Desp Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 Just now, Desp said: The more you go on, the more it becomes clear you have absolutely have no idea how these things work. 2 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said: By your logic, about it being acceptable because its "double their transfer record", suggests youd be happy to accept £3m from Celtic for McKenna... As I was saying. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukDukGoose Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 14 hours ago, accies1874 said: I assume the Celtic fans who were writing Turnbull off after Celtic's his was rejected are now lavishing him with praise. They've got a good player and Motherwell have got good money, so both of them have done well. I think Turnbull's made a mistake though. Absolutely this. Hopefully playing around 15-20 games each season over the next few years doesn't stop him reaching his full potential. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 10 minutes ago, Desp said: The more you go on, the more it becomes clear you have absolutely have no idea how these things work. Why the Scott Brown comparison? That transfer was 12 years ago, coming from a different club and with a player at a different stage of his career. It has absolutely no relevance to this deal. Do we compare it to Ryan Gauld? We got the same money as Utd got for him. We got more for Turnbull than Utd got for future Scotland Captain/Champions League winner Andy Robertson. What is your point? The board at MFC, who I'm going to suggest are a bit more qualified than a sad, wee St Johnstone fan, have publicly stated they believe this deal represents maximum value for the player taking everything into consideration. Nobody, even six months ago, would have guessed in their wildest dreams we'd get £3m plus for him. This fees wipes out our debt and allows us to significantly invest in our future. You can stamp your feet all you like and say clubs like ours should get £5m/£6m for players but it's nonsense. I refuse to believe a players value should be dictated by the club he plays for. If Turnbull scored 15 goals in the league for Celtic last season he'd be worth more than £3m, despite him achieving the exact same feat in the same league. Maybe that's moronic, maybe its naive, it's not an opinion I'll change. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said: Exactly (to everything you said, not just the quoted bit), there needs to be a long term view with regards to youth. You start pricing players out of moves and you will see more Jake Hastie's occurring in future. Why would a player sign a deal to benefit Motherwell if they're not willing to respect his wishes to leave when the time comes. It also gives you an edge when attracting youth to the club. Additionally, no business can be arrogant enough to laugh off an offer over their annual turnover, and I'm sure there's a decent sell-on clause there too. Exactly. The whole premise as well is that the challenge is for players like Semple, Scott, Cornelius, McAlear, Starrs, Kettings from the next group to step up and then the next group after that to replace them. The money we should (hopefully) be able to invest in the Academy will help sustain that. Last year we posted 'record' turnover/revenue after some decent player trading and the 2 cup finals (having bodied Aberdeen along the way in both ). 2018 - £6,841,444 2017 was a slightly below average season and resulted in turnover/revenue of £4,182,412. The idea that we'd patch a £3m offer (that as @Desp says will clear all legacy debt and allow us to substantially reinvest in club infrastructure) in the hope we get £5m in a month's time...nah. Edited June 13, 2019 by capt_oats 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 1 minute ago, capt_oats said: (having bodied Aberdeen along the way in both ). And here was me thinking we were having a civilised conversation. I hope the £3m gets lost in transit. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 Just now, Dons_1988 said: And here was me thinking we were having a civilised conversation. I hope the £3m gets lost in transit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desp Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said: I refuse to believe a players value should be dictated by the club he plays for. If Turnbull scored 15 goals in the league for Celtic last season he'd be worth more than £3m, despite him achieving the exact same feat in the same league. Maybe that's moronic, maybe its naive, it's not an opinion I'll change. Sorry, what? So who the f**k, in your fantasy land, decides what the value is? You? Chris Sutton? The player himself? The player is an asset of the business. It is 100% up to the business to decide what a fair value is for them to trade that asset. A fair value for the best interests of the player and for the business. If another business wants to buy that asset, they buy it at the agreed value. In reference to your last line, I'll go for option A please. It's moronic. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 7 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said: Maybe that's moronic, maybe its naive, it's not an opinion I'll change. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 Just now, Desp said: Sorry, what? So who the f**k, in your fantasy land, decides what the value is? You? Chris Sutton? The player himself? The player is an asset of the business. It is 100% up to the business to decide what a fair value is for them to trade that asset. A fair value for the best interests of the player and for the business. If another business wants to buy that asset, they buy it at the agreed value. In reference to your last line, I'll go for option A please. It's moronic. You've picked me up wrong. I refuse to believe a players maximum value should be dictated by the size of club hes at, is what I'm meaning. £3m shouldn't be the highest price you get for a 19yo CM with 15 league goals. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said: I refuse to believe a players value should be dictated by the club he plays for. If Turnbull scored 15 goals in the league for Celtic last season he'd be worth more than £3m, despite him achieving the exact same feat in the same league. Maybe that's moronic, maybe its naive, it's not an opinion I'll change. This can be turned around though - the model which Motherwell have been more explicit about than anyone in the league is that we are a stepping stone to more money/ bigger team. That's mildly dispiriting as a supporter to hear it so bluntly - but it reflects the honest reality of every mid-sized club in the Premiership and beyond. What can't be denied is that by bringing in 5 or 6 million quid, that model has been extremely successful so far - and will be looked on fairly enviously by lots of clubs of similar size to us (often from a vantage point of a lower division). Up until now, that model has allowed us to rip the arse out of 2m debt in a very short period of time and now will allow the next phase where we can spend it on "ourselves". I'm still pretty salty about Turnbull going to Celtic TBH - but to somehow infer that Burrows & co are naive or don't know what they're doing is a total non-starter 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 4 minutes ago, Swello said: I'm still pretty salty about Turnbull going to Celtic TBH - but to somehow infer that Burrows & co are naive or don't know what they're doing is a total non-starter I was saying I was being naive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 (edited) I spoke to Flow last night and he basically said what he did in those tweets to all the VL's. Celtic offered the most money and best deal, anyone else who was interested did not meet our valuation. (yet, I suppose) So all this fantasy chat about holding out for more English monopoly money is baws. Edited June 13, 2019 by Busta Nut 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YassinMoutaouakil Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 It's really the only criticism I have of the board but I still think letting Hastie and Turnbull run their contracts down to the last 6 months was a massive f**k up that we've hopefully learned from. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 1 minute ago, RandomGuy. said: I was saying I was being naive. You've made lots of posts criticising the position of the MFC board in this - the inference I took is that you either think they are naive or don't know what they're doing. If I got that wrong, I'm happy to accept that. On the question of the club not setting a maximum value on a player - that might make perfect sense in a vacuum but it doesn't make sense when we just finished very protracted contract negotiations with DT a few short months ago (and in the context where Jake Hastie wouldn't sign on in parallel circumstances). To think that there was no (formal or informal) agreement on the release price for DT would be to defy reality. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 7 minutes ago, Busta Nut said: I spoke to Flow last night and he basically said what he did in those tweets to all the VL's. Celtic offered the most money and best deal, anyone else who was interested did not meet our valuation. (yet, I suppose) So all this fantasy chat about holding out for more English monopoly money is baws. ITK as f**k 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukDukGoose Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 I have to admit my surprise at seeing Random railroad another clubs thread and explaining exactly how they are running their club incorrectly. Interesting to see Burrows tweet about improving the infrastructure. Much more important than wasting it on a Stevie May type deal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desp Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 15 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said: You've picked me up wrong. I refuse to believe a players maximum value should be dictated by the size of club hes at, is what I'm meaning. £3m shouldn't be the highest price you get for a 19yo CM with 15 league goals. The fact there's no clubs (zero, nada, not a one) standing outside Fir Park with £5m in a briefcase would suggest MFC have priced in about right. Furthermore, pretty much every player we've sold for a transfer fee, within this new model, has gone with a sell-on clause attached, I would be utterly stunned if there wasn't one with Turnbull, considering everyone and their granny knows the potential the boy has. If we earn another £1m-£2m down the line then it makes the transfer fees look even sweeter. 3 minutes ago, YassinMoutaouakil said: It's really the only criticism I have of the board but I still think letting Hastie and Turnbull run their contracts down to the last 6 months was a massive f**k up that we've hopefully learned from. We can't have it both ways, mate. Remember we dished out 3.5 year deals to Forbes & Luke Watt? Nobody could have guessed that Hastie would have had a purple patch after 'meh' spells at Airdrie and Alloa. Turnbull signed his. Additionally, and it's a point a number of fans tend to forget from time to time, we can't force a player to sign a new contract. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 1 minute ago, Merkland Red said: I have to admit my surprise at seeing Random railroad another clubs thread and explaining exactly how they are running their club incorrectly. Interesting to see Burrows tweet about improving the infrastructure. Much more important than wasting it on a Stevie May type deal. Stop trying to bump Stevie May on to us. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 4 minutes ago, Swello said: You've made lots of posts criticising the position of the MFC board in this - the inference I took is that you either think they are naive or don't know what they're doing. If I got that wrong, I'm happy to accept that. Remember he's gone from Motherwell being 'so, so diddy' to 'I'm moronic', I'd take that as an admittance of being wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 1 minute ago, Desp said: Additionally, and it's a point a number of fans tend to forget from time to time, we can't force a player to sign a new contract. And the board would argue that by moving Turnball on when a decent offer came in, we've totally kept our side of the bargain and might encourage more young players/agents to take the Turnbull route rather than the Hastie one. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.