I've read all the comments re JFC- that it's not that simple, we won't let him prove himself, we may have to pay somebody to play him.
Which completely answers my point.
Why sign him again in the first place because we don't want him and we don't appear to be able to sell him!!!
Shouldn't have given him a new contract when he was injured in the first place imo. Might have been harsh but we wouldn't be in this position (trying to recoup money we've spent on rehabilitation) in that case. Wouldn't have had a problem letting him use our facilities to get fit but essentially we've spent over 12 months treading water & now cant get him off our books.
If you did that no one would play for the last month, or more, before their contracts run out and you would be the first to moan about it.
I've read all the comments re JFC- that it's not that simple, we won't let him prove himself, we may have to pay somebody to play him.
Which completely answers my point.
Why sign him again in the first place because we don't want him and we don't appear to be able to sell him!!!
Shouldn't have given him a new contract when he was injured in the first place imo. Might have been harsh but we wouldn't be in this position (trying to recoup money we've spent on rehabilitation) in that case. Wouldn't have had a problem letting him use our facilities to get fit but essentially we've spent over 12 months treading water & now cant get him off our books.
If you did that no one would play for the last month, or more, before their contracts run out and you would be the first to moan about it.
I've read all the comments re JFC- that it's not that simple, we won't let him prove himself, we may have to pay somebody to play him.
Which completely answers my point.
Why sign him again in the first place because we don't want him and we don't appear to be able to sell him!!!
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I don't remember anyone on this board criticising the decision to extend his contract at the time. If they'd have let him go for free and he'd gone and done well for another club, the club would have been criticised again.
We can’t just have a body up top as back up to Stockley. If that’s the case keep Leaburn and Aneke and bring Kanu through as well, job done. A body up top implies we could end up with Josh Parker or someone like that.
Somehow we always seem to adapt to ‘he’ll do’.
Stockley might not work in Garner’s system. I think we need another quality forward player in. Of course, that’s easier said than done, but the need for someone just as cover isn’t the right approach imo
I've read all the comments re JFC- that it's not that simple, we won't let him prove himself, we may have to pay somebody to play him.
Which completely answers my point.
Why sign him again in the first place because we don't want him and we don't appear to be able to sell him!!!
Shouldn't have given him a new contract when he was injured in the first place imo. Might have been harsh but we wouldn't be in this position (trying to recoup money we've spent on rehabilitation) in that case. Wouldn't have had a problem letting him use our facilities to get fit but essentially we've spent over 12 months treading water & now cant get him off our books.
If you did that no one would play for the last month, or more, before their contracts run out and you would be the first to moan about it.
Hundreds of players play whilst they are in the last months of their contracts.
As I said, unpopular thinking, but why give a new contract to a player who is injured.
I've read all the comments re JFC- that it's not that simple, we won't let him prove himself, we may have to pay somebody to play him.
Which completely answers my point.
Why sign him again in the first place because we don't want him and we don't appear to be able to sell him!!!
Shouldn't have given him a new contract when he was injured in the first place imo. Might have been harsh but we wouldn't be in this position (trying to recoup money we've spent on rehabilitation) in that case. Wouldn't have had a problem letting him use our facilities to get fit but essentially we've spent over 12 months treading water & now cant get him off our books.
If you did that no one would play for the last month, or more, before their contracts run out and you would be the first to moan about it.
Hundreds of players play whilst they are in the last months of their contracts.
As I said, unpopular thinking, but why give a new contract to a player who is injured.
Because it was the right thing to do mate. The bloke got injured playing for us and to leave him without a contract would have just been wrong.
Controversial opinion time but I don’t even think the striker we need has to be that good. We just need *someone* who can help us avoid a situation like last season where we went to Wigan with Burstow and Elliot Lee up front, for example.
Obviously the player coming in would need chip in with a few goals when they play over the course of the season but Plan A is obviously to move forward with club captain Stockley as often as possible.
As long as we have a senior body that is available to play when called upon and does a half decent job at dropping into midfield and linking the play, we can still score goals from the likes of CBT, JRS, Kirk, Fraser and Payne.
And then when Stockley is back after a short absence, they’ll drop back to the bench.
For me, it’s more important to get a player that fits the style and can replace Jayden’s link up without disruption more so than finding a poacher who can score a goal but not contribute anything else.
It’s become clear over the last few weeks that that poaching kind of forward won’t fit the Garner style.
I don't think that this is controversial. As you said, stockley is clearly first choice with aneke being the impact sub (obviously fitness permitting). The emergence of leaburn means we could be looking for a 4th choice, a Parker type signing rather than someone being brought in to challenge stockley.
I still don't see why people think we have an incoming striker. Seems to me that the only reason to believe there is one incoming is because the manager said there isn't, by that theory then if he said there is then that would clearly mean there aint....................I think ??
Most recent interview I'm sure he's said he wants a striker as well as defensive cover.
He also said the money he has been allocated does not stretch to bringing a striker in unless something changes in terms of players leaving. Now unless I have missed something, players who could leave are Gilbey and Forster Caskey. I grant you that both leaving frees up two wages but any fees would minimal and certainly not enough to purchase some of the names being mentioned on here.
We can’t just have a body up top as back up to Stockley. If that’s the case keep Leaburn and Aneke and bring Kanu through as well, job done. A body up top implies we could end up with Josh Parker or someone like that.
Somehow we always seem to adapt to ‘he’ll do’.
Stockley might not work in Garner’s system. I think we need another quality forward player in. Of course, that’s easier said than done, but the need for someone just as cover isn’t the right approach imo
I think it's fair enough to accept we can't afford a Mckirdy/Stockton/Haaland/Wilkes.
What isn't really acceptable is if we have "spunked" the whole budget and still only got the strikers we have got. We have brought in 7 players yet no one thought we needed a striker until 10 days before the window shut?
If it ment not signing McGrandles or Payne, in an area we were well stocked so be it IMO.
I've read all the comments re JFC- that it's not that simple, we won't let him prove himself, we may have to pay somebody to play him.
Which completely answers my point.
Why sign him again in the first place because we don't want him and we don't appear to be able to sell him!!!
Shouldn't have given him a new contract when he was injured in the first place imo. Might have been harsh but we wouldn't be in this position (trying to recoup money we've spent on rehabilitation) in that case. Wouldn't have had a problem letting him use our facilities to get fit but essentially we've spent over 12 months treading water & now cant get him off our books.
If you did that no one would play for the last month, or more, before their contracts run out and you would be the first to moan about it.
Hundreds of players play whilst they are in the last months of their contracts.
As I said, unpopular thinking, but why give a new contract to a player who is injured.
Because everyone does it, else no one would play...
In the lower leagues you would end up with 14 year olds making up the numbers from March and you would be moaning.
This is exactly why Lyle Taylor didn't play for us. Would trust Paul Elliottttt to do the right thing by you?
Your argument is Taylor was right, and you have spent 2 years slagging him off. Cake and eat it?
Never expected Bogle and Makienok to be mentioned on here as possible signings.
Did you not? If they didn't score against us or play for us once then this forum doesn't even know what a footballer is
Fair point, though it's a little different this year. We usually only have 3 or 4 names that are must sign players who have never played for us, but this summer we had Stockton, May, McKirdy, Simpson and the entire Swindon squad.
Never expected Bogle and Makienok to be mentioned on here as possible signings.
Did you not? If they didn't score against us or play for us once then this forum doesn't even know what a footballer is
Fair point, though it's a little different this year. We usually only have 3 or 4 names that are must sign players who have never played for us, but this summer we had Stockton, May, McKirdy, Simpson and the entire Swindon squad.
Exactly. Two players who have scored against us and two players who played for Swindon under Garner, which at this point is basically the same thing as playing for us. People make fun of the black box but if we were in charge of it it would just shriek the names of people who looked a little bit better than Gunter at The Valley, which is everyone who played against us. Genuinely expecting someone to ask if we think Lawrie Wilson could be converted to a left sided centre back before the window closes.
I've read all the comments re JFC- that it's not that simple, we won't let him prove himself, we may have to pay somebody to play him.
Which completely answers my point.
Why sign him again in the first place because we don't want him and we don't appear to be able to sell him!!!
Shouldn't have given him a new contract when he was injured in the first place imo. Might have been harsh but we wouldn't be in this position (trying to recoup money we've spent on rehabilitation) in that case. Wouldn't have had a problem letting him use our facilities to get fit but essentially we've spent over 12 months treading water & now cant get him off our books.
If you did that no one would play for the last month, or more, before their contracts run out and you would be the first to moan about it.
Hundreds of players play whilst they are in the last months of their contracts.
As I said, unpopular thinking, but why give a new contract to a player who is injured.
I agreed with the contract extension last season as he got injured playing for us but why take up the option this summer? Just doesn’t make sense.
any possibility that league cup prize money and a home draw v a top 6 prem side (particularly if it gets televised) could potentially change the budget enough to make a difference or just wishful thinking?
any possibility that league cup prize money and a home draw v a top 6 prem side (particularly if it gets televised) could potentially change the budget enough to make a difference or just wishful thinking?
Isn't the prize money for winning the league cup 100k?
any possibility that league cup prize money and a home draw v a top 6 prem side (particularly if it gets televised) could potentially change the budget enough to make a difference or just wishful thinking?
Isn't the prize money for winning the league cup 100k?
i think so far we are on prize money wise for about 20k but i was more leaning towards the home draw v top 6 and tv money which we would potentially know before the transfer window shuts.
any possibility that league cup prize money and a home draw v a top 6 prem side (particularly if it gets televised) could potentially change the budget enough to make a difference or just wishful thinking?
Isn't the prize money for winning the league cup 100k?
That and all the Carabao you could ever want to drink
any possibility that league cup prize money and a home draw v a top 6 prem side (particularly if it gets televised) could potentially change the budget enough to make a difference or just wishful thinking?
Isn't the prize money for winning the league cup 100k?
That and all the Carabao you could ever want to drink
Rather than that have to drink Carling, need to get back to free TVs from Rumberlows IMO
Comments
And I got pelters for it.
Stockley might not work in Garner’s system. I think we need another quality forward player in. Of course, that’s easier said than done, but the need for someone just as cover isn’t the right approach imo
As I said, unpopular thinking, but why give a new contract to a player who is injured.
What isn't really acceptable is if we have "spunked" the whole budget and still only got the strikers we have got. We have brought in 7 players yet no one thought we needed a striker until 10 days before the window shut?
If it ment not signing McGrandles or Payne, in an area we were well stocked so be it IMO.
In the lower leagues you would end up with 14 year olds making up the numbers from March and you would be moaning.
This is exactly why Lyle Taylor didn't play for us. Would trust Paul Elliottttt to do the right thing by you?
Your argument is Taylor was right, and you have spent 2 years slagging him off. Cake and eat it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Humphrys#Career_statistics