Bid accepted for Kyle McAllister?

[TsuMirren]

Eh??  Your finances do not change on a weekly basis based on league position.  In size St Mirren are closer to Dundee United than Alloa and should market ourselves and our academy players accordingly.

We've been in the bottom three for months now, not weeks, and even spent a good chunk of last season in fear of going down. Agents, Scouts and by natural attachment clubs will look primarily at what we have done previously...frankly other clubs don't matter. Put it this way, if you walk in to a shop and suddenly they're charging higher prices are you going to spend it? No, you'd offer what you paid last time or storm out.

Plus, Derby could easily wait until the right time to get Kyle. They've no need to rush in with a huge offer, nobody has, and it certainly wasn't the club or the owners who have created that scenario. The McLean fee will set and drive expection, only way round it is an Egyptian or Chinese club coming in.

I said on twitter last night that it's a comical fee, but there's a barrow load of factors.

[madball]

Assuming that no further competing bids come in would I say that the £225k is true value, then probably no, however we haven't achieved significant sums recently so this figure still represents progress in amount and also in the board's attitude.

We are capitalising now when he is hot property and not letting it fizzle out like we did with McGinn and McLean.

Also we need to remember that every year we have needed an injection of cashflow every January, either in loans or sales. This is just the continuation of this.

Best wishes to the lad if/when he does go.

[norrie82]

7 hours ago, scottd said:

The lad doesn't have 18 months left.  He is out of contract in January 2018 as has been stated elsewhere.  No surprise that the king of cataclysm is going off on one. hahaahahaah

[HSS]

25 minutes ago, Kemp said:

tell Derby to ram it 

 

Very good.

[Kemp]

16 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

 

We've been in the bottom three for months now, not weeks, and even spent a good chunk of last season in fear of going down. Agents, Scouts and by natural attachment clubs will look primarily at what we have done previously...frankly other clubs don't matter. Put it this way, if you walk in to a shop and suddenly they're charging higher prices are you going to spend it? No, you'd offer what you paid last time or storm out.

Plus, Derby could easily wait until the right time to get Kyle. They've no need to rush in with a huge offer, nobody has, and it certainly wasn't the club or the owners who have created that scenario. The McLean fee will set and drive expection, only way round it is an Egyptian or Chinese club coming in.

I said on twitter last night that it's a comical fee, but there's a barrow load of factors.

 

Surely the difference here is that there seems to be solid interest from more than one club.  If Derby plan to wait and get him for free then they will miss out, someone else will have come in.

Another difference with McGinn and McLean is that we at least benefited greatly from having them on the park.  McGinn helped win us a League Cup, McLean grew to become by far our best player in the Premier League.  We haven't had that from McAllister, Mallan or Magennis.  We should either be seeing a benefit on the pitch or in the bank balance for bringing these guys through.  Investing in the academy to then sell the best prospect for 200k after a handful of games is lunacy.

[mcdowell76]

34 minutes ago, Kemp said:

This is remarkably inaccurate!

Last season Hamilton got 1.1m for a full back Stephen Hendrie who few had heard of before (or have heard of since!), 1.13m for Tony Andreu, and to top it off fleeced us 35k for Dougie Imrie.

Dundee United; 3m for Robertson (a player essentially stolen from Queens Park a year before), 3m for Goodwillie, 2.3m for Gauld, 1.8m for Cifti, 750k from DERBY for Johnny Russell, 2m for Armstrong and MacKay Steven. 350k for selling Ryan McGowan to China. 170k for John Soutar. Overall 13m in transfers in the past few years.

Falkirk: 1.1m for McGrandles to Norwich, Will Vaulks 400k to Rotherham, Scott Arfield 400k to Huddersfield, Biabi 200k, Lyle Taylor 200k.

Hibs haven't sold for a while but when they had their golden generation of academy players come through they were going for between 2m and 5m.

Kilmarnock just sold Coulibaly for 1m after he came up from England and played half a season.  Josh Magennis, St Mirren reject, went for 250k!  Let that one sink in.

Hearts managed to sell Osman Sow for 1.5m!  Patrick Thistle got 300k for a centre back that played 6 games for them.

It is to our credit that we are producing talent like McLean, McGinn, Magennis, Mallan and McAllister but there is little doubt that we are not getting anything close to the market value for these players as we are seen as a small club that has to sell.

There are four or five clubs interested in this boy, tell Derby to ram it and sell him to the highest bidder.  If we don't get at the very least 400k then hold on to him.

 

McLean is now 25 and still playing for Aberdeen. McGinn is now in his second season playing in the Scottish Championship. There isn't a list of big clubs interested in these guys.

We DID get the market value for them.

What you appear to be saying is that other clubs have managed to sell players for grossly exaggerated values, well above their market value while we haven't.

That is just bad luck.

We did manage to sell O'Brien and McNamee for £600k many years ago for well above market value (as it so proved).

Our problem is that, not only have we not produced anyone actually worth big money, we haven't even produced anyone with some promise where we can get lucky with an exaggerated fee.

BTW, looking at your list, Hamilton got lucky with Andrue because their manager went to the club that bought him!

Arfield and Robertson have proved to be genuine Premiership players, Armstrong is playing for Celtic regularly, Russell is a regular with Derby. Their fees have proved to be justified. We simply haven't produced any players of this class.

[Drew]

6 minutes ago, Kemp said:

Surely the difference here is that there seems to be solid interest from more than one club.  If Derby plan to wait and get him for free then they will miss out, someone else will have come in.

Another difference with McGinn and McLean is that we at least benefited greatly from having them on the park.  McGinn helped win us a League Cup, McLean grew to become by far our best player in the Premier League.  We haven't had that from McAllister, Mallan or Magennis.  We should either be seeing a benefit on the pitch or in the bank balance for bringing these guys through.  Investing in the academy to then sell the best prospect for 200k after a handful of games is lunacy.

The alternative could be relegation, and having a young player who doesn't want to be at the club. We could sell him in the summer, but we'd be in an even weaker negotiating position having taken the drop.

There are a lot of ifs and buts about this, and none of know exactly what has been agreed, and the terms of any sell-on clause and add-ons.

I'd hoped there would be a bidding war, but that's largely out with the influence of the club. There will be numerous young lads with potential playing across the length and breadth of the UK and beyond that clubs can run the rule over.

Edited January 25, 2017 by Drew

[pozbaird]

3 hours ago, mcdowell76 said:

Why do you say "if McCarthy or McArthur had been St. Mirren players"?

Why don't you simply state the names of the actual players who St. Mirren sold for £150k each and who then went to become Premiership stars and get sold for £ millions?

I'd love to know how you fell out with Stuart Gilmour....

Erm, because both of those were players that went for big money, so, in speculating why some folk are angry about something, I wondered if the perception is, had they been our players, unlike Hamilton would St Mirren have sold them for 150k.

Not difficult to understand from the original post.

[Sonny]

I am as disappointed as anyone that we will lose Kyle but it should come as no surprise to anyone on here. Earlier in the season, on this forum, it was recorded that Kyle had been offered new deals and refused to sign any of them - he wanted to leave when his contract was up. In six months he could sign for anyone and we get sod all except a token development fee.

As for the fee, Div has indicated we could get £400k from Derby plus a percentage sell on fee. I should have thought that for the short time he has left on his contract that is not the worst deal we could get. And that deal may improve now that hopefully we have started a bidding war with only a couple of days left in the transfer window.

As comparing him to Falkirk's valuation I can only assume their player has a lot more than 12 months left and you can ask a price - does not mean you will get it.

There are a couple of young guys kicking about just now in Scottish Footfall in the lower Leagues that we could maybe sign for some of this money that may help us stay up which is more important than one player.

I do not think the BOD had much scope in this situation and I am sure they are trying to get the best deal possible.

[Kemp]

5 minutes ago, Drew said:

The alternative could be relegation, and having a young player who doesn't want to be at the club. We could sell him in the summer, but we'd be in an even weaker negotiating position having taken the drop.

There is no doubt we should consider selling him, it is the price that is the problem.  Selling for 200k it is a ridiculous risk that moves us closer to being relegated.  At that price we are better to hold on to him and make a decent fist at staying up.

If it is 500k and we can bring in three experienced players to get the team back to where it should be then great.  For peanuts there really isn't much point.

[Seaside Nipper]

Who are the comparisons? In this case, who has got more money for a just turned 18 year old with 15 appearances for a club rooted at the bottom of the Scottish championship?

Who has got more money ?? Well to turn this slightly, a rival bidder for a start.

My point is that historically over the years we seem to fail to realise and agree sound sale fees / valuations on players. Mcinnes himself admitted that getting McLean was "a steal "from us !!! We had by then of course gotten ourselves duly in the shit that we took conservatively £200k less than was realistic, but we had to keep the wolf from the door and sell thereby honouring a "gentleman's agreement" Great !?

It's growth and sell on for us, no question but who knows, let's see what transpires. Maybe the CEO and BoD will play a blinder and negotiate something significant for a superb young talented player.

Part of our clubs ambition must always be to entice a biding war for a significant talent. We don't appear to have succeeded in the past here.

Appreciate there are lots of underlying factors around this one but our sole most aim has to be to sell well, not cave as we tend to.

Still, it's reflective of where we are. We can but hope.

[pozbaird]

8 minutes ago, Kemp said:

There is no doubt we should consider selling him, it is the price that is the problem.  Selling for 200k it is a ridiculous risk that moves us closer to being relegated.  At that price we are better to hold on to him and make a decent fist at staying up.

If it is 500k and we can bring in three experienced players to get the team back to where it should be then great.  For peanuts there really isn't much point.

I suppose the club would argue that 200k (add-ons to 400k maybe?) isn't peanuts for a player who could leave for nothing later, hasn't wanted to sign new contracts we offered him, clearly wants to leave, and frankly, isn't attracting interest from the Evertons and West Ham Uniteds of this world.

Edited January 25, 2017 by pozbaird

[DXBBud]

As others have mentioned above, the player has rejected several previous offers from the club and has therefore made clear that he either doesn't see a future with us or he will have a better chance to develop his career elsewhere. If we reject offers for him, we will be left with a player who not only wants away, but who will also then be totally pi$$ed off. It is a no brainer that we sell him for what we can get, trouble is that in our position that isn't as much as other clubs might be able to demand for the same player.

 

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

Derby have 14.1 net worth of debt so they are not exactly rolling  in cash. Still feel we have not learned our lessen selling on the cheap. Wait with interest what the whole deal is. 

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

2 minutes ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

Derby have 14.1 net worth of debt so they are not exactly rolling  in cash. Still feel we have not learned our lessen selling on the cheap. Wait with interest what the whole deal is. 

14.1 million debt that should read

[Edinbuddie]

The big question is will the SFA re-open the goal of the 3rd round competition? I thought McMullen's goal was better

[Magic Monkey]

2 minutes ago, Edinbuddie said:

The big question is will the SFA re-open the goal of the 3rd round competition? I thought McMullen's goal was better

Right enough. If McAllister leaves then I, and my 47 'friends', would like to retract our votes.

[div]

I've spoken to a few people this morning. So here's an update on where I think we are at.

McAllister

As I said previously, the player wants to go. His agent want him to go. He won't sign a new deal and he has 12 months of his contract left. He will be free to sign a pre-contract with 6 months of his deal remaining which would be this summer. If that happened he would walk away next January for a development fee alone, no add-ons, no sell-on.

The player signed a 3 year deal on his 16th birthday in January 2015. This is the maximum allowed under SFA rules. The club tried to register the contract to summer 2018 but the SFA made them change it as it was noted that would be a 3.5 year contract.

Player has been offered new terms, doesn't want to sign.

As such we either keep an unhappy player for the rest of the season, risk being a third tier club anyway and lose the lad for next to nothing.

Or we try and cash in as much as we can now.

Plenty of clubs interested but Derby are front runners. Club wanted him back on loan as part of the deal but Derby not having that. I don't know the actual numbers involved but it's more than double what we got for McGinn, and with plenty of add-ons and a sell on clause.

Other clubs coming in might push the price up, and one of them might be more receptive to a loan back. We're in the final stages in any case with this one. The player is going, it's just a matter of when not if.

Mallan

As things stand currently the deal to sell Mallan is OFF. Barnsley won't meet our valuation currently so as things stand he is staying put. That might change of course but it is in no way linked to the McAllister deal. His contract situation is different of course as he does have 18 months left so we are really in no need to sell right now unless the deal is too good to turn down. 

New Players

Two deals very close to completion. One for a loan forward/winger from within the SPFL. He is 21 so we can get him in within the loan rules. We're allowed 4 players on loan from within the SPFL. Only one can be over 21 (Rory Loy in our case) and you can only have two from any one club outside your own division. The over 21 rule is why you won't see Keith Watson re-joining on loan for example, he's too old.

The other is coming from England. A 28 year old central midfielder. Not sure if he's a loan or permanent deal but assume former.

"Loan" signings from outside your own association do not count as actual loans as these are acutally temporary transfers requiring international clearance. This is sometimes why clubs down South are reluctant to loan players to Scotland as they are unable to then recall them until the temporary transfer expires.

The manager is also looking at a few other players who would come in once the McAllister deal is finalised.

 

That's where we are right now.

[paul torfason]

makes sense a believe,must sell,cheers div

[Kemp]

2 minutes ago, div said:

. I don't know the actual numbers involved but it's more than double what we got for McGinn, and with plenty of add-ons and a sell on clause.

So we are looking at even less than 200k?  McGinn went for about 60k did he not?

Must say I am confused by McAllister's supposed unhappiness at the club, he's only just broke in to the team and now we are being told if he stays past the window he won't be committed to the team?   Doesn't add up.

I can see the sense in selling, but we've really got to get a good deal this time or the same thing is going to keep happening.

Good to see we are holding out on Mallan.

[Sonny]

Hopefully the money can be used for Calum Waters from Alloa and Dylan Nguene Bikey from Stirling Albion.

[div]

1 minute ago, Kemp said:

So we are looking at even less than 200k?  McGinn went for about 60k did he not?

Must say I am confused by McAllister's supposed unhappiness at the club, he's only just broke in to the team and now we are being told if he stays past the window he won't be committed to the team?   Doesn't add up.

I can see the sense in selling, but we've really got to get a good deal this time or the same thing is going to keep happening.

Good to see we are holding out on Mallan.

McGinn went for £100K plus a 33% sell on clause.

[buddygreat]

I'm chucking it if we lose mallan and mcallister..its bleak..losing McLean to Aberdeen in the January window contributed to losing our spl status..we say we need to go with youth but anyone decent will be sold?..no ambition..we have become mediocre at best. Start losing the youth before they've spent any time in the first squad and we won't even be that..2nd division here we come...quite happily it would seem..

[Sonny]

1 minute ago, Kemp said:

So we are looking at even less than 200k?  McGinn went for about 60k did he not?

Must say I am confused by McAllister's supposed unhappiness at the club, he's only just broke in to the team and now we are being told if he stays past the window he won't be committed to the team?   Doesn't add up.

I can see the sense in selling, but we've really got to get a good deal this time or the same thing is going to keep happening.

Good to see we are holding out on Mallan.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/hibs-sign-midfielder-john-mcginn-on-four-year-deal-1-3845697

[mcdowell76]

50 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

Erm, because both of those were players that went for big money, so, in speculating why some folk are angry about something, I wondered if the perception is, had they been our players, unlike Hamilton would St Mirren have sold them for 150k.

Not difficult to understand from the original post.

Erm, you appear to be missing the point.

Why use McCarthy & McArthur in your example?

Why not just simply use the names of the former St. Mirren players who are now Premiership and international regulars and have subsequently been sold for £ million?

If you can't actually name these players (essentially because they don't exist) then what exactly is your "perception" based on?

Not difficult to understand from my reply.