Jump to content

January Transfer Window 2021


piffer

Recommended Posts

I think we'd be crazy not to resign Mulumbu I'd also keep Whitehall if we can afford to. I would consider getting Brophy n Findlay on long terms bigger than any new signings, don't think we need much else. I'd hope Brophy n Findlay have a wee think about how internationalist SOD did with his job hunt in these uncertain times. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, stewarty66 said:

Been a waste of a wage so far.

Any word why he wasnt involved last week?

Nobody in right mind would guarantee a guy that hadn’t kicked a ball for a year, a wage without actually playing in first team - especially where we were already strong in central midfield. Must be pay per play deal surely? He won’t be costing us anything I would hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s an uncertain time for clubs and players alike. But it’s also a nothing season for us. We are safe and we aren’t going to Europe. We can use this to our advantage. We can afford to play less than our strongest team and still be fine.

Therefore; we make brophy and Findlay a ONE TIME contract extension offer. Extend to summer 2023 or exit in the summer. Also, make it clear that only committed players will feature in the remainder of the season. This will jeapordise international chances if not playing regularly. None are in top form, so not a huge gamble for us, and if they won’t extend they clearly plan to leave in summer. We will never have more leverage to get them resigned. If they decline they will be needing a new club to have a chance of Scotland so offload on cheap in January. Something is better than nothing.

Bring back Connell and Cameron. Give the boys some game time between now and end season. Taylor and Brindley too. Make a call whether they are good enough or not.

Only extend a mulumbu arrangement based on pay per play. 

Depending on outcomes we will know the extent of the overhaul required in The summer.

Edited by Thebigguy68
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, marie osmond said:

Airdrie fans raving about Connell yesterday. Came on as a sub (he was an injury doubt) and changed the game apparently.

 

To be fair a lot of us have been quite hopeful of Connell, and hopefully this loan deal will bring him on and get him closer to being ready for our first team 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, marie osmond said:

Airdrie fans raving about Connell yesterday. Came on as a sub (he was an injury doubt) and changed the game apparently.

 

Whilst standard in lower leagues can be questionable at times the experience for players at that age can only help in his development.....

Do hope he and one or 2 others around same age do get a chance and go onto establish themselves good enough to be first team regulars in next year or 2 for us..it’s been a while , often been players who were said to be very promising at youth or development team levels and labelled “ones to watch” that then seemingly disappeared ......or get on our bench for few months then released at end of a season and drift down to lower levels 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, casual observer said:

Whitehall can go unless he becomes more involved soon and replaced with pace.
Eastwood no point in extending loan when we can have Doyle extended to May. 

Think its best to keep Whitehall lets Dyer keep his system of having a target man if Kabamba gets injured or suspended.

Also means someone is pushing Kabamba all the way for a starting place.

Edited by Pride_of_ayrshire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’d let one of the keepers go, no need for 3 main keepers at a club our size. 2 and a youth backup should be plenty.

Id keep Mulumbu if he’s willing, just getting back to fitness and shown in the recent games that he still has that class.

otherwise I’d Try and keep the squad together as much as possible. Offer deals to Findlay and brophy along with kiltie and tish.

if there’s a loan or 2 available for either creative or speedy attackers then Fair enough but we don’t need numbers for numbers sake.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Thebigguy68 said:

 

Therefore; we make brophy and Findlay a ONE TIME contract extension offer. Extend to summer 2023 or exit in the summer. Also, make it clear that only committed players will feature in the remainder of the season. This will jeopardise international chances if not playing regularly. None are in top form, so not a huge gamble for us, and if they won’t extend they clearly plan to leave in summer. We will never have more leverage to get them resigned. If they decline they will be needing a new club to have a chance of Scotland so offload on cheap in January. Something is better than nothing.

 

Stick to football manager with that fantasy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Thebigguy68 said:

I’m all ears. Please explain what aspects that are wide of the mark and outline a more realistic scenario that the club will follow with findlay and brophy. I’m genuinely interested to know how football differs from normal considerations.

The football landscape changed 20+yrs ago. Players whose contracts are running down generally stay in the 1st team squad and only a few teams have the depth of squad to consign players to bit part roles. Can you imagine the fan reaction to not playing either Findlay or Brophy if we were on a poor run and didn't use the squad to it's full potential. 

Both these players have enough experience to secure contracts at other clubs regardless of current form. It's up to the club to demonstrate that we can match their ambitions, will give them a platform to play and are willing to pay them a wage reflective of their ability. 

The days of loyalty are gone and I'm surprised that there are supporters who still think clubs hold the cards in these scenarios. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its going to be a long winter and an even longer season with Covid stopping fans at the grounds.. I'm sure all clubs will feel the pinch financially and will need to tighten the purse strings.. I predict a shoestring team from the summer scraping by each week without too many injuries so its goodbye to the older players who are a bit injury prone....

 

Well you never know do you!!!!  ???

 

?

?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, theboyjohnston said:

 

4 hours ago, theboyjohnston said:

The football landscape changed 20+yrs ago. Players whose contracts are running down generally stay in the 1st team squad and only a few teams have the depth of squad to consign players to bit part roles. Can you imagine the fan reaction to not playing either Findlay or Brophy if we were on a poor run and didn't use the squad to it's full potential. 

Both these players have enough experience to secure contracts at other clubs regardless of current form. It's up to the club to demonstrate that we can match their ambitions, will give them a platform to play and are willing to pay them a wage reflective of their ability. 

The days of loyalty are gone and I'm surprised that there are supporters who still think clubs hold the cards in these scenarios. 

Appreciate the response. I understand your points and they confirm the standard view. The problem with such accepted norms is that they result In bad outcomes for ( in this case) clubs. Accepting something that’s bad just because it’s the norm is a recipe for failure. It’s not loyalty - if it ever truly existed, it passed a long time ago - but about leverage. Are the players needs right now greater than the clubs? They need security I would think, in uncertain times. They want to show form to impress Scotland manager. And they want to stay in the minds of potential future employers. In the clubs case, we want them to play and contribute. You are advocating that we ignore our leverage and simply play the players way. Let the players dictate.

SOD is one of my favourite killie players in the last 20 years. Great player and superb servant. He excercised his contractual rights. No problem with that. In my opinion he remained a top player to the end. Even he struggled in the current climate to secure a move. I have no problem with Findlay and brophy playing till end of contract and I won’t think any less of them if they make it clear they are leaving. But for us not to apply pressure with a carrot/stick approach Given the context would be a neglect.

Managing player transfers Is the most important aspect of a club like ours. We are not going to suddenly find another 5 thousand paying fans. An influx of tv money benefits all. The only way we can positively gain advantage over others is how we buy and sell players. Accepting damaging norms without challenge Is defeatist imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would offer Whitehall a contract until the end of the season, although if I was him I would maybe be looking for something else as he isn't getting a look in. I'd let Mulumbu go.

Up until about a month ago I would have said that a number 1 keeper should be our top priority, but I think Rogers has really kicked on and has got better with every game. If Doyle's loan is up then I'd go with Rogers and Eastwood as 1 and 2 till the end of the season.

If we are to bring anyone in I think a winger with a bit of pace would be ideal. All our wide players are pretty much the same. There's no-one like Jones (I'm not for a minute suggesting we bring him back) who can knock the ball passed a full back and run beyond him. Apart from that I don't think there's too many places we need to strengthen barring any injuries between now and January

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd keep the majority of players out of contract. But at the same time wouldn't burst the bank for any of them.

Our main assets used to be Brophy and Findlay who have both been miles off the pace. Would still rather have them than not have them but I wouldn't say it's worth going over the top to keep them.

Kiltie and Kabamba are the 2 if any I would really try and keep and offer a little bit more if necessary. 

As I say, nobody particularly I'd say let them go, even Whitehall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No need to do much in January unless we're having to sell guys whose aim is to walk out the door next summer.

If this season continues as a win some lose some variety which most expect then after January there would never be a better chance to blood some of the youngsters so we'd know by the summer whether they're likely to make it. 

I guess that strategy requires assurances to AD that if we do this 8th or thereabouts will do?

I'm not saying this due to sentimentality but because I think its logical, the coffers must be empty and if we do this next summer's approach to recruitment could then be much better informed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thebigguy68 said:

Appreciate the response. I understand your points and they confirm the standard view. The problem with such accepted norms is that they result In bad outcomes for ( in this case) clubs. Accepting something that’s bad just because it’s the norm is a recipe for failure. It’s not loyalty - if it ever truly existed, it passed a long time ago - but about leverage. Are the players needs right now greater than the clubs? They need security I would think, in uncertain times. They want to show form to impress Scotland manager. And they want to stay in the minds of potential future employers. In the clubs case, we want them to play and contribute. You are advocating that we ignore our leverage and simply play the players way. Let the players dictate.

SOD is one of my favourite killie players in the last 20 years. Great player and superb servant. He excercised his contractual rights. No problem with that. In my opinion he remained a top player to the end. Even he struggled in the current climate to secure a move. I have no problem with Findlay and brophy playing till end of contract and I won’t think any less of them if they make it clear they are leaving. But for us not to apply pressure with a carrot/stick approach Given the context would be a neglect.

Managing player transfers Is the most important aspect of a club like ours. We are not going to suddenly find another 5 thousand paying fans. An influx of tv money benefits all. The only way we can positively gain advantage over others is how we buy and sell players. Accepting damaging norms without challenge Is defeatist imo.

So the carrot is the platform I mentioned, what is the stick? Remove them from the team? How does that benefit the club and the club's ambitions? Both players had their highest profile at the club a season and a half ago with genuine interest in Findlay (Oxford/Oldham?) and reputed interest in Brophy from Aberdeen, Rangers and Leeds. The dilemma at the time was sacrifice our best league position in decades for relatively small transfers (Findlay a low ball offer and 50% of any Brophy money to Hamilton). We got more for our league position and a feelgood factor from Euro qualification that selling off players and a season tailing off would never have brought us.

The significant failure was the transition to Alesio and not tying those guys down to longer deals had the opportunity been there to do it. Not saying either won't sign a new deal - I think we are a good fit for Findlay and he enjoys being here, but I think Brophy will fancy trying his chances in England. Watching Jason Cummings come on as a substitute in Extra Time for Shrewsbury makes me hope Brophy would realise he is playing at a good level with Killie and not opt for the graveyard of lower league English football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whitehall can go. Clearly never going to be up to this level. 
 

Would try and extend Eastwoods contract for another 6 months and allow Doyle to go back to Hearts. 
 

Findlay will sign a short term extension and Brophy will be away imo. 
 

If mulumbu isn’t on a fortune then I would try and keep him for the rest of the season but if he is on a much higher wage than the rest of the squad then he can go and we can put the money towards trying to nail Tshibola down on a longer term deal 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, theboyjohnston said:

....genuine interest in Findlay (Oxford/Oldham?)....

Oxford Utd in summer of 2019, but they didn't follow up on their "substantial" bid because the club's valuation (reportedly in excess £500k) had moved out of their range. 

They might want to try asking again now.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, theboyjohnston said:

what is the stick? Remove them from the team? How does that benefit the club and the club's ambitions?

It’s the threat that leads to the ( potential) outcome. One would hope that it wouldn’t come to that. I agree that both players would be well served by signing an extension. But I don’t think they (both) will. The point is simply how to increase the chances that they do. Giving an ultimatum - at a time where the implications of saying “no” Could mean limited game time (at a time where they pushing for Scotland) and an uncertain income stream post summer, would seem strong negotiation points. The alternative of waiting for a call from an agent (based around whether we end up the only show in town) is less appealing as a strategy. Managing negotiations on this basis would seem reasonable to me. The context I also referenced is that this is a season where we can afford to take a chance. We will be safe and not good enough to achieve anything of significance with or without these players. Obviously a matter of opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Thebigguy68 said:

Giving an ultimatum - at a time where the implications of saying “no” Could mean limited game time (at a time where they pushing for Scotland) and an uncertain income stream post summer, would seem strong negotiation points. 

The secret of a good negotiation is that both sides feel that they have won.

Issuing threats isn't negotiation.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, skygod said:

The secret of a good negotiation is that both sides feel that they have won.

Issuing threats isn't negotiation.

 

 

It’s desirable but not a prerequisite. Many negotiations result in an imbAlance in the outcome. It’s about whether the outcome is better than the party’s next best alternative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...