In a proper football club, (say Charlton 2011, just plucking an example out the air, you understand) you give the manager a budget and he and his staff work within those parameters to build the squad he wants, whoever finds the actual players for his consideration. The manager makes the choices within the budget. The problem with buying players without a manager is not so much whether an individual is a good signing, value for money, etc, per se, but that those choices are then being made by someone who is not ultimately accountable for the success of the team and cannot say whether it is the right choice within available resources. Every deal you make in this situation closes down other options.
Yes
Moncur might be a very good player, but SOMEBODY should be looking at our transfer and wages budget (plus incoming fees and salary reductions from sales) and deciding the overall priority. Otherwise you may end up with several top class midfielders, but run out of money for defenders, or end up with players which don't suit your system OR your desired age profile, e.g. if you have a team of youngsters, you may want an old head to play with them. Unless you have unlimited funds, you have to make tough decisions - for example, selling a really good left back because you have cover there, in order to strengthen your attack.
Riga rejected Reece Oxford. Whether we agree with this or not, he rejected him, not because he wasn't a good player, but because he wasn't what Riga thought the team needed, which was demonstrated by him bringing in experienced defenders like Motta and Fanni instead.
The Pardew/Parky team that got relegated was unbalanced, with a notable lack of CBs. The 2015 transfer dealings also left us with a lack of CBs, and after loaning out Harriott, not enough wingers.
In a proper football club, (say Charlton 2011, just plucking an example out the air, you understand) you give the manager a budget and he and his staff work within those parameters to build the squad he wants, whoever finds the actual players for his consideration. The manager makes the choices within the budget. The problem with buying players without a manager is not so much whether an individual is a good signing, value for money, etc, per se, but that those choices are then being made by someone who is not ultimately accountable for the success of the team and cannot say whether it is the right choice within available resources. Every deal you make in this situation closes down other options.
If the person responsible in the meantime should happen to have a reputation as a soft touch for agents, the situation could be even more problematic.
This is a bigger issue now in L1 IMO as whatever budget we have you can probably knock 1/3 off due to KM's inexperienced/incompetent negotiation skills. The lower we go the less of a clue she'll have, and the more cock ups she'll make.
I get the criticism for trying to sign a player without any football infrastructure in place and claiming manager will have control but signing players without one in place.
But i really don't get the criticism of haggling over a price for a player and offering a low fee to test the waters.
Exactly. Colchester will also have to rebuild on a reduced budget. I totally get the anti board stance on here and I hope it continues until they are gone but I don't understand the criticism of a low bid. If we get him for less than they are asking, it retains some of our budget for other targets.
I'm pretty certain that most people interested in a car on the market at 10k would not offer 10k opening bid. Same with houses. Haggle and get him cheap to counter balance our players going on the cheap
I get the criticism for trying to sign a player without any football infrastructure in place and claiming manager will have control but signing players without one in place.
But i really don't get the criticism of haggling over a price for a player and offering a low fee to test the waters.
I suspect this is just the way it's done. When you make an offer on a house or a car if you start with a cheeky low offer you might get a bargain.
I reckon Harriott and Jackson would have had a strong influence on going for Moncur.
Harriot because of last years loan, why Jackson? Has he got recent connections with moncur/Colchester or because he is the most experienced on field and off field football person at the club?
Any manager would be happy to have Moncur in his squad and it's a nonsense to suggest otherwise.
When you say 'Any Manager' is Pep Guardiola, as we speak, lining up a bid of £50m?
Apologies, I assumed Lifers would understand that I was talking about a League 1 manager & not Champions League managers.
Ok, sorry I missed that as I was previously talking about the Championship as that is where more sides will, realistically, pay £500k for a player with just one good season.
When we start to sell players I think we will get a better idea of player values. If, for example, we sell Cousins for £500k then Moncur will seem very expensive by comparison. If we sell Cousins to a Championship side, for £2.5m, however, then maybe that will start to indicate that £500k for a League One side is 'standard'. I do think that there are only a handful of teams in League One that have ever spent £500k on a midfielder, and probably even less than that that have spent £500k on a midfielder while actually in League One.
Any manager would be happy to have Moncur in his squad and it's a nonsense to suggest otherwise.
why is it? Whomever we appoint may identify a player in League 1 or 2 who he'd prefer and whom he thinks is better. Moncur would then be a bit part player, and unhappy. If we appoint a Manager who does want Moncur then great go for it but I can't see the point in signing someone who may immediately be surplus to the Manager's requirements. Plus it drives a coach and horses through the 'the Manager will have total control over transfers' mantra we keep hearing. Get a Manager, let him get the players HE wants.
The point is, Moncur is a very decent League 1 player and therefore League 1 managers should be happy to have him as part of the squad, as a preference to let's say Pigott as an example.
Whether Moncur was a regular first teamer or a squad member will depend on how he performs.
I agree that it is preferable for the manager to select his own players, but we don't have a manager.
I'd rather we sign some proven League 1 players, if we can, rather than wait until we appoint a new manager and they've all been snapped up & we are left with the equivalent options of Roger Johnson.
I completely see where you are coming from with this, but haven't most fans been arguing for a manager with autonomy who can identify and select his own players?
I have to say I'm torn between both sides here. I would like to believe that there are things going on behind the scenes in terms of management appointments that we just don't know about, but I'm also aware that this regime fail in almost everything they do, so I don't have much hope in that respect.
Clearly they cocked up by not drawing up a proper short-list of potential new managers. They went all out to get Wilder, and failed, for whatever reason, but now they are left floundering with seemingly no clue as where to turn next. As a result we risk being left behind with regards to signing the right players.
I don't know the answer, do we just put all transfers on hold until we get a new manager, or should we be identifying some of the best players in the division and bringing them in with the hope the new manager can use them? It's not an easy decision call IMO.
I'm pretty sure we were in talks with Wilder before the 1st Moncur bid, so did Chris recommend GM or did Katrien say "of course you'll have total control of player recruitment and btw, we've just put a bid in for a L1 midfielder"?
I'm pretty sure we were in talks with Wilder before the 1st Moncur bid, so did Chris recommend GM or did Katrien say "of course you'll have total control of player recruitment and btw, we've just put a bid in for a L1 midfielder"?
I reckon Harriott and Jackson would have had a strong influence on going for Moncur.
Harriot because of last years loan, why Jackson? Has he got recent connections with moncur/Colchester or because he is the most experienced on field and off field football person at the club?
Jackson for his experience and position within the club now.
I imagine he'll go in to a coaching role with us once his contract runs out next season.
Any manager would be happy to have Moncur in his squad and it's a nonsense to suggest otherwise.
why is it? Whomever we appoint may identify a player in League 1 or 2 who he'd prefer and whom he thinks is better. Moncur would then be a bit part player, and unhappy. If we appoint a Manager who does want Moncur then great go for it but I can't see the point in signing someone who may immediately be surplus to the Manager's requirements. Plus it drives a coach and horses through the 'the Manager will have total control over transfers' mantra we keep hearing. Get a Manager, let him get the players HE wants.
The point is, Moncur is a very decent League 1 player and therefore League 1 managers should be happy to have him as part of the squad, as a preference to let's say Pigott as an example.
Whether Moncur was a regular first teamer or a squad member will depend on how he performs.
I agree that it is preferable for the manager to select his own players, but we don't have a manager.
I'd rather we sign some proven League 1 players, if we can, rather than wait until we appoint a new manager and they've all been snapped up & we are left with the equivalent options of Roger Johnson.
I completely see where you are coming from with this, but haven't most fans been arguing for a manager with autonomy who can identify and select his own players?
I have to say I'm torn between both sides here. I would like to believe that there are things going on behind the scenes in terms of management appointments that we just don't know about, but I'm also aware that this regime fail in almost everything they do, so I don't have much hope in that respect.
Clearly they cocked up by not drawing up a proper short-list of potential new managers. They went all out to get Wilder, and failed, for whatever reason, but now they are left floundering with seemingly no clue as where to turn next. As a result we risk being left behind with regards to signing the right players.
I don't know the answer, do we just put all transfers on hold until we get a new manager, or should we be identifying some of the best players in the division and bringing them in with the hope the new manager can use them? It's not an easy decision call IMO.
The alternative of course is we take the Southampton/Swansea route; appoint a Director of Football and work to establish a style of football. Then sign players that fit the style from a list, and appoint a manager who can work within that style, meaning that you always have the right man for the job both from a coaching and playing perspective. But that, much like hiring a manager and giving him autonomy over transfers, would make too much sense, so instead we'll just hire and hope on every level.
I reckon Harriott and Jackson would have had a strong influence on going for Moncur.
Well, Moncur scored a very neat and well taken goal against Charlton in the Cup match - I guess he'd made a good impression on the Charlton coaching staff and players.
I reckon Harriott and Jackson would have had a strong influence on going for Moncur.
Well, Moncur scored a very neat and well taken goal against Charlton in the Cup match - I guess he'd made a good impression on the Charlton coaching staff and players.
Says a lot when our "top summer transfer target" has just been relegated to league two , and when told to get nearer to the valuation for him (£500k) we just throw another £50k at them!
Says a lot when our "top summer transfer target" has just been relegated to league two , and when told to get nearer to the valuation for him (£500k) we just throw another £50k at them!
It's not FIFA or football manager mate, you throw money at them after the first set back and the demands won't stop rising.
Anyway, Moncur must be a good footballer - he came through the West Ham academy.
His dad John was a very aggressive midfielder .
Brings back memories of playing West Ham in the premier on a monday night (Di Canio scored a crakcer in a 1-1) . John Moncur was sub and their fans started singing "he's here he's there he's every fucking where John Moncur , John Moncur" , he gave them a clap and I shouted "except the pitch Moncur!"
George MoncurVerified account @georgemonkz8 I pray that the Lord, who gives peace, will always bless you with peace. May the Lord be with all of you too. -Thess 3:16
I think that tells us all we need to know about his transfer to Charlton
George MoncurVerified account @georgemonkz8 I pray that the Lord, who gives peace, will always bless you with peace. May the Lord be with all of you too. -Thess 3:16
I think that tells us all we need to know about his transfer to Charlton
George MoncurVerified account @georgemonkz8 I pray that the Lord, who gives peace, will always bless you with peace. May the Lord be with all of you too. -Thess 3:16
I think that tells us all we need to know about his transfer to Charlton
Crikey he is proper religious, maybe he will sign for us as a form of Christian Aid.
Comments
Moncur might be a very good player, but SOMEBODY should be looking at our transfer and wages budget (plus incoming fees and salary reductions from sales) and deciding the overall priority. Otherwise you may end up with several top class midfielders, but run out of money for defenders, or end up with players which don't suit your system OR your desired age profile, e.g. if you have a team of youngsters, you may want an old head to play with them. Unless you have unlimited funds, you have to make tough decisions - for example, selling a really good left back because you have cover there, in order to strengthen your attack.
Riga rejected Reece Oxford. Whether we agree with this or not, he rejected him, not because he wasn't a good player, but because he wasn't what Riga thought the team needed, which was demonstrated by him bringing in experienced defenders like Motta and Fanni instead.
The Pardew/Parky team that got relegated was unbalanced, with a notable lack of CBs. The 2015 transfer dealings also left us with a lack of CBs, and after loaning out Harriott, not enough wingers.
I'm pretty certain that most people interested in a car on the market at 10k would not offer 10k opening bid. Same with houses. Haggle and get him cheap to counter balance our players going on the cheap
Don't ask, don't get!
I have to say I'm torn between both sides here. I would like to believe that there are things going on behind the scenes in terms of management appointments that we just don't know about, but I'm also aware that this regime fail in almost everything they do, so I don't have much hope in that respect.
Clearly they cocked up by not drawing up a proper short-list of potential new managers. They went all out to get Wilder, and failed, for whatever reason, but now they are left floundering with seemingly no clue as where to turn next. As a result we risk being left behind with regards to signing the right players.
I don't know the answer, do we just put all transfers on hold until we get a new manager, or should we be identifying some of the best players in the division and bringing them in with the hope the new manager can use them? It's not an easy decision call IMO.
I'm guessing the latter
I imagine he'll go in to a coaching role with us once his contract runs out next season.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35211669#tab-0
If looks could kill.
George MoncurVerified account
@georgemonkz8
I pray that the Lord, who gives peace, will always bless you with peace. May the Lord be with all of you too. -Thess 3:16
I think that tells us all we need to know about his transfer to Charlton