rabuddies Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 Players are only worth what other clubs will pay for them, not what fans think they are worth. McLean was sold to the only club that bid for him as was McGinn. We have some good young players but if they were that good more clubs would be showing interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maboza Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 3 minutes ago, Stu said: Perhaps the money is needed so that we have the funds to repair Ralston so that we can continue to produce talented youngsters to sell on the cheap so that we have the money to fix Ralston so we can continue... and so on. By that theory we would have been able to maintain/repair Ralston from the sales of previous talented youngsters (see McLean, McGinn, Naismith) that were sold on the cheap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djchapsticks Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 Absolutely disgraceful if the figure being quoted is accurate. We got more for David McNamee 20 years ago FFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazah Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 Players are only worth what other clubs will pay for them, not what fans think they are worth. McLean was sold to the only club that bid for him as was McGinn. We have some good young players but if they were that good more clubs would be showing interest. That is of course is true, but it's the timing and value of it that seem strange - if it's all accurate.If he's worth £200k now can't see that changing dramatically come the summer regardless of where we end up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, rabuddies said: Players are only worth what other clubs will pay for them, not what fans think they are worth. McLean was sold to the only club that bid for him as was McGinn. We have some good young players but if they were that good more clubs would be showing interest. That's about the size of it. I no longer bother about us selling players, to anyone, for any price. Phone GLS, write him an angry letter, e-mail the club voicing disgust... know where it will get you? Nowhere. It may get you a response saying 'nothing we could do, we wanted to keep the player, the player wanted to leave, we couldn't stand in his way...' or variation thereof. If I want a level playing field, where no team in the league sells their best players mid-season, where no predators swoop, where the game is a fair one... I watch the NFL. Roll on Superbowl 51. Edited January 24, 2017 by pozbaird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew87 Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 Disappointed if the fee is correct but despite showing a lot of potential the reality is that Kyle has played a limited number of games for a team well adrift at the bottom of the second tier in Scotland. The size of fee is in part linked to our position. If Kyle was playing in the top flight we would get more but if we get relegated we'll get buttons - how many players in the bottom two tiers in Scotland ever go for any fee never mind a sizeable fee? Maybe the board are simply being pragmatic and taking the money whilst they can. I would love Kyle to stay and keep us up but can you imagine the meltdown if we get relegated and they let Kyle go for £50k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 If we are relegated this year the boy will be worth a lot less than £200k. Right now we could buy some decent experienced replacements with that cash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkL Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 I'd be amazed if the fee doesn't pay for the new 4G pitch at Ralston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djchapsticks Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 Thinking about it, it's now imperative that we keep Mallan til the summer. Think most of us expected Mallan or McAllister to move on. Mallan AND McAllister would be quite unacceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santaponsasaint Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 Thinking about it, it's now imperative that we keep Mallan til the summer. Think most of us expected Mallan or McAllister to move on. Mallan AND McAllister would be quite unacceptable. Wouldn't put anything this lot that's in charge now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santaponsasaint Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 Wouldn't put anything past this lot that's in charge now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munoz Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 1 minute ago, djchapsticks said: Thinking about it, it's now imperative that we keep Mallan til the summer. Think most of us expected Mallan or McAllister to move on. Mallan AND McAllister would be quite unacceptable. Jack Ross has done not too bad with the players he's signed this window .I'd be very surprised that if these players are to move on this week , he dosn't have some decent replacements coming in . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St.Ricky Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 12 minutes ago, andrew87 said: Disappointed if the fee is correct but despite showing a lot of potential the reality is that Kyle has played a limited number of games for a team well adrift at the bottom of the second tier in Scotland. The size of fee is in part linked to our position. If Kyle was playing in the top flight we would get more but if we get relegated we'll get buttons - how many players in the bottom two tiers in Scotland ever go for any fee never mind a sizeable fee? Maybe the board are simply being pragmatic and taking the money whilst they can. I would love Kyle to stay and keep us up but can you imagine the meltdown if we get relegated and they let Kyle go for £50k Very pragmatic post. Tend to agree. The lad has tremmendous potential. The money is needed now to strengthen the squad and to bolster funds should the worst happen. Do I like it? No. Do I think it makes sense in the here and now? Yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 1 hour ago, MarkL said: Don't think anyone is suggesting £1 million pounds, but he's at worth more than 200'000. Falkirk and Hamilton...etc seem to always get more money for similar players They aren't rooted at the bottom of the Championship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTOF Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 4 minutes ago, santaponsasaint said: Wouldn't put anything this lot that's in charge now. FFS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 Turns out the player is actually only under contract until Jan 2018 so would have been free to sign a pre-contract this summer when his deal ran out.He was given a 3 year deal on his 16th birthday (Jan 2015) which is the maximum allowed under SFA rules.Saints actually gave him a deal until June 2018 originally but the SFA made them change it which is why there was some doubt about how long he had to go.Club wanted Kyle to sign a new deal but he and his agent didn't want to do that. Player wants to go.Headline on deal is around £20OK up front but lots of add-ons could double that plus a sell on %Other clubs interested so still time for a counter bid.Main blow for me is Derby refusing to lend him back to us till the end of this season. Two very decent signings in the pipeline that should go through in time for the weekend but it's definitely a bit of a blow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djchapsticks Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 5 minutes ago, div said: Turns out the player is actually only under contract until Jan 2018 so would have been free to sign a pre-contract this summer when his deal ran out. He was given a 3 year deal on his 16th birthday (Jan 2015) which is the maximum allowed under SFA rules. Saints actually gave him a deal until June 2018 originally but the SFA made them change it which is why there was some doubt about how long he had to go. Club wanted Kyle to sign a new deal but he and his agent didn't want to do that. Player wants to go. Headline on deal is around £20OK up front but lots of add-ons could double that plus a sell on % Other clubs interested so still time for a counter bid. Main blow for me is Derby refusing to lend him back to us till the end of this season. Two very decent signings in the pipeline that should go through in time for the weekend but it's definitely a bit of a blow. If that's the case then it's certainly more understandable. Disappointing that Derby won't loan him back, especially if he end up just warming benches and running out for the reserves for the rest of the campaign Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, div said: Main blow for me is Derby refusing to lend him back to us till the end of this season. Could the club have dug their heels in a bit over this? That said, if the player wants to move, maybe his heart and head would be elsewhere, though he'd be getting genuine competitive fitba. If he heads dahn saff just now, that's not likely to be the case. Oh well, a shite state of affairs, but not entirely unexpected. Edited January 24, 2017 by Drew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidg Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 Best of luck to the lad, been great to watch this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callum Gilhooley Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 12 minutes ago, djchapsticks said: If that's the case then it's certainly more understandable. Disappointing that Derby won't loan him back, especially if he end up just warming benches and running out for the reserves for the rest of the campaign I don't know for certain but I would imagine Derby would have a "pet club" that they would loan him to if that is their plan. Derby are on the fringe of a play off place so I can't see him getting even a bench place at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTOF Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 The humble pie shop is now open. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 13 minutes ago, div said: Turns out the player is actually only under contract until Jan 2018 so would have been free to sign a pre-contract this summer when his deal ran out. He was given a 3 year deal on his 16th birthday (Jan 2015) which is the maximum allowed under SFA rules. Saints actually gave him a deal until June 2018 originally but the SFA made them change it which is why there was some doubt about how long he had to go. Club wanted Kyle to sign a new deal but he and his agent didn't want to do that. Player wants to go. Headline on deal is around £20OK up front but lots of add-ons could double that plus a sell on % Other clubs interested so still time for a counter bid. Main blow for me is Derby refusing to lend him back to us till the end of this season. Two very decent signings in the pipeline that should go through in time for the weekend but it's definitely a bit of a blow. One other point to consider is that had Jack Ross not been appointed then he'd most likely still be playing for the under 20 team and would have gone for much less. At least Jack has put the lad in the shop window and earned us a few bob to help get us out the hole we're in. We managed to get Kyle Magennis to sign on but Kyle McAllister had other ideas. All in all seems reasonable to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopCat Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 One other point to consider is that had Jack Ross not been appointed then he'd most likely still be playing for the under 20 team and would have gone for much less. At least Jack has put the lad in the shop window and earned us a few bob to help get us out the hole we're in. We managed to get Kyle Magennis to sign on but Kyle McAllister had other ideas. All in all seems reasonable to me. McAllister was given his debut by Rae and featured regularly in the first team up until his injury...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 2 minutes ago, Kendo said: One other point to consider is that had Jack Ross not been appointed then he'd most likely still be playing for the under 20 team and would have gone for much less. At least Jack has put the lad in the shop window and earned us a few bob to help get us out the hole we're in. We managed to get Kyle Magennis to sign on but Kyle McAllister had other ideas. All in all seems reasonable to me. Aye, that's probably a fair synopsis of the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 Just now, TopCat said: McAllister was given his debut by Rae and featured regularly in the first team up until his injury...? Oh really how many games did Rae give him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.