2024/25 Squad and Transfers

[Madton]

2 hours ago, DumfriesTon said:

This is a stinker of a start to pre season. No doubt Broadfoot will sign on again to make up for it.....

He's prob signed and we are waiting for some actual exciting news to publish alongside it to limit the damage!

[vikingTON]

On 5/13/2024 at 10:23 PM, dunning1874 said:

Could do without a summer of manager and board taking implicit shots at each other which will then lead to histrionics from the support about how we're doomed, Imrie is about to resign and fan ownership will inevitably fail.

 

On 5/16/2024 at 9:55 AM, dunning1874 said:

Took an especially long time for this to start this summer.

 

38 minutes ago, dunning1874 said:

Not putting the best offer we can on the table for Strapp - we can evidently do better if it's a reduction on this season - is unforgivable

Took an especially long time for this to age rancidly. What do you mean by 'unforgivable'? Who is not going to be forgiven - and what should be done about this? 

The crucial points of information missing from this story are:

• from what level terms have been reduced

• who has decided the terms that should be offered

It's complete horseshit to claim that just because we gave Strapp a contract through to the end of the season, that we must therefore maintain those terms going forward. That may well be a bad use of our overall budget - and it's quite possible, given the situation 12 months ago, that Imrie agrees with that stance too.

And while Strapp did play a key role in our excellent spell this season, talk of him being the best left back in the division overlooks the reality that he was a free agent last summer and available for not an enormous amount of cash when the club was a total nick behind the scenes before that. Our rating of Strapp's ability - so far at least - does not reflect the market's. 

Every player in the squad has a realistic cap on what should be offered. We should not match a stupid figure from Ayr for Oakley and should not commit to extending any deal on terms that limit the squad elsewhere. 

[Tubes]

That decision on Strapp and reduced terms is fucking embarrassing. 

Interesting there hasn’t been a quick resolution to some of the players with contract offers on the table, the fact it’s dragging on is worrying me.

[Alibi]

Given the difference that Strapp made to the team, offering him reduced terms is a sackable offence.  If that's  a bar we can't clear, I can foresee a relegation battle next season.  And with Waters having been released, we're now seeking a new left back.  Given Waters is a reasonably competent LB, albeit not quite up to Andy Robertson levels, if Dougie hasn't got someone lined up, why was Waters released?

[Scott]

11 minutes ago, Alibi said:

Given the difference that Strapp made to the team, offering him reduced terms is a sackable offence.  If that's  a bar we can't clear, I can foresee a relegation battle next season.  And with Waters having been released, we're now seeking a new left back.  Given Waters is a reasonably competent LB, albeit not quite up to Andy Robertson levels, if Dougie hasn't got someone lined up, why was Waters released?

Waters had to go regardless, he was poor last season. 

[dunning1874]

2 hours ago, vikingTON said:

 

 

Took an especially long time for this to age rancidly. What do you mean by 'unforgivable'? Who is not going to be forgiven - and what should be done about this? 

The crucial points of information missing from this story are:

• from what level terms have been reduced

• who has decided the terms that should be offered

It's complete horseshit to claim that just because we gave Strapp a contract through to the end of the season, that we must therefore maintain those terms going forward. That may well be a bad use of our overall budget - and it's quite possible, given the situation 12 months ago, that Imrie agrees with that stance too.

And while Strapp did play a key role in our excellent spell this season, talk of him being the best left back in the division overlooks the reality that he was a free agent last summer and available for not an enormous amount of cash when the club was a total nick behind the scenes before that. Our rating of Strapp's ability - so far at least - does not reflect the market's. 

Every player in the squad has a realistic cap on what should be offered. We should not match a stupid figure from Ayr for Oakley and should not commit to extending any deal on terms that limit the squad elsewhere. 

I don't see any contradiction in what I've said over those posts. I won't be joining in with (and will continue to mock) any rumours originating from someone on facebook or twitter claiming to have knowledge through a colleague's cousin that Imrie is resigning to take the Hamilton job because we're going into administration next week then the Easdales will take over to dismantle Cappielow for scrap. That doesn’t mean I won't criticise when stories which merit criticism emerge from more credible sources, and while the Tele have had some bullshit of their own recently such as their gross misrepresentation of club statements about finances last summer, explicitly printing that a player has been offered a reduced deal is something which makes it believable. If that's true then it means someone at the club has fucked up.

As our budget has increased, it stands to reason that we'd be capable of offering what we paid him this season with a smaller budget. I don't remotely agree that it's horseshit to say we should be continuing to maintain the terms a player was on this season when there is evidently no financial need to do so, the player in question is one of our best players whose return had a transformative effect on our season, we already have a rebuild on our hands with losing at least three other important players and the chances of finding a replacement of the same quality range from tiny to non-existent.

Losing one of your best players because other clubs have made offers you can't match can't be helped and it's entirely right not to gamble the club's future on trying to keep up with clubs throwing unsustainable sums around. Losing one of your best players because someone has decided he's worth less than you were already paying him on a smaller budget at the same time as his teammates have been offered wage rises to try to stop them leaving is rampant stupidity, which is a slap in the face for the player and guarantees they'll turn you down. Maybe Strapp would have had better offers and left anyway, but if we've offered him a reduction then we've effectively chased him out the door and that is a ridiculous thing to do because he's comfortably our best defender and a serious contender for our best player.

[dunning1874]

2 hours ago, Scott said:

Waters had to go regardless, he was poor last season. 

Yeah, I'd say Strapp leaving makes it all the more important that we saw the back of Waters. We've seen enough to know he's not good enough to be a first choice in the Championship, and particularly with new contracts being offered to O'Connor and Broadfoot we'll need full backs who are comfortable with the ball at their feet and can consistently find a teammate with a forward pass to carry us up the park if Plan A isn't working.

A huge reason we were so bad without Strapp this season is not having anyone else in the defence who could do that, whereas when Waters had first signed for us his inability in that regard wasn't shown up because we had Grimshaw and Ambrose doing it.

[Jamie_M]

You can't shout about 'best budget in years' and that the contracts offered to Oakley etc to try to keep them were the best Dougie has seen since he has been here, then expect Strapp to accept reduced terms.

Nobody knows if he was given inflated wages to re-sign last year but surely not by that much they had to lowball it this year.

[RossMcC1874]

If that's true then like everyone has said that's pish. Not sure what our strategy is if we are letting our best players leave and not bursting our gut to sign them it will come back and bite us on our arse, we can't keep expecting Imrie to pull rabbits all the hat for every signing he is bound to make a few who are far from convincing. 

The lack of ambition at the club really is piss poor not from Imrie but from whoever is making decisions at board level and if it keeps up like I said previously I wouldn't get surprised to see Imrie tell them to stick it. 

Of course this could all be nonsense and people just stirring the pot as usual but on the football side there has been nothing but disappointing news so far. 

[Brian Skelton]

If this is bullshit someone on the board or Imrie should be setting the record straight ASAP as it won't be helping selling season tickets surely.

[Jamie_M]

Someone has posted this over on the Facebook group.

 

[TopCat]

If Imrie e.g. only rates him as a mid-table quality left back, then that's the offer we should make.

It's down to the manager (and the club management) to decide who gets top-earner offers, not the fans. Imrie released Strapp in the past, I don't think it's a stretch to assume he's just not a huge admirer.

[thehustler]

16 minutes ago, TopCat said:

If Imrie e.g. only rates him as a mid-table quality left back, then that's the offer we should make.

It's down to the manager (and the club management) to decide who gets top-earner offers, not the fans. Imrie released Strapp in the past, I don't think it's a stretch to assume he's just not a huge admirer.

You're absolutely correct that Imrie is seemingly not an admirer.  That was pretty obvious last season. But hey he's offered Broadfoot a deal. You couldn't make it up. Get rid of a better player to re-sign a washed up haddie. And Gillespie is also done. Worrying signs and although we finished 5th it could easily have been 9th. IMHO we were fortunate to avoid the play offs and bar Mullen and Wilson all our better players have left. We can only hope that Imrie has been busy in the market when he's not re-tweeting X posts.

Edited May 17 by thehustler

[Scott]

Think the club need clarify this situation re increased budget etc. There’s far too many rumours flying about. “Rubbish offer” could mean it was below Strapp’s high expectations, or it could also mean it was a shite offer for one of, if not the, best left backs in the league and worse than his current deal. Clubs clearly didn’t fancy taking a punt on him last season so I can’t imagine he was on a wage above the norm for us when he returned. 
They really do know how to kill any buzz around a new season and drive season ticket sales. All their efforts and marketing go out the window if the rumours about budgets etc aren’t clarified. 

[Mr.Blue]

If we haven't offered strapp a good deal then imrie must have other options lined up  as a back up. Poor decision imo if we haven't went all out to sign him

[TRVMP]

Nothing short of publishing the exact offers is going to stop rumors from circulating. If the BoD has a budget and a plan, that's sufficient. If the manager is empowered to spend that budget on players, that's sufficient.

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, dunning1874 said:

As our budget has increased, it stands to reason that we'd be capable of offering what we paid him this season with a smaller budget. I don't remotely agree that it's horseshit to say we should be continuing to maintain the terms a player was on this season when there is evidently no financial need to do so, the player in question is one of our best players whose return had a transformative effect on our season, we already have a rebuild on our hands with losing at least three other important players and the chances of finding a replacement of the same quality range from tiny to non-existent.

It is horseshit to declare it unforgivable that either the board or the manager decide that those resources would in fact be put to better use elsewhere in the squad. That's their job and you have absolutely no idea about either a) what the relevant figures are b) who made the decision and c) what other plans are in place with the budget. 

That's histrionics right there. 

 

[AyrshireTon]

Could it have been a factor that Strapp has had injury spells recently?

Not suggesting it's a valid reason to offer reduced terms, but could it have been part of the thinking process?

Edit - scrap this idea. 
You offer a player reduced terms, you know what they’re going to do.

Edited May 17 by AyrshireTon

[irnbru]

Imrie has a full budget to manage now that needs to be split between a squad so a good offer for a first team player might be lower than what could be offered to strapp for a few months. I'd love to keep him but last years wage for a short term deal is almost irrelevant when it comes to planning to build pretty much a full squad. 

[WhowouldbeaMortonfan]

Calm doon everybody. 

Dougie with board support has provided certain players offers and has set a target date to reply back to him for each individual. The time during the offer and reply is uncertain, but there is nothing that can be done by Dougie or the board. That does not mean to say that they will not be in contact with offered players or OTHER players that they may like to sign. Its a waiting game for now and Dougie and the board are approaching it professionally without showing their cards. 

The fact that a couple of players have left and gorgeous George has yet to commit is nothing new. George is enjoying his break as his Insta shows and likely not thinking too much about next season and beyond. His agent will be doing that for him. But as many know, and in my experience, a good offer is always better than an expected chanced or supposed offer futher down the line.

I'm not buying into any of the Chinese whispers and all should do the same. Point in case, if I was to print, I just met George and he told me he signed, everyone would be lapping it up, despite not a word of fact being proven. Same goes for all of the nonsense and hyper-ventilating that we're seeing on the board now.

I really hope big gorgeous signs, but it won't be the end of the world. Life and Morton carried on when big Andy left and had me greetin in ma mams kitchen.....