Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[CoF]

3 hours ago, Handsome_Devil said:

Except the club actually agreed to let Carson go to Celtic for his life-changing deal, it was only when his replacement fell through in the last hours of the transfer window it got binned. The circumstances are totally different.

 

1 hour ago, Desp said:

 

You could've just used the example of Van Veen's China bid in March, which we knocked back a bid because we had no or next to no chance of getting a replacement in.  Comparing Van Veen now and Carson from 2018 is, as has been pointed out, comparing apples & oranges.

Also;

 

1 hour ago, crazylegsjoe_mfc said:

Especially considering we have seven weeks before the league season starts and another four after that until the transfer window shuts. When we had the bid for Carson, we had less than 24 hours to replace him and had the small matter of a game against Hibs that night. As good as Carson had been for us in that six months, he was subject to a bid from Celtic because they were in need of a goalkeeper due to injuries, not because of his form. 

 

Alright alright. I’m here to retract my earlier point. 

[Ron Aldo]

Some of the Van Veen takes are wild. 

Can't really add to anything that's already been said but he's got an opportunity to go back to the Netherlands and earn multiples of what he'd ever get with us or any other club he's played with up until now. He's now 32 and it's highly unlikely we'd ever anticipated him being a sellable asset.

This isn't a Jake Hastie or even a Max Johnstone situation where we can argue another season with us might do him good. He's a 32 year old striker coming off the season of his life. It's now or never as far as KVV is concerned and as a club that openly gives players a platform, we're never going to stand in his way. 

Before this (last?) season he had scored 15 goals, or more, twice in his 13 year career. I think he's great but there's nothing to suggest he'll replicate his form next season, especially if we've done him out of a life changing move over the sake of a couple of hundred grand that we'd probably never budgeted for in the first place.

[Antiochas III]

2 hours ago, YassinMoutaouakil said:

5 free kicks is mad 

Didn't we score 3 free kicks in 4 games, all scored by 3 different players (Slattery - Killie and Goss/KvV - Hibs).  

[welldaft]

1 hour ago, Ron Aldo said:

Some of the Van Veen takes are wild. 

Possibly. But at the same time this is a guy who is a record goal scorer for Motherwell in terms of successive games, voted for as player of the season for Motherwell, voted for and shortlisted as player of the season in the entire league, voted for in the team of the season and ultimately 2nd top goal scorer in a team that struggled against relegation for 2/3rds of the season. 

If on the back of all that we cannot anticipate or hope for a slightly higher fee than £500k then what is all the fuss ? 

If we made a promise that we would sell him for £500k in the summer or thereabouts then again I would expect us to honour that.  I think we all agree that stopping a player from moving home and earning many multiples of what he is on in Scotland will probably not end well.  And I am quite sure that is what the club want to avoid.

At the moment we only are aware of interest from Groningen.  For £500k I would hope and expect interest from elsewhere. Maybe the add ons will take it to a level we are happy with. Maybe they wont. 

But I still feel as do others, that £500k for Van Veen is a steal regardless of all the variables that are known to all of us. And for some to say that you hope we get less to upset others is quite frankly daft. Even if it is tongue in cheek. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 16, 2023 by welldaft

[Desp]

Once again, this '£500k' figure has been chucked out there by a random journalist, with no Motherwell connections, and everyone has taken it as gospel.

I'm 100% certain Kev will be offski this summer, as is the right thing to do.  However, just because we "won't be hard to deal with" does not mean that we'll be letting him go for peanuts.  The board will get the absolute maximum they can, given what offers have landed on our door so far.

The reality is, it'll be announced as an "undisclosed fee" and we'll find out next year when the accounts get published.

Absolutely buzzing for the Twitter meltdown from the £10-a-month 'Well Society members who'll demand to know the exact details of the transfer.  "bUt wE OwN tHe ClUB!!!!111"

 

7 minutes ago, welldaft said:

And for some to say that you hope we get less to upset others is quite frankly daft. Even if it is tongue in cheek. 

No regrets.

[well fan for life]

God I cannot wait for the announcement of an undisclosed fee. The twitter replies will nourish my soul. 

['WellDel]

5 minutes ago, well fan for life said:

God I cannot wait for the announcement of an undisclosed fee. The twitter replies will nourish my soul. 

Burrows currently sitting in his Pittodrie office, basking in the praise he's currently receiving for his current work in the transfer market, and absolutely delighted he doesn't have to deal with the lunatic element of our support anymore. It must have been fucking exhausting answering the same nonsense from the same mouth breathers time after time. Who, other than the moon do they howl at now? There are questions to be answered and these unhinged people need, no DEMAND to know!!

[standupforthemotherwell]

I'm sure there will be some equivalent moonhowlers when Aberdeen don't win the conference League. The bonus is that he won't be able to understand half of their wild accents

[dezz]

Aye, I don’t think the ‘moon-howling’ comments really relates to those who hope we could get a bit more for Kev, that’s a fair enough opinion to have. It’s more aimed at the absolute moon units on twitter and their reaction to what, at the minute, is just rumour.

I’ve seen one guy saying that as a society member he’ll be telling the board to knock it back and hold out for more (cos that’s how it works obv), and another calling us ‘spineless, gutless shitebags’ if we accept £500k… I mean, cmon to f**k

Fwiw, I think £500k plus some achievable add on’s is about what I expected. 
 

[welldaft]

25 minutes ago, dezz said:

Aye, I don’t think the ‘moon-howling’ comments really relates to those who hope we could get a bit more for Kev, that’s a fair enough opinion to have. It’s more aimed at the absolute moon units on twitter and their reaction to what, at the minute, is just rumour.

I’ve seen one guy saying that as a society member he’ll be telling the board to knock it back and hold out for more (cos that’s how it works obv), and another calling us ‘spineless, gutless shitebags’ if we accept £500k… I mean, cmon to f**k

Fwiw, I think £500k plus some achievable add on’s is about what I expected. 
 

The truth is you will always have several different takes on anything Motherwell FC related. We are all different personalities. It would be boring if we were all the same and all agreed on everything. 

I am on this site as I tend to agree with 95% of posts and even with the other 5% I can see they have a point. Not so with Steelmen where it was around 60% or less. I refuse to be on or join Facebook so miss that element. And yes some of the Twitter responses to any official MFC Twitter content are excruciatingly wide of the mark especially after defeats.

I think there is also rightly a concern of how do we even come close to replacing Van Veen. Every £ over £500k if that is an accurate figure would help when it comes the impossible task of finding a striker or strikers that can come near 30 goals a season

[Busta Nut]

1 hour ago, dezz said:

I’ve seen one guy saying that as a society member he’ll be telling the board to knock it back and hold out for more (cos that’s how it works obv), and another calling us ‘spineless, gutless shitebags’ if we accept £500k… I mean, cmon to f**k

 

One boy who was giving it all the Shitebag stuff replied to another of my tweets slagging folk as if he wasn't part of the moon howling

[Swello]

TBH - I'm already at the stage where I'm now looking forward to a tweet from an actual ITK hack announcing that he's going, then 12 hours later the tweet/statement from the club (a high Moult on the Turnbull-Blyth scale), a mention of undisclosed fees and a hint about add-ons. Then we can all get on with the tributes to the best dutch weirdo (even surpassing Sieb) to have played for us.

And before we know it @capt_oats will have the youtube highlights reel up of the next Thread signing...

[capt_oats]

1 hour ago, welldaft said:

I think there is also rightly a concern of how do we even come close to replacing Van Veen.

[For Your Pies Only]

2 hours ago, welldaft said:

I think there is also rightly a concern of how do we even come close to replacing Van Veen. Every £ over £500k if that is an accurate figure would help when it comes the impossible task of finding a striker or strikers that can come near 30 goals a season

I do understand your argument here but even if we hypothetically got £950,000 for KVV, IMO we wouldn't be any more likely to afford a striker or two who could be reliably expected to bang in 30 goals a season (combined or otherwise). It's just not realistic in the current market as those kind of players have a value in the millions (and probably dont want to play for Motherwell - shocking I know). So the club would be just as well served to take a punt on a mercurial weirdo on a free or a nominal fee. That's how Van Veen came to the club in the first place! The odds of success are basically the same but dont involve spending £££s

[welldaft]

43 minutes ago, For Your Pies Only said:

I do understand your argument here but even if we hypothetically got £950,000 for KVV, IMO we wouldn't be any more likely to afford a striker or two who could be reliably expected to bang in 30 goals a season (combined or otherwise). It's just not realistic in the current market as those kind of players have a value in the millions (and probably dont want to play for Motherwell - shocking I know). So the club would be just as well served to take a punt on a mercurial weirdo on a free or a nominal fee. That's how Van Veen came to the club in the first place! The odds of success are basically the same but dont involve spending £££s

Don’t disagree with any of that. Hence my concerns. He has arguably had the biggest impact in terms of us avoiding relegation this season. 

But your point about those types of players being worth millions……..not if they play for Motherwell. Apparently they are only worth £500k at most….last time I will raise that point…honest

[capt_oats]

7 hours ago, dezz said:

Aye, I don’t think the ‘moon-howling’ comments really relates to those who hope we could get a bit more for Kev, that’s a fair enough opinion to have. It’s more aimed at the absolute moon units on twitter and their reaction to what, at the minute, is just rumour.

I’ve seen one guy saying that as a society member he’ll be telling the board to knock it back and hold out for more (cos that’s how it works obv), and another calling us ‘spineless, gutless shitebags’ if we accept £500k… I mean, cmon to f**k

Fwiw, I think £500k plus some achievable add on’s is about what I expected. 

Aye. There's "I'd quite like us to get a bit more" (I'm sure the club would as well) and there's "the club are shitebags because the reported figure is a bit short of my completely arbitrary valuation and expectations.".

@Desp has covered it perfectly with his recent posts.

Over the past 7 or 8 years we've accrued actual millions in income from player trading - whether that's transfers or development fees. The way we've done that has broadly been by being open to brokering deals that suit both club and player without pricing anyone out the market.

I've said it before on here but it bares repeating - KVV has been saying the quiet part loud for the past couple of months (just as Moult did before him). He's actively open to moving. It's clear that since the club and player put a pin in the China move the quid pro quo is that the club will help facilitate a move this summer. We get a chunk of money for a player we picked up on a free and he gets PAID.

The idea that we'd simply let him walk out the door or alternatively that we're going to tell a player he's not getting his move (especially one who's absolutely knocked his pan in and dug us out of a massive fucking hole) because we've been haggling over £100k or whatever is just people who haven't been paying attention and from the looks of things there's a number of Owners of the Club on Twitter dot com who genuinely don't seem to get it.

It's fucking exhausting tbh (and why my mute list is littered with the usual suspects from Motherwell Twitter).

As @Desp says on the previous page: 

8 hours ago, Desp said:

just because we "won't be hard to deal with" does not mean that we'll be letting him go for peanuts.  The board will get the absolute maximum they can, given what offers have landed on our door so far.

Edited June 16, 2023 by capt_oats

[MurrayWell]

12 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

Aye. There's "I'd quite like us to get a bit more" (I'm sure the club would as well) and there's "the club are shitebags because the reported figure is a bit short of my completely arbitrary valuation and expectations.".

@Desp has covered it perfectly with his recent posts.

Over the past 7 or 8 years we've accrued actual millions in income from player trading - whether that's transfers or development fees. The way we've done that has broadly been by being open to brokering deals that suit both club and player without pricing anyone out the market.

I've said it before on here but it bares repeating - KVV has been saying the quiet part loud for the past couple of months (just as Moult did before him). He's actively open to moving. It's clear that since the club and player put a pin on the China move the quid pro quo is that the club will help facilitate a move this summer. We get a chunk of money for a player we picked up on a free and he gets PAID.

The idea that we'd simply let him walk out the door or alternatively that we're going to tell a player he's not getting his move (especially one who's absolutely knocked his pan in and dug us our of a massive fucking hole) because we've been haggling over £100k or whatever is just people who haven't been paying attention and from the looks of things there's a number of Owners of the Club on Twitter dot com who genuinely don't seem to get it.

Think this is spot on. 

Said it earlier in the thread, on paper this looks like a cracking bit of business, reported £500k, plus add ons, for a guy we paid zero for. Given his form I think it's perfectly fine for folk to have been surprised, myself included, at the number quoted and thinking it may have been more up front, but at the end of the day it's still a pretty good deal and might well be into the high six figures once everything is sorted, again if those numbers are even correct. As @crazylegsjoe said, it's actually refreshing to be debating how much we think a 32 year old striker in the last year of his deal is worth. However it turns out it's not the club being "shitebags" or a "slap in the face" or "disgraceful". 

Kev has done right by the club, could have easily taken the huff when he didnt get his move in the winter. It's right that the club do everything they can to get the best deal possible to allow him to get his move, while looking after their own interests. 

We'll miss the big weird hero. 

[Londonwell]

My only wish with the Van Veen situation is that if he's certain to leave, which it looks he is, then I hope it's done and dusted very quickly. Be good to know what hand we're playing with asap.

The stinger for me is Max Johnston. Potentially a couple of mill left on the table there with him running down his contract. 

[Archie McSquackle]

I think we have to accept that no-one, with us or anyone else, will ever again do a Turnbull and just sign a contract purely to get the club money. 

[D-Fens Foster]

It’s obviously a divisive situation but the way i look at it is, when we signed KVV from Scunthorpe if you offered me his goal return that he’s gave us then we get 500,000 (if that’s even true). I would have been happy with that.