Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Sordell - lack of game time

AFKABartramAFKABartram
in General Charlton
Apart from the fact he's not really shown anything on the pitch to justify.a start, and I suspect that has probably been replicated in the training....

we speculated after the game yesterday whether there is anything in the loan fee structure that has impacted on him featuring a lot less than we would have expected.

Anyone think there may be some possibility in this ?

Comments

  • TelMc32TelMc32
    Hadn't thought of that, but always a possibility.

    At the moment though, this loan move is not doing him, or us, any favours. I was delighted when we got him, but it just hasn't worked out. If possible, he needs to go back in Jan and we need to look elsewhere.
  • nth_london_addicknth_london_addick
    I think your second point is far more likely, from what I have heard marvellous marvin is not costing us anything right now, and that's due to the fee structure
  • DRAddickDRAddick
    Can't believe that to be the case as he's played so little. If he'd played several games and then mysteriously dropped then could be more likely. Also we haven't just had to start looking after the purse strings, we knew we were skint when we got him so can't see the board agreeing to additional payments.

    Can only assume that CP doesn't like what he sees in training. Which must be his attitude or effort because he is technically a better striker than Church so CP feels it would set a bad example to play him even if he is the better player.
  • Danny AddickDanny Addick
    AFKABartram said:

    Apart from the fact he's not really shown anything on the pitch to justify.a start, and I suspect that has probably been replicated in the training....

    we speculated after the game yesterday whether there is anything in the loan fee structure that has impacted on him featuring a lot less than we would have expected.

    Anyone think there may be some possibility in this ?

    Yes I agree. The only thing making me think this might not be the case is that he was getting 10 minutes here and there. Would we pay a fee to have him do that?
  • guinnessaddickguinnessaddick
    Why put him on the bench and not use him?
  • MadzMadz
    It could be down to a number of things. A clash of personallities in training, a clause in his loan deal, lack of effort in training, Powell simply doesn't rate him after seeing him first hand. The kick in the teeth for Sordell must be seeing Piggott given run outs ahead of him during games, especially (as is so often this season) when we are chasing games.

    Personally i think a run of games alongside Kermorgant would do him good and we could see the benefits, but i don't honestly think that will happen.

    Be interesting to see what happens in january if this takeover completes. if we are allowed to bring in another striker or two (probably loans) then i can see him returning to Bolton. We can't let him go back if we have no cover. But then again if we are not playing why waste the wages.
  • se9addickse9addick
    Danny Addick said:

    AFKABartram said:

    Apart from the fact he's not really shown anything on the pitch to justify.a start, and I suspect that has probably been replicated in the training....

    we speculated after the game yesterday whether there is anything in the loan fee structure that has impacted on him featuring a lot less than we would have expected.

    Anyone think there may be some possibility in this ?

    Yes I agree. The only thing making me think this might not be the case is that he was getting 10 minutes here and there. Would we pay a fee to have him do that?
    With the Shelvy deal we similarly got money from Liverpool based on appearances and I think 30 mins or more counted as an "appearance", that could be it ?
    TelMc32 said:

    Hadn't thought of that, but always a possibility.

    At the moment though, this loan move is not doing him, or us, any favours. I was delighted when we got him, but it just hasn't worked out. If possible, he needs to go back in Jan and we need to look elsewhere.

    Can we actually send him back in Jan ? I thought it was only at Bolton's discretion ?
  • Cordoban AddickCordoban Addick
    How about if there is an agreement in place that he must be in the match day squad, but that we only pay when he actually plays.
  • AdamAddickAdamAddick
    The thing that annoys me, and i posted it in the post match views is that the best game he played came in 20 mins at the end of the reading game, he almost scored (offside) and changed the game, yet he hasnt had a kick since? If hes got a bad attitude id rather have someone on the pitch that has an eye for goal than someone with a good attitude who can run but cant finish. Or even bring him on for 25-30 mins from the end when he can influence it. Also he has only started 2 league games with yann so must be worth a chance. I suspect though that bolton will recall him and send him to somewhere where he will actually play and he'll get 10+ goals from now until end of season.
    His pre season stats weren't that bad either (3 in 3). Just a shame because there is definitely a player in there somewhere
  • ForeverAddicktedForeverAddickted
    se9addick said:

    Danny Addick said:

    AFKABartram said:

    Apart from the fact he's not really shown anything on the pitch to justify.a start, and I suspect that has probably been replicated in the training....

    we speculated after the game yesterday whether there is anything in the loan fee structure that has impacted on him featuring a lot less than we would have expected.

    Anyone think there may be some possibility in this ?

    Yes I agree. The only thing making me think this might not be the case is that he was getting 10 minutes here and there. Would we pay a fee to have him do that?
    With the Shelvy deal we similarly got money from Liverpool based on appearances and I think 30 mins or more counted as an "appearance", that could be it ?
    TelMc32 said:

    Hadn't thought of that, but always a possibility.

    At the moment though, this loan move is not doing him, or us, any favours. I was delighted when we got him, but it just hasn't worked out. If possible, he needs to go back in Jan and we need to look elsewhere.

    Can we actually send him back in Jan ? I thought it was only at Bolton's discretion ?
    We'll put him in a box and put him in the post then so when Dougie Freedman opens it he can jump out and yell SURPRISE
  • Sponsored links:


  • JensenwasclassJensenwasclass
    Shame that he has never been given a chance! How many more chances are we going to give Church?
  • Danny AddickDanny Addick
    se9addick said:

    Danny Addick said:

    AFKABartram said:

    Apart from the fact he's not really shown anything on the pitch to justify.a start, and I suspect that has probably been replicated in the training....

    we speculated after the game yesterday whether there is anything in the loan fee structure that has impacted on him featuring a lot less than we would have expected.

    Anyone think there may be some possibility in this ?

    Yes I agree. The only thing making me think this might not be the case is that he was getting 10 minutes here and there. Would we pay a fee to have him do that?
    With the Shelvy deal we similarly got money from Liverpool based on appearances and I think 30 mins or more counted as an "appearance", that could be it ?
    TelMc32 said:

    Hadn't thought of that, but always a possibility.

    At the moment though, this loan move is not doing him, or us, any favours. I was delighted when we got him, but it just hasn't worked out. If possible, he needs to go back in Jan and we need to look elsewhere.

    Can we actually send him back in Jan ? I thought it was only at Bolton's discretion ?
    That would surely explain it then. Certainly why he never seems to get more than 10 minutes.
  • guinnessaddickguinnessaddick
    Cordoban Addick said:

    How about if there is an agreement in place that he must be in the match day squad, but that we only pay when he actually plays.

    If that's the case, then someone needs to kick him in training, it's a waste of a place.
  • MuttleyCAFCMuttleyCAFC
    edited December 2013
    I doubt Bolton will recall him - they are looking to offload. There must be some stuff we don't know here becuase no matter how badly he has played - there was a point in the second half where we were crying out for a player with his attributes. It would have been clear to any of us who know a little about football so would certainly have been clear to Chrissy.

    On another occasion - at Watford when Kermogant came off - I was surprised Chrissy didn't bring him on against his old club, and instead opted for Piggot who had already demonstrated that he wasn't ready against Millwall. There is something going on but doubt we will be told what it is.
  • AdamAddickAdamAddick
    Dougie freeman said in an interview that the lack of game time sordell is getting is annoying and they may well look at recalling him and sending him elsewhere
  • MuttleyCAFCMuttleyCAFC
    I'm sure Chrissy will be happy if that is the case - He clearly doesn't want to play him. Maybe that is the problem - he is worried that if he plays him, Bolton won't recall him.
  • se9addickse9addick
    ForeverAddickted said:

    se9addick said:

    Danny Addick said:

    AFKABartram said:

    Apart from the fact he's not really shown anything on the pitch to justify.a start, and I suspect that has probably been replicated in the training....

    we speculated after the game yesterday whether there is anything in the loan fee structure that has impacted on him featuring a lot less than we would have expected.

    Anyone think there may be some possibility in this ?

    Yes I agree. The only thing making me think this might not be the case is that he was getting 10 minutes here and there. Would we pay a fee to have him do that?
    With the Shelvy deal we similarly got money from Liverpool based on appearances and I think 30 mins or more counted as an "appearance", that could be it ?
    TelMc32 said:

    Hadn't thought of that, but always a possibility.

    At the moment though, this loan move is not doing him, or us, any favours. I was delighted when we got him, but it just hasn't worked out. If possible, he needs to go back in Jan and we need to look elsewhere.

    Can we actually send him back in Jan ? I thought it was only at Bolton's discretion ?
    We'll put him in a box and put him in the post then so when Dougie Freedman opens it he can jump out and yell SURPRISE
    Not sure Sordell could move quick enough to surprise anyone !!
  • queensland_addickqueensland_addick
    I think Powell is teasing us and him by putting him on the bench. I haven't seen him yet, but was hoping to see him for the last 15 mins yesterday. The goals that he has scored, he has put away with aplomb. A much more natural finisher than Church. I'd let Church run them ragged for 70 mins, then bring on Sordell for last 20 to try to nick a goal against a tired defense. The current situation is ludicrous IMO. Why waste a place on the bench if you have no intention of using him, might as well give it to a youngster instead.
  • I_Saw_Semedo_ScoreI_Saw_Semedo_Score
    queensland_addick said:

    I think Powell is teasing us and him by putting him on the bench. I haven't seen him yet, but was hoping to see him for the last 15 mins yesterday. The goals that he has scored, he has put away with aplomb. A much more natural finisher than Church. I'd let Church run them ragged for 70 mins, then bring on Sordell for last 20 to try to nick a goal against a tired defense. The current situation is ludicrous IMO. Why waste a place on the bench if you have no intention of using him, might as well give it to a youngster instead.

    I hope you're referring to goals he scored elsewhere!
  • killerandflashkillerandflash
    If Sordell played, scored more goals than Church so that we win more games, the financial benefits (potentially larger home gates, not getting relegated or even getting into the playoffs) would outweigh any additional fees we might have to pay Bolton!
  • Sponsored links:


  • Kap10Kap10
    edited December 2013
    I posted this on the other Sordell thread http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/wanderers/wanderersnews/10893229._/

    Airman also speculated that CP did not bring him in and therefore does not want to play him.
  • MelroseMelrose
    queensland_addick said:

    Why waste a place on the bench if you have no intention of using him, might as well give it to a youngster instead.

    Spot on. If you have no intention of playing him, then its just wrong for the player, the club and the fans to let him stagnate on the bench. I don't care what the reason is. As QA says it's also denying someone else a chance
  • CrayAddickCrayAddick
    Bags of potential, doesn't seem to be getting a look in.

    The only reason is performance.
  • MelroseMelrose
    CrayAddick said:

    Bags of potential, doesn't seem to be getting a look in.

    The only reason is performance.

    Fair enough, but don't bother putting him on the bench then. Obviously never gonna come on!
  • MuttleyCAFCMuttleyCAFC
    edited December 2013
    Kap10 said:

    I posted this on the other Sordell thread http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/wanderers/wanderersnews/10893229._/

    Airman also speculated that CP did not bring him in and therefore does not want to play him.

    As Chrissy tried to get him without success during last season- I suspect Airman's speculation may be a little wide of the mark in this instance.
  • MOBY DUCKMOBY DUCK
    JellyMould Piggybank
    Chris I-Willumpit
    Fluke Varney
    Idle McClown
    Joe Any-old-shite
    Marvin Sod-all

    There's usually a good reason for picking up nick-names.
  • Covered EndCovered End
    I heard he's on PRP - performance related pay.

    So far he owes us £250K :-)
  • SplodgeSplodge
    More likely it's his attitude keeping him out of the team.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!