Jump to content

Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons


Recommended Posts

Club has on the face of it changed its signing policy a bit it seems. Moult and Johnson were signed on 3 year deals under Les and I know McGinn was floated to him but he didn't bite. They were purchased with sell ons expected so the activity this summer is not new just not seen for quite a while, they both proved lucrative but conversely Randolph didn't.

The length of the deals does seem at odds with the drastic reduction in revenues from the lockdown at the end of 19/20 season, all the way through last and until the end of this one. I say this as season ticket revenue is essentially halved by offering a 2-FOR-1, no walk up revenue, concessions, hospitality or away fans. We don't know how long that will last this year too. Certainly few would envisage the South being full of 5,000 baying OF fans at any point.

Is there any restriction on the £3m from wee Nicola when it comes to transfer policy? If not I'm sure it could be used in other facets of club business and allow funds to go to potential transfers. The potential of purchasing players of quality opposed to free agents which is a bit of a lottery with the aim to improve the product on the pitch and capitalise on future returns is refreshing and maybe not been available if it wasn't for that loan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Kapowzer said:

Club has on the face of it changed its signing policy a bit it seems. Moult and Johnson were signed on 3 year deals under Les and I know McGinn was floated to him but he didn't bite. They were purchased with sell ons expected so the activity this summer is not new just not seen for quite a while, they both proved lucrative but conversely Randolph didn't.

The length of the deals does seem at odds with the drastic reduction in revenues from the lockdown at the end of 19/20 season, all the way through last and until the end of this one. I say this as season ticket revenue is essentially halved by offering a 2-FOR-1, no walk up revenue, concessions, hospitality or away fans. We don't know how long that will last this year too. Certainly few would envisage the South being full of 5,000 baying OF fans at any point.

Is there any restriction on the £3m from wee Nicola when it comes to transfer policy? If not I'm sure it could be used in other facets of club business and allow funds to go to potential transfers. The potential of purchasing players of quality opposed to free agents which is a bit of a lottery with the aim to improve the product on the pitch and capitalise on future returns is refreshing and maybe not been available if it wasn't for that loan.

This was kind of touched on the other week when there was a discussion about the £3m and our accounts.

As far as I'm aware the credit facility of the SG loan is tied to losses incurred as a result of the pandemic. However we're in the position where we've turned a profit on the books to May '20 (largely down to the James Scott sale) and since then we've sold Turnbull for a club record fee, had our Business Interruption Insurance accepted (according to the note in the accounts to May 20 the total of the sale and insurance is expected to be £4m+).

That's without the SG loan factored in.

To put that in context, our turnover in a fairly boring, normal year eg: 18/19 is £4.5m.

So going by the noises made at the AGM our accounts this year should show we're in a "good" position but there will probably be a substantial operating loss. If my understanding of it is right then it means that the operating loss as a result of Covid will be covered by the SG loan rather than David Turnbull (he's just paying for the capital expenditure on the stadium and, I'd guess, everyone's free season tickets).

If that makes sense.

Edited by capt_oats
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

This was kind of touched on the other week when there was a discussion about the £3m and our accounts.

As far as I'm aware the credit facility of the SG loan is tied to losses incurred as a result of the pandemic. However we're in the position where we've turned a profit on the books to May '20 (largely down to the James Scott sale) and since then we've sold Turnbull for a club record fee, had our Business Interruption Insurance accepted (according to the note in the accounts to May 20 the total of the sale and insurance is expected to be £4m+).

That's without the SG loan factored in.

To put that in context, our turnover in a fairly boring, normal year eg: 18/19 is £4.5m.

So going by the noises made at the AGM our accounts this year should show we're in a "good" position but there will probably be a substantial operating loss. If my understanding of it is right then it means that the operating loss as a result of Covid will be covered by the SG loan rather than David Turnbull (he's just paying for the capital expenditure on the stadium and, I'd guess, everyone's free season tickets).

If that makes sense.

Explain It Season 5 GIF by The Office

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perfect sense.

But do you think it has also heralded a change in how we operate on the transfer markets? If so, this surely has to be the way forward.

While not astounded by Jim Goodwin's approach I do think filling his team with proven SPFL players will pay off, certainly to Christmas.

Outwith the big 5 city clubs (and Dundee Utd due American naivety perhaps), the rest of us have gone down the English lower league, journeyman, redemption story, long term crock approach.

We're now signing players that both require a fee and also putting them on longer deals than we have for the first time since we had a rich sugar daddy in the Bahamas playing non-virtual Championship Manager.

Maybe this was part of the assurance GA was given when offered the job.

Edited by Kapowzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kapowzer said:

Perfect sense.

But do you think it has also heralded a change in how we operate on the transfer markets? If so, this surely has to be the way forward.

While not astounded by Jim Goodwin's approach I do think filling his team with proven SPFL players will pay off, certainly to Christmas.

Outwith the big 5 city clubs (and Dundee Utd due American naivety perhaps), the rest of us have gone down the English lower league, journeyman, redemption story, long term crock approach.

We're now signing players that both require a fee and also putting them on longer deals than we have for the first time since we had a rich sugar daddy in the Bahamas playing non-virtual Championship Manager.

Maybe this was part of the assurance GA was given when offered the job.

Genuinely no idea. It's a question for Burrows I suppose as he was hinting at a new direction when he was on the MFC Podcast the other month but obviously didn't get into detail about it.

Ultimately the notion was that the Turnbull sale was, to use his word, transformational. It remains to be seen if we get The David Turnbull Complex training ground out of it but I'd guess that on top of the security it provided allowed us to look at medium term plans. The fact the SG have come along and offered an interest free loan with a very favourable repayment term (along with our insurance) means that the Turnbull money can be used for the projects it had originally been earmarked (more or less).

 A penny for Robinson's thoughts as he's watching us dish out 3 year deals to players and paying fees for Southampton re-gens.

When it comes down to it everyone understood what our model was, and I suppose still is, we bring in players to offer a platform and help them progress their career. However, from the outside looking in I think we'd hit a point at which our approach was completely unsustainable when we're seeing the sort of turnover of players we had under Robinson.

Mini-rebuilds on an annual basis and full scale rebuilds every two years is going to catch up on you. While signing a pile of players through the summer and then chapping the board up in January to replace the ones that haven't worked out is just a false economy.

If the Scott/Turnbull/Campbell sales have allowed us to take stock of that and re-appraise our approach then it probably makes sense. What would be interesting to know (IMO) is how it fits into an overall strategy going forward. I'd assume the 3 year deals and in principle signing better "quality" is being done with a view to providing a more stable environment at the club while also consolidating "value".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the past ten years who have we sold for a return (I include youth compo here), feel free to add

Signings - Louis, Marvin

Youth Graduates - Turnbull, Scott

Development Compo - Cadden? Campbell, Erwin, Hastie, couple of others that went south (another to Leeds?)

Edited by Kapowzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Kapowzer said:

In the past ten years who have we sold for a return (I include youth compo here), feel free to add

SIgnings - Louis, Marvin

Youth Graduates - Turnbull, Scott

Development Compo - Cadden? Campbell, Erwin, Hastie, couple of others that went south (another to Leeds?)

I posted this August 20 just after the Turnbull sale so there's really only whatever we got for Campbell to add.

They're all "reported" (by the press) fees before anyone gets snarky.

On 28/08/2020 at 19:40, capt_oats said:

@well fan for life referenced this in the match thread earlier but I thought I'd stick the post in here because it's more to do with 'A Thread For All Seasons' than it is a routine Celtic win...

I'd posted a running total of REPORTED fees we've brought in since Hutchison took over and the subsequent shift to fan ownership here just after the Scott transfer at the end of January so with the 'club record' fee for Turnbull that bumps the player trading revenue up further.

I'm not an accountant and I'm not doing a fucking audit so any of the joyless "no chance did we get X for that guy" c***s can do one...yes, some are probably contingent on add ons being activated and all that but I've lifted the reported fees from a quick Google and in the case of Pearson, Johnson, Heneghan and Bowman a rough guess based on the numbers that appeared in the accounts.

20/21 - David Turnbull (Celtic) - £3m - Transfer
19/20 - James Scott (Hull City) - £1.5m - Transfer
19/20 - Reece McAlear (Norwich City) - £250k - Transfer
19/20 - Jake Hastie (Rangers) £350k - Development Compensation
19/20 - Stuart McKinstry (Leeds United) - £400k - Transfer
18/19 - Ryan Bowman (Exeter City) - £30k - Transfer
18/19 - Cedric Kipré (Wigan) - c.£1m - Transfer
17/18 - Louis Moult (Preston North End) - £500k - Transfer 
17/18 - Ben Heneghan (Sheffield United) - £350k-ish - Transfer
16/17 - Marvin Johnson (Oxford United) - £750k-ish including sell on - Transfer
16/17 - Stephen Pearson (Atletico Kolkata) - £100k - Transfer 
16/17 - Ben Hall (Brighton) - £210k - Development Compensation
14/15 - Lee Erwin (Leeds United) - £500k - Development Compensation

Total = £8.94m

Kyle Semple also moved to Rangers and for 'a five figure fee' but I've left that one off as I don't think I've seen that number anywhere else beyond Reddit and The Twitter. There's also the ongoing Cadden dispute as well I guess.

The first sale under Robinson was Heneghan - so during his tenure the club has brought in a reported £7.38m through player trading.

That's only from the 14/15 season onwards. For earlier in the decade you have sales of Reynolds, Murphy, Ojamaa, Anier etc.

Edited by capt_oats
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not biting the arse of £10m then when you add in Cadden that Flow mentioned there was a deal (don't expect it was as much if they played it as cute), Campbell who must have cost Luton +£500k based on his appearances and if Erwin is a datum.

As an aside I asked Gillingham fans for a heads up on Slattery as they seen him more regularly than the Southampton support, I'll add to this when more comes in but:

Quote

High tempo
Tough tackler
Doesn’t mind putting it about
Played pretty well for us but I don’t think he’d get a regular start in our current midfield, which is pretty strong.
He is well thought of by most Gills fans, but you will no doubt find a tosser who thinks he’s crap.

Quote

Hard to say, he only played 7 times for us then got injured, but Steve Evans appeared to think highly of him.

Quote

Definitely would have been welcomed back without a doubt. Good reputation among Gills fans.Put his name in the search on this site and you will see for yourself.

Seems very much a like-for-like with Campbell. Expect a few yellows this season then.

Edited by Kapowzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An enjoyable debate on this page and as ever the Capt backs it up with good detail.  Kazpower a good addition to the site. Well  fan for life nails it 👏

We seem to have gone through a couple of phases. Firstly Buying and selling on relative unknowns/ punts such as Kipre, Johnson and Moult. Secondly selling on our Academy / youth players in Scott, Turnbull and Campbell. 

Now it appears we are going back to the first option as there appear to be few youth players with any immediate sale prospects. The only one on my radar is Max Johnston but he is unlikely to replace SODs anytime soon. 

So if we need to get transfer money in then offering longer term deals to players like Kelly, Woolery and Slattery makes sense. I keep harking back to Hibs paying £250k+ for Nisbet and likely to sell for £3-4m almost one season on. Granted that is probably an exception but shows what a little investment in paying a fee can possibly deliver. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assumed that the change of tact is that we don't have a crop of youth players who look like they're chapping at the door at the moment? Particularly after the last year when we lost a year's worth of development for kids.

The next potential generation of Campbell/Scott/Turnbull/Hastie/Scott disappeared off the Leeds United and Norwich before they got close to kicking a ball for us. 

In short, we've lost an 'asset', so we've invested elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst the landscape may have changed, the shorter term contracts aren’t always those offered, in many cases one year is at the behest of players/advisors. In some cases that won’t change…

Edited by Onthefringes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, thisGRAEME said:

I assumed that the change of tact is that we don't have a crop of youth players who look like they're chapping at the door at the moment? Particularly after the last year when we lost a year's worth of development for kids.

The next potential generation of Campbell/Scott/Turnbull/Hastie/Scott disappeared off the Leeds United and Norwich before they got close to kicking a ball for us. 

In short, we've lost an 'asset', so we've invested elsewhere.

I also wondered if the experience of last season, where it was apparently very difficult to tempt players up from England, changed some minds on contracts. I would assume certain players would be amenable to a bit of job security where the offer of a 1 year deal might not be worth them uprooting (a "lower wage/longer contract approach). But as @Onthefringes, rightly says, some players will always see us a short term stop on the way to something "better"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does our transfer business compare to other teams in the league? Outside the ugly sisters are they making regular yearly sales and generating a sizeable income? And surely this must attract players as they should see it as a stepping stone to something bigger and more rewarding fiscally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's always been central to our approach, irrespective of how long we can tie folk down for.  We've always leaned on us being a good platform for players to get a bit of visibility, which has been borne out with the experiences of the players mentioned above.

I might be wrong but I can't think of too many examples that come near us in terms of generating decent income.  Biggest thing seems to be that, historically at least, other teams have been able to get more for their 'assets', but hopefully the Turnbull experience heralds a bit of a change in that respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, well1991 said:

How does our transfer business compare to other teams in the league? Outside the ugly sisters are they making regular yearly sales and generating a sizeable income? And surely this must attract players as they should see it as a stepping stone to something bigger and more rewarding fiscally.

I can't think of any teams (outwith the OF) that have done better than us in the transfer market in recent years.

Other teams have obviously had the odd big sale like Hibs with McGinn and to be fair, it looks like they'll do well again from Nisbet, Doig and Porteous, but off the top of my head you have to go back to the likes of when Gauld, Armstrong and Robertson left Utd, Steven Naismith left Kille, or McCarthy and McCarthur left Accies for other sizeable fees. (Freely admit I could be forgetting loads of people here because I've done zero research!)

I'd be very surprised if any other non-OF club could point to the same number of £250k+ fees received in the last 5 years as us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why have you given Hibs 2k?  Surely there are Motherwell fans that would have bought the majority of those? I get giving some away fans if you don't think you'll fill the allocation, but 2000 seems huge all things considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...