capt_oats

See, I'm not even sure the argument that the move wasn't the best for his career really stands in so much as, without knowing the laddie, I think by and large he's got what he wanted from the move as far as experience goes along with the suggestions of personal stuff factoring into his decision. What David Turnbull wants and how he views his career trajectory are completely different things to what some random running their jaw on a Scottish Fitba' Forum thinks he should have done. Given the position he was in experience and injury-wise there's an argument that taking the safe option that guaranteed first team involvement was entirely the sensible move for him to make. Again, I don't know what offers he had on the table but his signing for Celtic happened the same summer Hickey moved to Bologna, Ferguson was still at Aberdeen and Doig was still at Hibs so the weird Serie A gold-rush of scooping up young Scottish players hadn't happened so I dunno it feels like a bit of a cheap shot for folk to have a dig based on hindsight after the fact. Tbh, a lot of it feels like it's folk wanting to take a kick at Celtic because they don't like them much. Like, let's say Bologna had been interested back in 2019 and 2020 when he was up for grabs was there the same guarantee that he'd walk into their first team? Probably not. I've mentioned it before but Ferguson was 23 when he moved to Italy, Turnbull is currently...24. In terms of career trajectory Turnbull's time at Celtic has been the equivalent of Ferguson's spell at Aberdeen. Making comparisons between the decision Turnbull made at 19 originally or subsequently 21 with 41 first team games under his belt (during a pandemic) and Ferguson at 23 with 183 first team games feels a bit unfair. Ultimately he made the choice that guaranteed him first team football and gave him experience of CL level football - which with the best will in the world, he wasn't going to get at Norwich or whatever. Either way, I'd say that he's now in a far better position to leverage a move after his stint at Parkhead than he was after 41 games and a serious (knee) injury at Motherwell.

I've mentioned this before in your thread and some folk took it the wrong way and got a bit pissy about it but as broad observation Robinson didn't really get goals out of the strikers he signed when he was with us - and he signed plenty. It's not a criticism of him and shouldn't be taken as one but it's interesting to see this sort of discussion appear in your thread (again). Me calling it a blind spot before was maybe a bit unfair as it's clear he values and prioritises other attributes from his strikers but it's definitely a common theme. A good example is Devante Cole - who he signed twice. We got 5 goals in 30 games from him under Robinson - pretty much as soon as Robbo was out the door he hit a prolific streak under Alexander with 11 in 23 which got him his move to Barnsley where he's currently their top scorer. Tony Watt's another example (albeit less compelling given his form at other clubs): he was the league's top scorer when United popped up and chucked money at him - he scored 9 goals in total for Robinson. The one player he had who scored goals was Moult who he inherited as he was at the club when he took the job.

I think I'm kind of echoing something that @Desp has alluded to in the past in that the problem with Turnbull, in so much as it's a problem, is that he's the sort of player that you kind of have to build your team around or at the very least free him up to just let him cook and that's a big ask at Celtic. I've never actually thought he's a #10, I've always seen him more as an #8 which is why I think why the physical aspect of his game gets called into question. The idea that moving to Celtic "hasn't worked" that you see flying around is a bit of a nonsense tbh. Like, he hasn't kicked on as you might have expected especially with Postecoglu sidelining him for a season but as @RandomGuy. says if he leaves he'll have a league and numerous cup winner's medals along with a bunch of Champions League games under his belt. If he's able to leverage a decent move be it in January or at the end of the season on a free then he'll have got exactly what (I assume) he wanted out of it. Let's face it, while I don't know what offers he had on the table when he left us, I'd guess that the options he's likely to have now off the back of 100+ games for Celtic will be more appealing than he would have had as a 21 year old coming off the back of a major injury and 41 games for Motherwell. That said, speaking purely from the POV of an outsider it kind of feels like his face has never really fitted at Parkhead because it's always been clear that he's seen it as a stepping stone and coming off the back of him knocking their "magnificent" offer back initially means that that particular section of their fanbase who want to be pandered to (and every club has them) were never going to take to him and the pejorative "he's a Motherwell level player" patter that Celtic Twitter if fond of rinsing has got really fucking old, really fucking quickly.

We'd also be due a pro-rata share of 5% of the overall fee as a solidarity payment for development.

Tbh, that story has strong agent on manoeuvres energy so while I'm sceptical that he'd pitch up at AC Milan in January for the sort of money quoted in the article it's not too difficult to read between the lines that he's made up his mind he's aff. IIRC Brodge was in the press saying that the delay on a new deal wasn't coming from the club so that kind of tracks. Then again, I guess the fact that he's been playing European football for Celtic gives him a bit more leverage in terms of his options than say, Lewis Ferguson at Aberdeen or Hickey at Hearts so who knows? Maybe a move like that is on. Celtic aren't daft, they have an asset who is out of contract in the summer so it's in their interest to cash in if they know he has no real intention of sticking around and if there's one thing they've been good at it's getting value for their balance sheet. I get that he's not really kicked on at Parkhead for a number of reasons (some out of his control, some not - he doesn't really seem to have developed physically since he left us) but reading the Turnbull thread on Kerrydale Street it's pretty clear he's undervalued and under appreciated by their support and given their attitude towards him (which I'm sure he's aware of) it's not a massive surprise if he's decided "f**k this...See Ya". To echo @YassinMoutaouakil GIVE US OUR MONEY.

I suppose the correlation there is how many of those seasons have we changed manager mid-season? 22/23 - Kettlewell replaces Hammell 20/21 - Alexander replaces Robinson 16/17 - Robinson replaces McGhee 15/16 - McGhee replaces Baraclough 14/15 - Baraclough replaces McCall As as been mentioned before this culture of binning managers on the regular is bad vibes but it does make you wonder whether the wild swings we're seeing is a consequence of this in so much as we're going from one extreme of unsustainable form to the other with absolutely nothing in between.

Fair. Fwiw, this is where we were after 14 games in the seasons under McCall. 13/14 (McCall) - P: 14 3rd F 16 A 18 Pts 25 - Final position 2nd 12/13 (McCall) - P: 14 4th F 22 A 19 Pts 20 - Final position 2nd 11/12 (McCall) - P: 14 3rd F 18 A 17 Pts 26 - Final Position 3rd 10/11 (Brown/McCall) - P: 14 5th F 22 A 16 Pts - 23 - Final Position 6th Even in this case, to speak to your other post we're finishing 2nd and 3rd in these seasons which is above average for a Motherwell side in general. We then go from 2nd to 11th the next season. The Baraclough/McGhee season we'd emptied the bold Bara after 8 league games and were 10th on 14 points after 14 games. 15/16 (Baraclough/McGhee) - P: 14 10th F 11 A 18 Pts 14 - Final Position 5th. At that point we were 4 points off County in 5th on 18 points. It's massively stating the obvious in so much as "If you win more games you finish higher in the league...DUH!" but you've spoken about it often on the pod - these objectively *good* seasons are the ones where we've made hay while other teams have been mince but I suppose what I'm getting at is that the difference between where we are now and a fairly average season for us where we finish 7th or 8th is probably not beating St Mirren at home and losing to Livi away and those are the fine margins - looking at the games we've lost on this run it's been St Mirren (h), Rangers (a), Celtic (h), Livi (a), Aberdeen (h), Killie (a), Hearts (h). Like, of a fair to middling season would it be that much of a surprise if we lost at Ibrox, at home to Celtic, Aberdeen, Hearts and away to Killie? I mean, probably not?

Sort of related I noticed a post on Dundee's forum yesterday (not here) that I was curious about. Like, don't get me wrong I see the broad point and I'm guessing they mean the form KVV (and the team in general) had under Kettlewell but the contrarian in me means I really can't help myself. Last season (with KVV) under Hammell after 14 league games we were 9th (16 pts), had scored 18 (including 5 vs County) and conceded 19 - KVV had scored 7 in 14 appearances - 1215 mins. KVV mins per goal = 173 mins. This season we're 9th (13 pts) we've scored 16 (2 fewer) and conceded 21 (2 more) - Biereth has scored 4 in 7 appearances - 406 mins. MB mins per goal = 101 min. I mentioned in the match thread that where we are at the moment - specifically the fixtures we've lost - isn't that far off where you'd expect us to be in an average/slightly below average Motherwell season. In comparison, going back to Robinson's first season after 14 games (a completely arbitrary number granted): 23/24 (Kettlewell) - P 14: 9th F: 16 A: 21 Pts: 13 - Final position TBC 22/23 (Hammell/Kettlewell) - P 14: 9th F: 18 A 19 Pts: 16 - Final position 7th 21/22 (Alexander) - P 14: 5th F: 19 A: 21 Pts: 21 - Final position 5th 20/21 (Robinson/Alexander) - P: 14 8th F: 15 A: 21 Pts: 15 - Final position 8th 19/20 (Robinson) - P: 14 4th F: 21 A: 22 Pts: 22 - Final position 3rd* 18/19 (Robinson) - P: 14 9th F: 15 A: 24 Pts: 14 - Final position 8th 17/18 (Robinson) - P: 14 5th F: 21 A: 16 Pts: 23 - Final position 7th Clearly a number of these seasons saw a change in manager mid-way through the season in order to turn things around but I guess the point I'm making (if I'm making one at all) is that it's pretty fine margins between where we are just now and objectively *good* seasons where we've finished Top 6 or whatever.

Tbh, while our form has been fairly dismal if you're of a mind to be generous there are probably only a couple of those results that actually stand out as disappointing. Home: 2-1 Hibs (W) 2-1 Killie (W) 0-1 St Mirren (L) 1-2 Celtic (L) 3-3 Ross County (X) 2-4 Aberdeen (L) 1-2 Hearts (L) Away: 1-1 Dundee (X) 0-1 Hearts (W) 1-0 Rangers (L) 2-0 Livi (L) 1-0 Killie (L) 2-2 St Johnstone (X) 1-1 Celtic (X) I mean, setting performances aside, unless you're one of the oddballs out there expecting us to win every game or are one of those types who get furious because the team haven't matched some entirely arbitrary points total then I dunno...we're probably not too far off where we might have expected to be in an average/slightly below average Motherwell season. Like, we've definitely been underperforming and we're clearly a bit of a mess for various reasons but losing to St Mirren at home and Livi away are probably the only two that stick out to me as games we'd have expected to take something from. Celtic, Rangers, Aberdeen, Hearts and Killie at Rugby Park are ones that you probably take a swing at and tbf, the unexpected draw on Saturday probably balances out losing to Killie on their shitemare of a pitch and the two games against Hearts probably cancel each other out in so much as I'd thought it more likely we'd beat them at FP than Tynecastle.

I mean, I guessed it was but I honestly hadn't heard his name mentioned in any sort of fitba' context since the early 2000s

Looking at Morecambe's statement about Adams leaving I noticed the last paragraph... Is that the Ged Brannan?

This is a slightly boring post but following on from the chat yesterday about our perceived lack of width/alternative shapes/Penney it kind of occurred to me that us bringing in Penney (or any other fit, experienced LB/LWB) kind of unlocks things a bit - assuming it's the case that Kettlewell (rightly or wrongly) doesn't trust either Gent or Spencer enough to start them at WB, either at all in Gent's case or ahead of SOD when it comes to Spencer. You could make the argument that SOD has struggled when he's been asked to play as an orthodox full back and there were plenty of suggestions that Penney would actually have been better suited to LWB - that's absolutely fair comment but the upside would presumably be getting Spencer on to his natural side and the fact that both he and Gent offer a bit of pace along with Gent having shown in the limited time he been afforded on the park that he's got an excellent delivery. As I say, based on what we have at the moment adding an experienced LB to the group opens up variations of 451/4411/433:

That was the rumour and I mean, fair enough - as @eliphas says the way things shook out and the various rumours kicking around about the nick we were in while he was in charge it can't have been that much fun playing for Hammell. It seems he had an absolute fucking nightmare at Charlton after his loan with us was up so (which I think we knew but a glance at one of their forums is a laugh)...I suppose there's a chance we don't seem that bad an option until the end of the season or whatever? https://intothevalley.proboards.com/thread/27293/deal-matt-penney-joins-loan To echo @Desp and @Busta Nut get him signed - at the very least it'll mean we can sack off this policy of traumatising Spencer by forcing him to play out of position.

To Devils Advocate this - Ross is a winger (in fact Kettlewell implied that we'd effectively been 'retraining' him in other positions FM style in order to get him involved), Gent is someone who can 'play anywhere on the left' and there's probably an argument to be made that he's more a wide midfielder/winger than he is a wing back. To that end we probably have 'options' for wide areas it's simply a choice that we're making not to do that and if there was a decision made to give Ross a shot over the course of the season rather than try and convince a laddie that Kettlewell had immediately sidelined and only given 6 minutes of fitba' to in 14 games last season to stick around then I can kind of understand that. Tbh, others have made the same point but it feels like it's more a case that Kettlewell has tied himself in knots and is now just doing objectively daft stuff like taking a player who has been consistently good for us playing centrally and shoving him to LWB rather than just giving the guy we actually signed to play LWB a shot or just chucking as many strikers on the park as he can then being raging that none of it works before trying to compensate for it the next week. In terms of the strikers, as @crazylegsjoe_mfc said yesterday the fact that we've gone from having only one striker fit and available which meant we were playing him regularly out of necessity we're now chopping and changing every week trying to find some sort of blend. Fwiw, you can add me to @thisGRAEME's 'Sacking Kettlewell is mad' and continually bulleting managers is bad vibes and bad business crowd but equally this current situation feels like it's very much a Kettlewell Problem and he's not really helping himself.

Finished 3rd in the Latvian top flight with FK Auda. Their league completed at the weekend there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_Valakari

Hello. As @Busta Nut mentioned I'm all good. Nice of you to check in though. Tbh, I've been busy with my actual job but as a couple of you noticed I've still been lurking around and have reacted to a few things here and there but in terms of posting I've not really had much to contribute so haven't bothered - there have been a couple of times I've been away to post something but after reading them back just ended up deleting them as they were pretty fucking dull. Anyway, as you were, crack on lads...

Will never not be tickled by this.

Enjoyed The Big Picture's Scorcese Hall of Fame episode.

I started this years ago and for whatever reason it just didn't land with me at the time. Whether it was the 4th wall breaks or not feeling any sort of connection with any of the characters IDK. Anyway, I was rooting around looking for something to watch the other night and picked up where I left off - about halfway through S1 E3 and I'd finished both series by the end of the night. S1 E4 at the silent retreat is where it kind of clicked for me and tbqh S2 is just an entirely beautiful 6 episodes of television from beginning to end. Really glad I revisited it as it's an absolute joy of a show.

I had started this a while ago when it was getting regularly talked up on The Watch podcast but I bailed pretty much mid-way through the second episode. I bumped so hard on the the "I play third fiddle to two figures in my Mother's life - Jesus Christ and...Margaret Thatcher. And where do you stand on them? One's the reason we're all here and the other's a carpenter." line inside the first minute of the first episode that I never really gave it a chance but then it's a show about bankers/hedge fund types...of course they're all absolute c***s and sociopaths. It's since been picked up by HBO so I decided to give it another go after the fact and it feels like halfway through it's found its feet a bit. I mean, they're still c***s but it's essentially a 'This Life' for Millenials/Gen Z - which is a bit easier for me to find headspace for.

Except neither Wilkinson (who's still coming back from an exploded calf) or Shaw offer the same in terms of hold up play that Bair does and up until the Livi game it's generally been accepted that the set up with Miller, Paton, Slattery and Spittal wasn't something that should be fucked around with. Which circles us back to the point @RandomGuy. was making in response to Nicolson - that he's been in the team recently as a facilitator and doing a reasonable job. Regardless of whether the bold Eric can "see it" or not.

Fair play to @RandomGuy. (StAnalysis is you right RG?) for trying to explain to Eric Nicolson what we're trying to with CareBair and also pointing out that the only reason he's started as much is because all our strikers have been injured. Curious to know how many of our games Nicolson's seen to be able to judge whether Bair does/doesn't link the play effectively enough in our system.

...cheers Ketts.

Is that not broadly in line with the projection? Don't get me wrong, it's clearly good news but I'm fairly sure there was tentative mention of us hoping to have Butcher back around November which would track if he's been moved to the 'doubtful' list now. On a related point, given Biereth was clearly photoshopped into the team photo for this season has it ever been confirmed if he's been doing his rehab with us or Arsenal? Like, I assumed it'd be Arsenal but either way all the injury update said at the time was "Our loan agreement with Arsenal has not changed as a result of this injury." The same update also said he was expected to miss 12 weeks. As of today we're 8 weeks and 2 days since that was posted.

I think Kelly has broadly been fine. He is what he is, namely a decent mid-table goalkeeper. I get that it's part of our sales pitch to platform players but I'm not sure that our trying to manifest him into being an International 'keeper has really done anyone any favours (although he now has his cap - good job everyone). In saying that, even allowing for the sort of money we paid for him/are rumoured to be paying him, you can probably trade that off with the fact that he helped keep us up in his loan stint and our league finishes since he's been here permanently have been 5th and 7th. The other thing is that compared to someone like, say, Carson we've definitely got his money's worth out of Kelly in so much as he's been healthy and present. That's not a ding on Trev as by the time he left for United he seemed pretty much cursed but Kelly's played 44 more games than Carson and he's only been at the club 2.5 seasons. IIRC United were rumoured to have been in for him when we signed him from QPR so - sliding doors and all that - it would have been quite annoying if they'd ended up with him. I think there's a lot to be said for the school of thought that if we're overpaying for anyone it's worth it for a decent goalkeeper. Especially having seen the sort of damage a Twardzik or Samson can have on a season. Fwiw, here's how Kelly compares with others: Randolph - 134 games - 172 conceded (1.28 pg) - 43 clean sheets (32%) Kelly - 122 games - 168 conceded (1.37 pg) - 33 clean sheets (27%) Carson - 78 games - 101 conceded (1.29 pg) - 26 clean sheets (33%) Gillespie - 67 games - 79 conceded (1.17 pg) - 25 clean sheets (37%) Ruddy - 39 games - 60 conceded (1.53 pg) - 16 clean sheets (41%)