[cite]Posted By: McLovin[/cite]Can't blame him, tbh. He's been picked three times for Ghana, a team that got to the second round of the last World Cup, but can't get on the bench for a League One team.
So why won't he go out on loan?
I have no more idea, than you. I'll have a couple of wild guesses, since this thread seems to be the place for it.
It could be that he wanted to fight for his place, here.
It could be that having seen the cluster that was our loan revolving door, last season, and thought that it wouldn't be great for his career.
Maybe he reckoned a 28 day loan, when he has no match fitness was completely pointless.
Seems odd that on one hand he's being criticised for not wanting to be with us then with barely a pause for breath he's criticised for not wanting to leave. Confusing.
How is a 3 month loan deal not fair though?
It probably would be, but 28 days is what is mentioned in the article. You should try reading it...
No you should try reading it.
It also says he was offered a 3 month loan (with a recall after 28 days if we needed it)
Thanks Henry & Covered End, you beat me to it. McLovin fella, it's a forum for people's views and i love hearing all of them but the attitude is a bit unnecessary.
We are playing 4-5-1 at the moment and it clearly works coz of our ace midfield.
Could we afford him as the lone striker - I don't think so. Also, the chances of changing a winning formula and going 4-4-2 (increasing his chances of selection) must be fairly slim - unless we do it late in a game.
I was surprised to see the fishboy come on at Tranmere. It clearly says that Dickson is quite far down the pecking order at the moment, especially with Leon coming in. You've got to have some sympathy for him....
He's a local lad, who a few short years ago could only have dreamed of being a professional footballer and the wage he is now earning.
He's under contract, the club rate him sufficiently highly not to cancel his contract or just give him away.
So whether his abilities can earn a place in the present formation - or whether he has to adapt his game and character to give himself a better chance here, is clearly up to him as an individual.
He's out of contract anyway at the end of the season, so he needs to at least establish a decent reputation or he could be finished in the Pro game. He's evidently well aware the sands of time are sifting away.
He's still reasonably young, but he really should have carved a niche for himself by now.
It's still in his own hands, but he really must prove to Parky that the matchday squad can't do without him.
McLeod has done it, he was totally marginalised last season - but now he's convinced Parky that he's worth at least a place on the bench. So it's up to you, Chris.
[cite]Posted By: bigstemarra[/cite]We are playing 4-5-1 at the moment and it clearly works coz of our ace midfield.
Could we afford him as the lone striker - I don't think so. Also, the chances of changing a winning formula and going 4-4-2 (increasing his chances of selection) must be fairly slim - unless we do it late in a game.
I was surprised to see the fishboy come on at Tranmere. It clearly says that Dickson is quite far down the pecking order at the moment, especially with Leon coming in. You've got to have some sympathy for him....
An injury to shelvey could see us playing 4-4-2 again though, don't you reckon? Not sure who could replace him playing off the main striker.
Also, If deon got injured then we might find no-one else can play the lone striker role, and 4-4-2 might suit us again.
4-5-1 is best for now, but things could change.
The big chance that dickson is leaving (not a transfer anymore, but probably still on loan) will have pushed him down the pecking order. Without all the speculation and impending departure maybe he'd be on the bench instead of tuna.
Contract 101 for Henry and Covered End: a one month contract with a 67 year potential extension is a one month contract. A three month contract with a 28 day "call back" is a 28 day call back. This is my job and I watch, with a certain amusement, the ignorant getting taken for a ride on the waltzers as a result of such empty promises. Not wishing to mix it with the lords of the board, but I suspect that he or she read it properly read it and understood it, and you people have missed the point. I could be wrong, McLovin may also be attention-deficit, despite good movie taste. Potential, in contract speak, means jack. It's like promising golden eggs at the top of beanstalks, only idiots really pay any attention to it.
All very interesting except Chris Dickson, having signed a 2.5 year contract in March 2007, has a longer contract of employment than either 3 months or 28 days.
The debate was not over any contract of employment offer as Dickson clearly has one of those otherwise he would be a free agent but over the longest loan period mentioned.
Parkinson is clearly quoted in the article making reference to a 3 month loan, albeit with an option for Charlton to recall him within 28 days.
McLovin queried this and suggested that others ''should try reading (the article)".
As was pointed out it was he who had misread the article not Mart77.
Now if that makes Mart77 or Covered End or myself "ignorant" or "idiots" then so be it but at least we can read.
I'm not suggesting for one moment that suddenly, after 5 straight wins that Parky is the messiah and can do no wrong but this comes across as being more about the player's attitude than Parky or the club.
I wonder how much of Dickson's attitude is down to his sudden rise to the professional ranks. I know we see this sort of behavour elsewhere but not very often, on the whole most pros know the score, probably because they've grown up with the game and its methods. Or maybe this one is just being played out a bit more publicly.
Where Gillingham are concerned IMO the club has done the right thing, bunch of pishtakers. Where Dickson is concerned we don't see what goes on day in day out in training, what the player is really like etc, so in Parky we have to trust. I get the feeling he'll turn out to be just another in a long line of kids who feel he has a god-given right rather than working for it.
[cite]Posted By: Mortimerician[/cite]Contract 101 for Henry and Covered End: a one month contract with a 67 year potential extension is a one month contract. A three month contract with a 28 day "call back" is a 28 day call back. This is my job and I watch, with a certain amusement, the ignorant getting taken for a ride on the waltzers as a result of such empty promises. Not wishing to mix it with the lords of the board, but I suspect that he or she read it properly read it and understood it, and you people have missed the point. I could be wrong, McLovin may also be attention-deficit, despite good movie taste. Potential, in contract speak, means jack. It's like promising golden eggs at the top of beanstalks, only idiots really pay any attention to it.
Basically, yes though I'd not put it quite like that and I'm no Petrocelli. I really went on what Parky was quoted as saying in the article
[cite]Posted By: Parky[/cite]
“So we need to get him up to speed in terms of games and he had several other options where he could have gone out for 28 days but he turned them all down.”
I didn't mean to offend Mart, so I'm unreservedly sorry for being too forceful in my point, but what is said about our players sometimes - based on pure guesswork, genuinely saddens me. And a lot of what's been said to me on here (and on other threads too for some reason), does too.
[cite]Posted By: McLovin[/cite]
I didn't mean to offend Mart, so I'm unreservedly sorry for being too forceful in my point, but what is said about our players sometimes - based on pure guesswork, genuinely saddens me. And a lot of what's been said to me on here (and on other threads too for some reason), does too.
But it's only opinions, McLovin ....
whether it's absolutely right or wrong is not the issue, 2 + 2 is invariably made to equal 5. It has ever been thus.
Anyway, there's never smoke without fire ...... so often guesswork is based on trying to intepret what has actually been said and read between the lines.
If you want to read only the facts, then you wouldn't contribute to an exchange of opinion on a messageboard - you'd only read the OS.
I like Dickso and whatever his faults, either in traning or on the pitch, he gives us something different up front.
Currently we have Burton & Mackenzie who seem to be similar, Mcleod has pace but no real strength and Tuna looks nippy but again lacks power. Dickson (when played) runs at defenders, with or without the ball, and generally frightens them into making mistakes.
It would be very foolish to get rid of him - he still hasn't had a decent run in the team (Andy Gray played a dozen or so games before he scored & Burton only scored 1 in about the same number last season, before his last day hat trick against the hapless Norwich)........Burton has started all 5 this season, scoring twice....would Dickson have done any better or worse ?
Worse, definitely. Not got the football brain Burton has, the first touch, he's far more selfish. Dickson with Shelvey in behind wouldn't work as well. Dickson for me would be at his best with a Kandol/Iwelumo type player to flick things on, hold up the ball etc.
Burton is the better player, Dickson probably the more natural goalscorer (though is he just quicker and more selfish, rather than a better finisher?). Dickson can't do Burton's job, but Burton couldn't come on and do the unexpected that Dickson does, neither does Burton have as much pace.
Burton may have scored 2 in 5 (1 in every 2.5 doesn't seem that bad to me) but he's also had 2 assists including that lovely backheel on Saturday, would DIckson have contributed that much thus far? I'm not sure he would have.
To be fair, we've only seen a very inexperienced Dickson playing competetively in a relegation-bound side in the Championship.
The whole team has dropped a level since - and providing he can adapt tactically to the present formation, there's no real reason why he couldn't be successful.
fair point oggy but we could say the same about McLeod.
Would love to see Dickson scoring regualary for us but right now Burton is in the team on merit and scoring and lsetting up important goals as well as allowing the team to play its passing football.
Golfie - Worse, Burton brings more to the side than Dicko. Burton is great in the 4-5-1, holds up play, brings other in. Yes Dicko might run at players but if our midfield has not had time to catch up with him and he loses the ball, the game gets stretched and comes straight back at us. Dicko will not play for us while we are playing 4-5-1. Not because he is a bad player but becasue he does not fit into 4-5-1.
Comments
Maybe you should take some of your own advice
Parky in the article "so I then said he could go for three months with a call back after 28 days."
No you should try reading it.
It also says he was offered a 3 month loan (with a recall after 28 days if we needed it)
Could we afford him as the lone striker - I don't think so. Also, the chances of changing a winning formula and going 4-4-2 (increasing his chances of selection) must be fairly slim - unless we do it late in a game.
I was surprised to see the fishboy come on at Tranmere. It clearly says that Dickson is quite far down the pecking order at the moment, especially with Leon coming in. You've got to have some sympathy for him....
He's a local lad, who a few short years ago could only have dreamed of being a professional footballer and the wage he is now earning.
He's under contract, the club rate him sufficiently highly not to cancel his contract or just give him away.
So whether his abilities can earn a place in the present formation - or whether he has to adapt his game and character to give himself a better chance here, is clearly up to him as an individual.
He's out of contract anyway at the end of the season, so he needs to at least establish a decent reputation or he could be finished in the Pro game. He's evidently well aware the sands of time are sifting away.
He's still reasonably young, but he really should have carved a niche for himself by now.
It's still in his own hands, but he really must prove to Parky that the matchday squad can't do without him.
McLeod has done it, he was totally marginalised last season - but now he's convinced Parky that he's worth at least a place on the bench. So it's up to you, Chris.
An injury to shelvey could see us playing 4-4-2 again though, don't you reckon? Not sure who could replace him playing off the main striker.
Also, If deon got injured then we might find no-one else can play the lone striker role, and 4-4-2 might suit us again.
4-5-1 is best for now, but things could change.
The big chance that dickson is leaving (not a transfer anymore, but probably still on loan) will have pushed him down the pecking order. Without all the speculation and impending departure maybe he'd be on the bench instead of tuna.
Too many pointless bickering pricks on this board.
Which I am one of.
The debate was not over any contract of employment offer as Dickson clearly has one of those otherwise he would be a free agent but over the longest loan period mentioned.
Parkinson is clearly quoted in the article making reference to a 3 month loan, albeit with an option for Charlton to recall him within 28 days.
McLovin queried this and suggested that others ''should try reading (the article)".
As was pointed out it was he who had misread the article not Mart77.
Now if that makes Mart77 or Covered End or myself "ignorant" or "idiots" then so be it but at least we can read.
LOL
I wonder how much of Dickson's attitude is down to his sudden rise to the professional ranks. I know we see this sort of behavour elsewhere but not very often, on the whole most pros know the score, probably because they've grown up with the game and its methods. Or maybe this one is just being played out a bit more publicly.
Where Gillingham are concerned IMO the club has done the right thing, bunch of pishtakers. Where Dickson is concerned we don't see what goes on day in day out in training, what the player is really like etc, so in Parky we have to trust. I get the feeling he'll turn out to be just another in a long line of kids who feel he has a god-given right rather than working for it.
But it's only opinions, McLovin ....
whether it's absolutely right or wrong is not the issue, 2 + 2 is invariably made to equal 5. It has ever been thus.
Anyway, there's never smoke without fire ...... so often guesswork is based on trying to intepret what has actually been said and read between the lines.
If you want to read only the facts, then you wouldn't contribute to an exchange of opinion on a messageboard - you'd only read the OS.
FACT!
;o)
Paul Konchesky has an England cap but he isn't international class.
Currently we have Burton & Mackenzie who seem to be similar, Mcleod has pace but no real strength and Tuna looks nippy but again lacks power. Dickson (when played) runs at defenders, with or without the ball, and generally frightens them into making mistakes.
It would be very foolish to get rid of him - he still hasn't had a decent run in the team (Andy Gray played a dozen or so games before he scored & Burton only scored 1 in about the same number last season, before his last day hat trick against the hapless Norwich)........Burton has started all 5 this season, scoring twice....would Dickson have done any better or worse ?
Burton is the better player, Dickson probably the more natural goalscorer (though is he just quicker and more selfish, rather than a better finisher?). Dickson can't do Burton's job, but Burton couldn't come on and do the unexpected that Dickson does, neither does Burton have as much pace.
Do you think Dicko would have done as effective a job? Somehow I doubt it.
The whole team has dropped a level since - and providing he can adapt tactically to the present formation, there's no real reason why he couldn't be successful.
He was at Gillingham.
Would love to see Dickson scoring regualary for us but right now Burton is in the team on merit and scoring and lsetting up important goals as well as allowing the team to play its passing football.