match day XI plus the 7 subs. So really it's 36 playing and subs spots rather than the 18.

If it was simply a 30 man first team squad then clearly it's miles over but if it's first team & reserves then, to me at least, it's a bit more manageable and I can get my head round it.

To be fair sustainable was probably the wrong word, financially prudent would have probably been a better way of putting it.

Do you think though it’s reasonable for a club the size of Motherwell to have 4 fit first team players in the stand on a weekly basis? 

While also retaining guys like Shea Gordon, George Newell, Rohan Ferguson, PJ Morrison, Ross Maclean, Adam Livingstone, Barry Maguire etc who are all now into their 20’s yet in reality nowhere near the first team? 

Not being wide or anything, I’m wondering if anyone else thinks it’s overkill. Or is it in part cause of this new daft reserves league? I noticed we even signed a few more guys like McLaughlin and Watson this summer as well simply to fill up Craigan’s squad.

All seems a bit unnecessary to me.

[welldaft]

Again I think it depends on where we sit relative to the playing budget we have or had for this season. I don’t know if we have pushed the boat out a little due to cup success and Kipre sale.  

I would like to think that the powers that be (Board and Well Society) have squirrelled away some money from last seasons success for a rainy day. Not to have done that would be foolish in the extreme. 

On the face of it - it looks as if we a sizeable squad. But a few injuries to key players akin to last December could derail our season. It was hardly on the rails, but you hopefully get my point. 

Looks like next summer will be a rebuilding job not dissimilar to Robinson’s first transfer window. 

[Luke92]

Does anyone know what the script is with interviews/pressers these days? I used to look forward to the press conferences the club distrbuted via it's media channels. For the last few months they appear to have stopped this and have opted for a more concise sit down in the stands with our media boy.

With the pressers I had my own complaints about some of the rubbish Robinson would get asked i.e stuff about the old firm rather than any in-depth Motherwell related questions. To me though, with it all being internal it is very controlled and churns out whatever the club narrative is at that time. I presume that is their intention 'to control any story' but clearly the pressers are happening but aren't being recorded and distrbuted via our channels in the same manner as before.

Aye a lot of the stuff Tabloid journalists ask will be rubbish but internal interviews always seem a bit flawed to me as there naturally is no critical questions. Ultimately any story is going to come out via the press anyway but I just wondered if anyone was privy to the change of tack. I think our media team is good for the most part but this and the lack of highlights in the last wee while seems like a backwards step to me.

Edited November 9, 2018 by Luke92

[capt_oats]

4 hours ago, Casagolda said:

To be fair sustainable was probably the wrong word, financially prudent would have probably been a better way of putting it.

Do you think though it’s reasonable for a club the size of Motherwell to have 4 fit first team players in the stand on a weekly basis? 

While also retaining guys like Shea Gordon, George Newell, Rohan Ferguson, PJ Morrison, Ross Maclean, Adam Livingstone, Barry Maguire etc who are all now into their 20’s yet in reality nowhere near the first team? 

Not being wide or anything, I’m wondering if anyone else thinks it’s overkill. Or is it in part cause of this new daft reserves league? I noticed we even signed a few more guys like McLaughlin and Watson this summer as well simply to fill up Craigan’s squad.

All seems a bit unnecessary to me.

Aye, I mean broadly speaking I'm in agreement. If we're sitting with a fully fit first team squad and 4 or 5 first team players in the stands then it absolutely seems like overkill.

It's a pretty fluid thing depending on injuries and general circumstances I guess. There's a degree of erm, wastage there but then again a fortnight ago I was extremely "what's the fucking point in Liam Grimshaw", Now?  Fully Stone Islanded up. As you were etc.

It's a good point about the likes of Gordon and Newell though. I think Ferguson's a different case as he seems like an insurance more than anything, The Xenodochof palaver last season highlighted the need for a 3rd choice keeper but it seems doubtful that Gordon, Newell et al are going to be anything other than footnotes.

Listening to Craigan in his interviews there seems to be an acceptance that not all those players will establish themselves in the first team or even pull on a first team jersey for that matter but you'd think that we could maybe manage our quality control a bit better. 

It's clear that we earmark the u20s/Academy players that we'll invest in but there's a balance between that and having bodies to fulfil the Reserve fixtures.

Fwiw: I like McLaughlin a lot and Watson seems to have "something" whether it's enough to get him into the first team who knows but I don't really have a problem with us picking up players from other clubs and seeing if we can do something with them. Gordon and Newell have been here for a while though so extending their deals (as we did) seems a bit "what's the point?".

Edited November 9, 2018 by capt_oats

[Del_Superwell]

I can see a few departures coming in January mostly to some squad players who aren't getting a lot of game time whilst also promoting a few of the younger ones,  I think there was an element of we have several youngsters the manager rates but felt for one reason or another they were nowhere near physically ready for our first team that's why I think we brought in a few to more or less improve the strength in numbers rather than quality. 

Robinson has said recently he will be putting the younger ones in one at a time, with Turnbull now currently there I reckon we will see the likes of Maguire, Mbulu, Livingstone and maybe Hastie if he comes back from his loan in January, by all accounts done very well at alloa, and being naturally left sided might give us a wide player other than Frear to play.

[Gianfranco]

Bowman can’t even strike a fly away ball properly [emoji38] #content