2024/25 Squad and Transfers

[Greacen2000]

If that screenshot is real then it’s pretty embarrassing - for Strapp, the club & whoever his mate is that shared it.

[Hej]

1 minute ago, Greacen2000 said:

If that screenshot is real then it’s pretty embarrassing - for Strapp, the club & whoever his mate is that shared it.

100%. 

Leaking it to the Telegraph as well is absolutely pathetic behaviour 

[Toby]

26 minutes ago, Greacen2000 said:

If that screenshot is real then it’s pretty embarrassing - for Strapp, the club & whoever his mate is that shared it.

Agreed, but in Strapp’s defence, we’ve all said something in confidence to a supposed mate and found ourselves to be talk of the steamie.

The boy might not even be a mate, but if I were Strapp I’d be careful who I share information with.

Totally irresponsible from the boy, and sharing that does nobody any favours. Least of all himself, as it shows him up to be a fanny that can’t be trusted.

[Chicken_Soup]

The squad rebuild has barely begun and folk are losing their collective minds. If you’re overwhelmed by rumours, departures and uncertainty, this portion of football fandom might not be for you. Take a holiday and return in August. The rest of us will fill you in on what you missed. 

[TRVMP]

34 minutes ago, Chicken_Soup said:

The squad rebuild has barely begun and folk are losing their collective minds. If you’re overwhelmed by rumours, departures and uncertainty, this portion of football fandom might not be for you. Take a holiday and return in August. The rest of us will fill you in on what you missed. 

They still call the transfer window 'Silly Season' (in English) in Sweden. There's good reason for that. 

[dunning1874]

16 hours ago, vikingTON said:

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. 

 

Yes, and sometimes people in football make terrible decisions in the course of their jobs: failing to make a serious attempt to keep Strapp is one of them. Despite not having access to the figures as per point a) - and neither we should - we do know that he was being paid a wage within this season's budget and was then offered a smaller one despite next season's increased budget, while other players were offered increases. That is a stupid thing to do because point c), whatever plans are in place we are not going to end up with a better squad for not having Lewis Strapp.

Point B is irrelevant because I'm not claiming to know who made the decision to offer him a reduced wage, whether it was a member of the board, the manager, the general manager or the kitman, someone made it and that person has made a mistake.

I'm not condemning us to immediate relegation on the back of this the way facebook and twitter immediately went off with Oakley's reported departure, I'm still looking forward to seeing the squad we build rather than panicking about next season, and maybe we wouldn't have kept him even if we had made a serious attempt to do. Had we had an announcement that he was away without the revelation that it was on the back of making a reduced offer then I'd be shrugging my shoulders that we couldn't do anything about it exactly as I did with Oakley, but we evidently could have done something about this and simply chose not to. That choice is a stupid one and deserving of criticism, because if as is more than likely we end up with another bang average Championship left back in his place in the mould of Tommy Robson, we'll be a poorer team for it.

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, dunning1874 said:

Yes, and sometimes people in football make terrible decisions in the course of their jobs: failing to make a serious attempt to keep Strapp is one of them. Despite not having access to the figures as per point a) - and neither we should - we do know that he was being paid a wage within this season's budget and was then offered a smaller one despite next season's increased budget, while other players were offered increases. That is a stupid thing to do because point c), whatever plans are in place we are not going to end up with a better squad for not having Lewis Strapp.

Point B is irrelevant because I'm not claiming to know who made the decision to offer him a reduced wage, whether it was a member of the board, the manager, the general manager or the kitman, someone made it and that person has made a mistake.

I'm not condemning us to immediate relegation on the back of this the way facebook and twitter immediately went off with Oakley's reported departure, I'm still looking forward to seeing the squad we build rather than panicking about next season, and maybe we wouldn't have kept him even if we had made a serious attempt to do. Had we had an announcement that he was away without the revelation that it was on the back of making a reduced offer then I'd be shrugging my shoulders that we couldn't do anything about it exactly as I did with Oakley, but we evidently could have done something about this and simply chose not to. That choice is a stupid one and deserving of criticism, because if as is more than likely we end up with another bang average Championship left back in his place in the mould of Tommy Robson, we'll be a poorer team for it.

Absolutely none of this word salad justifies how the decision is 'unforgivable' and how exactly you are going to express this (hysterical, nonsense) view.

So rather than your flowery essay, let's walk through a potential and straightforward practical scenario. And for the avoidance of doubt - and unlike half the town) - I am not basing this off any 'inside knowledge'. It's a purely hypothetical sequence:

1) Lewis Strapp's existing contract is a (hypothetical) £1000 per week, excluding bonuses etc. 

2) Dougie Imrie as manager believes that in an open market this summer, he can find a competent Championship left back for between £600-800 per week instead. 

3) Imrie instructs the board (or directly) that Strapp's wage offer should not be at the existing rate, because he wants to use those funds to help secure two first choice targets elsewhere in the squad (say, a £900 p/w offer each, rather than £700).

4) The club's final offer to Strapp is set at £800 as a consequence, which the player rejects as he is perfectly entitled to do. 

5) The net cost is neutral if Strapp is replaced with one key target and a replacement left back at £800, or -£200p/w if Imrie gets both key targets: which is funded by our increased wage budget overall. 

In what way would the decision-making in the above scenario be 'unforgivable'? Are you getting the TTG banner out for Imrie, for having the temerity to use his budget in a manner that he believes is best for his first team squad as a whole? 

Jim McInally bottling any number of key games was unforgivable. Not re-signing a player in the middle of May regardless of the cost quite clearly does not fall in that category. 

Edited May 18 by vikingTON

[TopCat]

28 minutes ago, vikingTON said:

Absolutely none of this word salad justifies how the decision is 'unforgivable' and how exactly you are going to express this (hysterical, nonsense) view.

So rather than your flowery essay, let's walk through a potential and straightforward practical scenario. And for the avoidance of doubt - and unlike half the town) - I am not basing this off any 'inside knowledge'. It's a purely hypothetical sequence:

1) Lewis Strapp's existing contract is a (hypothetical) £1000 per week, excluding bonuses etc. 

2) Dougie Imrie as manager believes that in an open market this summer, he can find a competent Championship left back for between £600-800 per week instead. 

3) Imrie instructs the board (or directly) that Strapp's wage offer should not be at the existing rate, because he wants to use those funds to help secure two first choice targets elsewhere in the squad (say, a £900 p/w offer each, rather than £700).

4) The club's final offer to Strapp is set at £800 as a consequence, which the player rejects as he is perfectly entitled to do. 

5) The net cost is neutral if Strapp is replaced with one key target and a replacement left back at £800, or -£200p/w if Imrie gets both key targets: which is funded by our increased wage budget overall. 

In what way would the decision-making in the above scenario be 'unforgivable'? Are you getting the TTG banner out for Imrie, for having the temerity to use his budget in a manner that he believes is best for his first team squad as a whole? 

Jim McInally bottling any number of key games was unforgivable. Not re-signing a player in the middle of May regardless of the cost quite clearly does not fall in that category. 

Completely agree with this - it's also worth noting that Strapp has a track record of injuries, falling out with Imrie and being kept out of the team by a mediocrity like Waters.

A big offer for Strapp has a fair amount of risk attached to it - he'd be absorbing a bigger chunk of the budget and we'd need to consider more expensive backup options, rather than a cheap loan deal or a young player. We had Waters and Strapp on the books last season, presumably accounting for £1400p/w+ of the budget. That seems excessive for the left back position, even if the overall budget goes up.

[dunning1874]

1 hour ago, vikingTON said:

Absolutely none of this word salad justifies how the decision is 'unforgivable' and how exactly you are going to express this (hysterical, nonsense) view.

So rather than your flowery essay, let's walk through a potential and straightforward practical scenario. And for the avoidance of doubt - and unlike half the town) - I am not basing this off any 'inside knowledge'. It's a purely hypothetical sequence:

1) Lewis Strapp's existing contract is a (hypothetical) £1000 per week, excluding bonuses etc. 

2) Dougie Imrie as manager believes that in an open market this summer, he can find a competent Championship left back for between £600-800 per week instead. 

3) Imrie instructs the board (or directly) that Strapp's wage offer should not be at the existing rate, because he wants to use those funds to help secure two first choice targets elsewhere in the squad (say, a £900 p/w offer each, rather than £700).

4) The club's final offer to Strapp is set at £800 as a consequence, which the player rejects as he is perfectly entitled to do. 

5) The net cost is neutral if Strapp is replaced with one key target and a replacement left back at £800, or -£200p/w if Imrie gets both key targets: which is funded by our increased wage budget overall. 

In what way would the decision-making in the above scenario be 'unforgivable'? Are you getting the TTG banner out for Imrie, for having the temerity to use his budget in a manner that he believes is best for his first team squad as a whole? 

Jim McInally bottling any number of key games was unforgivable. Not re-signing a player in the middle of May regardless of the cost quite clearly does not fall in that category. 

Unforgivable was a daft word to use yes, which I'll climb down from as I won't be getting the TTG banner out for Imrie in any circumstances (or for that matter the board over one player). Stupid or shite would have been more fitting to describe the decision making here and I'll stand by those.

Your hypothetical scenario above is an entirely realistic one, but it's one that if true would grossly underestimate Strapp's importance to the team. There are plenty of players I'd have no issue with that sort of calculation being made about in the hope of bringing more quality in other areas of the park, but he is far too good a player with far too great an influence on the team to be one of them. If that's what happened here (and like yourself I have no inside knowledge, only what's in the public domain via the Tele) then it's Imrie's right to make that decision and it's also a ridiculous one to make which I think is deserving of criticism, because the odds of finding players anywhere in the park who'll make up for what we lose with a bang average Calum Waters type in place of Strapp are very slim.

1 hour ago, TopCat said:

Completely agree with this - it's also worth noting that Strapp has a track record of injuries, falling out with Imrie and being kept out of the team by a mediocrity like Waters.

A big offer for Strapp has a fair amount of risk attached to it - he'd be absorbing a bigger chunk of the budget and we'd need to consider more expensive backup options, rather than a cheap loan deal or a young player. We had Waters and Strapp on the books last season, presumably accounting for £1400p/w+ of the budget. That seems excessive for the left back position, even if the overall budget goes up.

Strapp was never kept out of the team by Waters. We signed Waters after Strapp was injured and brought Strapp back in when Waters was injured: the only time they've both been fit was from January to March this year when Strapp started every game, because his performances while Waters was out showed the gaping chasm in ability between the two of them.

He's had one massive long-term injury which kept him out for 11 months, he came back into first team football from that looking an even better player than he did before he was injured, then missed the final month of the season with a different injury. It's a question mark, but it's hardly Jai Quitongo levels of breaking down over and over again that mean you can write him off as a player you'll only get 20 games a season from.

[TopCat]

Apologies, got Waters' first spell mixed up with the Mark Russell return where him and Russell were playing together/in competition. 

My point on fitness and relationship with Imrie stands though. He's not Jai, but it's a question mark. I also don't think we should be breaking the bank for a left back in any case.

[SassenachTon]

18 hours ago, Toby said:

Agreed, but in Strapp’s defence, we’ve all said something in confidence to a supposed mate and found ourselves to be talk of the steamie.

Also agreed - and if you do want to have a pop or a moan, don’t do it via an SMS which can be screenshotted and shared with the world. Like others on here - I rate Strapp very highly as a player. But it was obvious a year ago that Dougie had concerns over something Strapp-related. Maybe this is one of them.

 

[Jamie_M]

Is that the GM alluding that Strapp's offer being reduced was in fact because he has had injuries:

https://www.greenocktelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/24327565.dale-pyde-macdonald-morton-will-bring-right-players/

 

 

[WhowouldbeaMortonfan]

A good piece from DPMcD.

I was thinking more about our recruitment and the panic that will ensue if you don't trust and follow the process. 

So my thoughts are and I don't think they will be too far removed from many in the same situation as Morton, is a "draftboard" much like you see in the NFL/NBA.

Assuming we have this in place, Dougie and his team all know who is available and have an assumption what they will cost, in terms of wages. So when people leave the club, they must and hopefully will be turning to thier "draftboard" to see who can fill the position. It's a bit of a chess game for sure, moving players around to fit the deisred shape and structure. For sure, if you make a signing, these will impact other signings you make as they all need to fit the shape and structure.

Anyway, till no time to panic and lets all trust the process....

Mon e' Ton

And VT, please be gentle with me....

[vikingTON]

There's a fair amount of that which would have benefited from a benevolent redraft option before publication tbh. 

[quote] the minerals required to be a Greenock Morton FC player. [/quote]

The entire second half of the interview does seem like a response to Strapp's departure IMO but it is completely unrealistic. There's no way that we can magically determine match fitness for the subsequent year and award contracts on that basis alone. 

[TRVMP]

I assume he's talking about the likes of Jai. But yes, injury-proneness doesn't always (or even usually) mean a lack of 'the right stuff.'

[Mr.Blue]

3 hours ago, TRVMP said:

I assume he's talking about the likes of Jai. But yes, injury-proneness doesn't always (or even usually) mean a lack of 'the right stuff.'

Could also mean Mullen, Wilson and oakley who all had issues with injuries this season. 

Understand and appreciate Dale's points but the market we have been in we have to take a gamble or 2.

[RossMcC1874]

I expected to lose the like of Strapp, Oakley Muirhead etc but to offer reduce terms to one of our best players is just not something I can get behind. 

I understand money is tight and and we have to be careful but if we want to move forward we should be keeping players like Strapp if we want to try and improve the squad and our league position. 

I'm not saying Imrie won't find good alternatives but if we get a better left back that Strapp come August I will be very surprised and it will be interesting to see what sort of squad we have come then. 

[irnbru]

10 hours ago, TRVMP said:

I assume he's talking about the likes of Jai. But yes, injury-proneness doesn't always (or even usually) mean a lack of 'the right stuff.'

I thought Quitongo. He seems to like a mid season holiday as well when out injured. Not saying he's not entitled to them but with the number of injuries you'd think he'd be better finding others ways of rehabilitation. 

[dunning1874]

I think those revelations about not giving contracts to players who aren't available for 40 games a season may come as a shock to already under contract Iain Wilson and Ryan Mullen, and not at all injury prone Grant Gillespie who's been offered a new contract, as well as the player offered a new contract who is literally turning 40 in August.

That reads very much like an attempt to respond to the Strapp story which is a reactive lashing out rather than a sober explanation of the club's position.

[TONofmemories]

Ironic given we're apparently signing Tom Walsh, who's injury prone..