bazil85

So West Ham just gave £1 million to be on the safe side even though the actual comp would be lower? [emoji23] solid business model that club have. I'm pretty sure the clubs have advisers that can calculate very closely how much the comp would be or would be able to request the information. It's not a secret formula the clubs aren't allowed to use. 1. Hire someone to work out the compensation value and pay them for their work 2. Fire £1 million quid at the club and hope for the best. Sound

So there's no difference between a pre contract agreement on a player with six months left on his contract or a player with 5 years to run? I think you're really missing how compensation works for players that's contract are close to expiring, we don't need to know how it works, all we need to know is compensation amounts are calculated and they are nonnegotiable by the selling club once set. You made a point about clubs paying more than the compensation owed in order to put themselves in a better position, it was incorrect. Let's move on.

Well I'm not, am I? I didn't see the £1 million information, never said it was wrong, just that I couldn't find it. That's for providing it. As I've consistently stated though, that is not West Ham bidding over and above what they had to pay. That'll just be the comp value in that circumstance. It's stated in literally every story 'compensation agreed' 'pre-contract agreement' Correct me if I'm wrong but you were trying to make a point about teams paying more than the comp due? Do you now maybe kind of see why that would be pointless?

Since you've went down the grammar police route, I'll take that as a realisation you see my point and your point mate absolutely no sense. If my English was better maybe we 'could have' got there earlier.

Well that's you talking nonsense 'the reason clubs make offers of more than the compensation amount is that it puts them ahead of other interested parties' then you used Hendrie as an example That's your direct quote and it's absolute rubbish [emoji23][emoji23] Hendrie signed a pre-contract agreement with West Ham. The compensation was agreed as per every other pre contract where clubs are entitled to compensation. West Ham didn't bid more money to secure him, why would they [emoji23][emoji23] if someone else came in for Hendrie on the 30th would West Ham of been in a better position because their compensation package was £1 million? No Hendrie could of signed a pre-contract with anyone he wanted as per player contract rules so the comp amount puts no club in a better position. I can get explain this in smaller words if you want? I tried to be nice but you sir are very difficult to have an adult conversation with.

Of course he stayed. It was a pre-contract agreement. Every single article says pre-contract agreement.

Every single one of them early on say it's a compensation package. Not one mentions that West Ham bid for the player. I'm sorry but I'm not getting your point here? If Morgan goes St Mirren will get compensation. It'll be done in the same manner as this one has been done. The hendrie deal is no different from any other deal so just confused about why your bringing it up as if something different happened to all the other pre contract deals? We won't be able to negotiate more than the compensation owed the same way as Hamilton wouldn't be able to. It's not like Hamilton were due £500k but West Ham have bid £1 million to secure his signature. £1 million must have been the amount of compensation West Ham had to pay, the same way is there will be an amount Forrest have to pay or Celtic have to pay or Accrington Stanley would have to pay. Compensation packages differ depending on the buying team.

To be honest I looked and I haven't seen one story, one tweet or one anything else saying Hendrie comp was £1 million. Countless stories that he signed a pre-contract agreement and none say 'West Ham paid more than the compensation due' simply because they didn't. If Morgan goes down south the compensation will be more than if he goes to a club up here yes. That's how it works. But the debate has been going back and forward that a club might pay more money for him than what the compensation would be and we might then get him loaned back. All I'm saying is that won't happen and I think I've explained pretty clearly why it won't. Only way we're getting more is if someone wants him in January without a loan back deal and club accept it (then Morgan accepts it, he has all the power in The situation) or like I said if Morgan hits the fear over injuries and dip in form (rarely happens, can't think of one example where that's happened just before a transfer window)

https://web.archive.org/web/20150201041201/http://www.whufc.com/articles/20150130/hendrie-to-join-hammers_2236884_4451890 Hendrie signed a pre-contract agreement as per above article man. If the comp due was £1 million that's neither hear nor there. He went for whatever the comp that was due was. I don't know what the comp would be for Morgan, I think it depends on the size of the buying club as well as appearances and age. So that's my November/ December point. Yes a club can bid and St Mirren can accept but then Morgan would have to accept a deal. Why would he do that when he can wait a couple months and have teams playing off against each other? Deals at this time of the year under these circumstances are very rare. Maybe Morgan will hit the fear about injury and dip in form and sign but I doubt it. If he was worried about that he'd possibly of signed a longer deal with us. He's waited this long, why wouldn't he wait another few weeks? I'm much more of the opinion these stories are designed to sell papers rather than fact. I don't imagine Forrest will be that desperate for Morgan. A team that size probably have other players on their radar above Scottish championship level.

You said bidding more would put Forrest ahead of the pack so I assumed you meant before January 1st. From January 1st a club could bid £50 million, it wouldn't put them ahead of other clubs as that's when pre-contract rules come into effect.

Hendrie honestly went pre contract mate. West Ham didn't bid anymore money. The deal went through 30th January and he went to West Ham at end of his contract. My point is why would a club bid more when they don't have to? Anyone can talk to Morgan form 1st of January so bidding more wouldn't prevent someone else offering a contract. It defeats the purpose of a higher bid. Only time we would get a higher bid would be if the club intended to take him in January. There's no way a club would bid higher then loan him back because it's exact same as signing a pre-contract deal.

Stephen Hendrie deal was a pre-contract agreement. It was for compensation same as this one will be. Literally 100s of players in the UK every year are in this exact position as LM is now. How many transfer deals do you see in November/ December? It doesn't happen. Why would Morgan rush to sign a deal with someone now when he knows fine well if he waits a few weeks he'll have clubs fighting over him and can command a better wage? From January we have zero power to negotiate a better deal as his contract has less than six months.

the £2 fund was set up as an additional fund to support short-term costs and community project planning over the course of the proposal. I fully appreciate the benefits in starting a reserve fund however giving the circumstances that (I believe) not one vote has resulted in carrying over money even by a quarter, what's the chances of fans wanting it carried over indefinitely? I personally don't see SMISA and St Mirren as separate forces. I see them as a vehicle to deliver the best for the team I support. A big part of that for me is fore-filling the wishes of my club now, not in several years time. If the funds can go towards costs now meaning the club keeps the money they would of spent for something else then I'm happy. Say we don't spend money now, fortunes change and we end up in league 1 like we nearly did last season. Would having this safety pot be great when we go fan owned? Of course not, the revenue the club would have lost would be much larger. Why not use the money now in ways that save the club money for spending elsewhere that might get us back into the top flight and generating more money and even better academy players? Why put off benefiting the money now for our own needs when we're fan owned? The money could be used now and the club has use for the funds now so that'll get my vote and looking at the way most people vote, it'll always get a majority vote. Guess it boils down to help our club now, save money for ourselves in 8/9 years time. One choice for me. Final point is, fans can still vote no (they don't seem to but they can) if that money is carried SMISA can then clarify what that means but what's the point in debating something that never happens?

Would love if he did this, st Mirren saved him from football wilderness after leaving Rangers. Unfortunately the closer it gets the less likely I think he'll sign a new contract.

They're as binding as actual contracts mate. Appreciate the injury point but if the players waited this long it's likely a gamble worth taking. Would have to be a pretty serious injury to dent a move (which I know does happen) same argument could be made for him signing a deal previously with St Mirren which he hasn't done. With a month to go before he can sign a pre-contract and the transfer window not even open I'd be very surprised if we see larger than comp bids coming in. I'd be equally surprised if Morgan signed one of them.

Yeah this is it mate. It's a bit of a non-issue for me, because why wouldn't he wait? He's waited this long. One more month and he's got himself in a great position to have clubs playing off each other for a bigger wage. Makes perfect sense. Unfortunately St Mirren will be getting owed comp and nothing more

This is the whole point Kemp. If you're Lewis Morgan would you sign a deal offered to you now or would you wait a month or so and see what else comes in? There is no question that the sensible thing (and what his agent will say) is to wait.

That won't happen. If you're Lewis Morgan why would you rush to sign a deal that wouldn't happen until January at the earliest anyway because of transfer window. When you can sit back and wait to see who wants you more and what kind of offers are on the table. Would be the worst possible decision for Morgan to sign anything until last six months of his contract.

If it was that black and white I'd be surprised. Any man and his dog could see that would be counterproductive. More likely just because of the direct conflict.

I appreciate it's a tricky situation to get our heads round but bottom line is Morgan holds all the cards here. St Mirren have no bargaining power. He can sign a pre-contract in January or in Feb, March, April May and we'd get same amount of money. We're beyond the point where we can instigate a bidding war and get a loan back deal (as loan back is same as pre-contract in this circumstance) The only outcome I see where we'd get a bit extra is if it was a McAllister situation and the club didn't want to loan him back. Even then if it's not a club Morgan wants to sign for he can opt to sign for someone else (providing they can afford the compensation)

So why would that be more money? If the development fee is less and a ore-contract means he's still a st Mirren player why would a club bid more then give him back anyway? Doesn't benefit the buying club in anyway.

You'd have to direct that question to GS. For me I'm happy to take advice of our chairman in what's best for our club.

So from where I am looking at it I picture a few scenarios. Let's say for example the below happens. Nottingham Forrest and Celtic go into a bidding war. Celtic win and bid £500k for Morgan and part of that deal is he'll be loaned back to St Mirren until end of the season. Nottingham Forrest then decide to offer Morgan a pre-contract (even if we accept Celtics offer, Morgan is still fully free to talk to Forrest and accept the pre-contract. we have no control over that even by accepting a £500k bid) say the compensation is £200k. Nottingham forest then use the other £300k Celtic have bit as a sweetener to get Morgan to sign the pre-contract. Morgan remains a st Mirren player until summer (as he would in loan back deal) and Forrest have spent same amount as Celtic have on transfer fees alone. (Celtic would of had to spend money on sign on fees over and above) Under those circumstances why would Celtic or anyone else be wasting that money on a transfer fee? They could also go down pre-contract route and use the money they would have on a transfer in better conditions for Morgan. It would also amount to same as a loan back deal.

What bargaining power have we got in the competition for his signature? He can sign a deal with anyone he chooses from 1st January with St Mirren being unable to stop it. Why would a club bid more money to sign him and loan him back when they would achieve the exact same outcome by convincing him to sign a pre-contract and paying compensation when his contract expires? Loan back = still saints player until summer. Pre-contract = still saints player until the summer. No one is paying more than compensation for Lewis Morgan. It defies logic.

Yeah man it's all good to just cancel it. It's not a credit agreement or anything so can be stopped at any time.