capt_oats
-
Posts
13,162 -
Joined
-
Days Won
14
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by capt_oats
-
-
3 minutes ago, thisGRAEME said:
I'd expect us to retain the ones highlighted. As much as I'd love to keep Spittal, canny see it.
Any of the loanees not called "Shaw" similarly welcome to stay.
Aye.
I dunno, maybe I'm reading a bit too much into things but I thought it was interesting that we seemed to lean heavily into the SOD, McGinn, Mugabi (and Kelly) of it all in the content posted on the socials after Saturday.
I suppose I should have caveated that earlier post by saying that our recent 'unreliable narrator' approach to contracts and expiries should probably be factored into this sort of thing.
3 -
With Ebiye signing, by my count, of the players who'll have kicked a baw in the first team that gives us 10 contracted for next season, 15 OOC with 5 loans expiring plus Ricki Lamie's PCA to Dundee confirmed.
2024:
Kelly, Oxborough; O'Donnell, Mugabi, McGinn, Wilson, Elliot, Butcher; Maguire, Spittal, Slattery, Wells; Obika, Nicholson, Ferrie2025:
Casey, Blaney; Halliday, Paton, Zdravkovski, Tierney; Bair, Ebiye, L. Ross2026:
MillerLoans expiring:
Gent, Devine, Montgomery, Shaw, ValePre-contract:
Lamie (to Dundee)Based on how we're setting up at the moment this is how it looks:
0 -
There he is...
3 -
4 hours ago, Handsome_Devil said:
Didn't see that coming. I certainly wouldn't sign him to make up numbers to the end of the season - we'll stay up anyway so save the cash. But if we do Indeed consider him part of the long-term plan, great.
It's mentioned in Burns' article:
Quote"The 26-year-old is a free agent after leaving Norwegian side Aalesund in January. Ebiye has been training at Fir Park and impressed boss Stuart Kettlewell. He is set to be handed a long-term deal."
3 -
Oh...
QuoteEbiye would enhance his frontline options as he can play through the middle or on either flank
11 -
Big fan of the club including the Casey tackle in their wee story of the match highlights package.
7 -
1 minute ago, Handsome_Devil said:
Tbf he had a bit of a hard time finding his role in the early Hammell era but yeah, like yourself i always thought there was something there. I'd still have given long odds on him doing a double-double for goals and assists mind.
Aye.
In fairness though, I don't think that was necessarily down to the bold Blair.
0 -
Just now, Al B said:
By the time they reach each other, Casey has played the ball and his foot is flat on the ground. The Rangers guy arrives there long after the ball has gone with his back turned, his leg in and his studs up, and that leg goes into Casey's knee.
Basically this.
The ball has already been won and is cleared by the time McAusland wafts his pipe cleaner leg at Casey.
It's not even like it's a 50/50.
The whole discourse about it is just weird.
6 -
9 minutes ago, 2426255 said:
I don't really get the whole haven't beat them in the league at Ibrox for 27 years kind of stat. You beat them in other competitions, you won at Ibrox in Oct-2017. I like statistics, but just seems like a stat for stats sake to me.
No. We didn't.
We beat them at Hampden in October 2017.
I'm not really sure there's much to *get* tbh. We hadn't beat them at Ibrox in the league in the lifetime of many of our support after a period in the 90s where beating them was a reasonably regular occurrence.
It's not really surprising people are at least commenting on it.
Anyway, it's worth re-visiting the last one because it's a good laugh.
3 -
- Popular Post
Hang it in the Louvre
32 -
Honestly, me IRL right now.
7 -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Well...
83 -
Tbh, the vote went the way I expected, if not the way I actually voted, based on the way the question was presented. Essentially why would you rule something out when you don't know what the options are?
That said, in line with a point that @Swello made earlier, I'd imagine that the club/WS would have remained in conversation with all of the interested parties regardless of which way the vote went so I don't think there's really much change on that front.
It's annoying that it leaves us still suspended in this kind of limbo since as @Handsome_Devil has been saying I think we'd be far better served sorting our own house out first in terms of CEO and all that stuff.
0 -
Mentioned this before re: Mailchimp, open rates and clicks:
https://mailchimp.com/resources/email-marketing-benchmarks/
0 -
With the sheer number of players out of contract this summer I can 100% see a situation where we offer new deals to all our expiring centre backs.
Whether they actually take us up on those offers is a different question but we've been talking on here about how we've missed having that consistent core in the group since the likes of Lasley, Hammell, Hartley, Tait etc left and keeping some of the 'experienced' heads around would go some way to helping create a culture at the club.
From that POV 'Normal' Paul McGinn feels like an entirely sensible guy to have around the place.
I don't know if it was just a line to the media or whether he actually meant it but SOD was on record as saying that he's happy to be here as long as the manager wants him. I've said it before but the criticism that gets launched his way reminds me a lot of McManus in that, for whatever reason (take your pick), SOD seems to be judged differently.
It's weird but what can you do.
As far as Bevis goes, I think it was @thisGRAEME who made the point that he's someone who needs a run of games to play himself into form. He's not someone who you can just drop in and expect to not make mistakes. The obvious issue for us is that he's probably someone whose levels mean we'd ideally see him in a squad role.
Again though he's played 119 games for us so far in his Motherwell career and is one of our most used players I don't see us just kicking him to the curb.
Fwiw, here's the squad by minutes played this season (most to least):
1 -
10 minutes ago, Wellin said:
I personally think Kettlewell likes SOD. It was Alexander who dropped him. Possibly deserved as his form dipped but I think he gets too much of a hard time
I'd like to see Slattery offered new terms.
Not to be contrary as it's well documented there was a fall out and he was bumped as captain along with the fact that the whole signing Paul McGinn thing was essentially because O'Donnell was heading out the door as a result but SODs actually played the most minutes of any outfield player in Alexander's full season in charge.
As @Vietnam91 says it seems to have been more about a personality thing.
What I would say is that I think of the 4 managers SOD has had while he's been at the club (Robinson, Alexander, Hammell and Kettlewell) Ketts is the only one who actually seems to have had a clue what to do with him.
0 -
23 minutes ago, Muzz1886 said:
Anyway, in other news ... I assume this is some administrative thing that was covered off at the AGM?
Just now, StAndrew7 said:Erm. Maybe something to do with the restructuring of the board to include more directors etc.
It's presumably a procedural thing.
If you look at the company filing history you'll see similar in previous years.
4th April 2023 and 23rd December 2021.
1 -
It's probably an unanswerable question and I'm not sure that it really needs asked but it's been rattling around my brain so I'll ask it anyway: Does Harry Paton score our equaliser last night, (like does he even make that run to get in that position?) and do we get that second half performance in general if he's on the park instead of Nicholson?
That's not meant as a dig at Paton or anything (honest) and it's also shite that he's out injured but I've mentioned before that Nicholson feels like a more obvious fit for that role and it kind of felt that way watching how things panned out.
2 -
37 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:
I think there was a point where it became clear there was a unanimous feeling amongst the support that Hammell had to go, which I think may have made it seem like the toxicity was more prevalent.
I would tend to agree with both you and Wellin here; I think Kettlewell has been on the receiving end of a consistent period of abuse/vitriol from various sections of the fan base (and I include myself in that) over the course of the season. The difference with Hammell was it was in a short, and very sharp period that it escalated. There have been rumblings about Kettlewell throughout the season, but perhaps not to the same degree.
I daren't go near posts by the club on there really, other than to check out lineups and other #content. I don't bother with the reply guys now for this reason.
Aye, I think both things can be and maybe are true.
For me the toxicity around the Hammell era seemed to be far more directed at the players rather than Hammell himself which is understandable given who he is and all that but it also largely ignored that he might simply have been someone who was miles out his depth in the role.
Whereas with Kettlewell, as @Swello says, there's probably been far more patience shown but I’d say it feels like the discontent and scepticism has been low key but consistent from certain sections without ever necessarily escalating to a point it did on either Hammell and certainly Alexander's watch.
1 -
- Popular Post
Hullo.
41 -
21 hours ago, Busta Nut said:
I've read a few comments on places talking about investments with WS maintaining control. This is the things dreams are made of. Free money almost.
Won't happen.
Aye. I agree that this idea that we're somehow going to stumble upon our very own James Anderson who's just going to underwrite us because he's minted is fanciful but equally, I think it should be possible for us to seek investment on our own terms - it's literally what businesses do.
As an example I noticed that's The Class of 92 announced they're "exploring" investment opportunities for Salford. - https://theathletic.com/5299817/2024/02/26/salford-city-class-of-92-sale-investment/
Granted, the likes of Neville, Beckham et al have a level of wealth and clout that we simply don't but in terms of the actual principle it's exactly the position we're in.
However compare this framing from Nicky Butt with what we heard from McMahon in his post-launch interview:
Quote“We are backing Salford City with as much commitment and confidence as ever. We have achieved very special things here but there are major opportunities in front of us and we want to make sure we have the right mix of investment and strategic partners to take advantage of those opportunities.
“We had an original 10-year plan and with strong foundations now in place, it was always the intention to explore options for the next phase. That includes potentially bringing in new partners to help us grow the club and best serve the fans and community.”
"Taylor Swift gies some dosh" it is not.
This isn't a criticism of the WS folks as it kind of sounds as if McMahon has gone a bit rogue with this and it's put them on the back foot but in hindsight it would maybe have wise for those behind the "project" to have considered this and had some sort of consultation prior to launch. I mean, maybe they did IDK but it doesn't feel like it.
Similarly, without being wise after the fact, the whole fan-ownership model was probably going to reach a point where there would be a discussion about what would be direction of travel of being a fan-owned club as the football landscape changes/evolves.
Like I say, it'd maybe have been good to have considered red-lines and the like before McMahon decided he was a creative and crack on in the way he did (it's worth remembering that even Weir distanced himself from the video).
Prior to last week the last AGM I'd been to in person was pre-pandemic and the notion of seeking external investment was floated then. IIRC it was a similar sort of vague idea of looking to partner up with individuals to provide support and possibly using the option of a slice of transfer revenues to pay back much in the same way we ended up squaring things with Hutchison and Boyle.
Either way I guess my point is the notion that we might look at external investment thing has been around for a while, the board just didn't make any sort of movement with it and I'm fairly sure McMahon had effectively apologised and said words to the effect of "Sorry, but yeah, we've not done anything about that" at subsequent AGMs.
Why that was, who knows?
Maybe the fact we were cash rich and Scooge McDuck-ing our way through things after the Scott and Turnbull sales meant they considered ourselves to be suitably "de-risked" and just put that side of things on the back burner only to be blindsided by the investment we've seen at peer group clubs and I guess the Pandemic will probably have had an impact in terms of what we were prioritising.
That said, as @thisGRAEME mentioned yesterday, while probably not ideal circumstances (exiting Chairman, interim-CEO etc) it feels like this has given a natural impetus to actually have these conversations.
55 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:I think it'll be close...the wording of the question basically said we know you think that but go on, just have a wee peak at what's in box B and you can always change your mind later...
Yeah, I think it really depends on how you approach the question which I'd say is probably open to interpretation. You can either read it (as I did) as a process to establish red-lines as to what our position is in order to look at external investment on our own terms or you can view it the other way which is you'd be happy to consider any and all investment deals that might be tabled.
2 -
2 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said:
4 less gaffers and assistants too so that helps.
We’ll probably realise something modest for Sol even though it felt like a mutual.
The fee for Sol is in the 22/23 accounts that were recently published.
0 -
1 minute ago, StAndrew7 said:
My understanding is that the end of this financial year will have the club sitting with a £500k cash balance (and the Society sitting around £750k); that doesn't necessarily equate to us making a profit this year but we're on course to be "in the green" as it were.
Cheers. I remembered Weir talking about a break even cash balance or something along those lines but I'd absolutely zoned out by that point tbh.
0 -
Mentioned this earlier but this is a really good discussion between Derek and @CraigFowler and tbqh it's the sort of thing that a lot of folk in the wider support could do with listening to before making up their mind one way or another on their vote.
One point though, it's possible that Dee misspoke around 11min 50 in saying that the accounts will be out very soon and talking about a profit this year which very much isn't the case as has been covered in some of the news articles on FPC and discussed on SO.
However, it may have been the case that he meant a profit for this season ie: 23/24? @StAndrew7 was there any sort of projection for next year mentioned at the AGM?
0
Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons
in Scottish Premiership General Chatter
Posted
Here's the league table up to (and including) the County game vs the results since:
Our only league defeats since County have been from Rangers (h), Hearts (a) and Celtic (h):