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

Summer 2022 transfer rumours (Gilbey loan confirmed p513, a signing falls through last minute p541)

1465466468470471569

Comments

  • edited August 2022
    Have had a pretty decent start to the season, way better than than last year, and a pretty decent window so far, with Rak Sakyi providing the bit of flair and cutting edge that the squad/team needed. 
    The other signings have at least being involved, which is an improvement to what happened last year. 
    Unfortunately our usual bad luck with injuries (our Fly in the Ointment) is kicking in, not great when your squad includes two players best described as ‘Fragile’, and one who sometimes resembles a Mannequin with a bad back. 
    The next two (crucial 🙂) days could see us transformed from playoff possibles to playoff probables, with the right recruitment. 
    Or they could see us slip from possibles to playoff outsiders, if a Dobson or Clare is sold (to pay for Bogle).
    To quote the great Fanny, I have a little tingle that it’ll be the former, rather than the latter, but I feel it might go down to the Wire. 
  • Atrocious footballer. Decent finisher. Never go back. And by that, I mean, Charlton should never go back and talk to QPR again after they somehow managed a seven figure fee for Bonne. 
  • edited August 2022
    Valley11 said:
    “This summer we've been able to rely on free agents so far and that has been very helpful, with relatively few loan players so we're still building a squad for the future which is important. We will continue to do that here over the next several transfer windows.”


    That’s another 40 pages on here, at least 
    I wholeheartedly agree here with TS  I've said it a few times over the past 2 or 3 seasons - having 5 loan players (who don't generally return the next season) just means having to replace them season after season. Add to that players who naturally leave at the end of their contracts means replacing 8,9,10 (or more) every season. This means a big squad churn & no consistency or stability. 
    Consistency and stability is great if you get it right.  But we aren't going to sign players, in enough volume, of the quilty of people like JRS etc that we need to get promoted.

    We have now churned through all our Championship players.  Look at the team Bowyer took up it had loan players, youth team graduates, freebies, players we paid a league 1 fortune for and loans.

    Unless your going to spend "big" you need the loans. 
  • I'll say this now in case it happens & then when I comment I'll be told I'm never happy / always moaning blah blah blah.

    I do not want to see any ex players coming in over the next 2 days.....apart from maybe Karlan Grant 😉🙂. So no....

    Bonne
    Leko
    Smyth 

    Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second). To get out of this division you need an experienced striker. 

    There, said it. Now let's see what happens over the next 2 days. 

  • edited August 2022
    Leuth said:
    Bonne is a pure finisher. We need someone who can hold the ball and make play. Absolute non-starter
    I personally think a finisher is exactly what we need, seen as Garnerball is about creating loads of chances.  
    We need a finisher, who is quick, hard-working, has stamina and willingness to press high and ideally who is comfortable positionally and technically to switch position, or at least play, with the wide players up top.

    That is a lot to ask of a league 1 (or PL/champ youth) forward.

    When you're trying to live a possession/high press philosophy on a tight budget and in the 3rd tier, the number of players it's worth being interested in is not big.
    I don’t disagree (regarding what we need).

    So did we let the wrong forward go then?  Would many of been happier had Washington been given a new deal and Stockley went, I’m not sure this would have gone down well back in July.  
    In my opinion we should not have let Washington go. However, I wouldn't have swapped him for Stockley, I would have kept both. In my view, two things made his squad place untenable:

    1) Resigning Aneke. Couldn't accommodate 3 reasonably large salaries for strikers, first one out of contract was always on the way.

    2) The perception that Washington was a problem. The whole contract/JJ whisper story involving Washington and Martin Sandgaard sounds like an absolute train wreck. Whether that was the problem or symptomatic of an existing perceived problem, that episode was the end for Washington.

    We also let him go before totally re-defining the new philosophy under a new manager and coaching team.

    In short, terrible terrible decision-making. Washington is not going to fire any L1 team to promotion single-handedly, but is he more suited to our current set-up than Aneke or Stockley? Absolutely. 
    I rated Washington far more highly than most. I felt he was under appreciated for much of his time here, and that he was a Championship level striker. His movement and intelligence were an absolute nightmare for defenses. And he could score goals, contrary to what the popular opinion of him was. 

    I think your two assessments are spot on, although even if we had big wages to spend on a striker I'm not sure we can compete with a Championship club.

    But I don't agree with your assessment that he fits the system better than Aneke and Stockley, certainly not Aneke. When fit, Chuks can play with the ball at his feet, including running at teams, he also has the mobility to run in behind (not his most common trait, but he does do it), and he has the strength to hold the ball up. He should be a good fit for our current system, he's just never fit.

    As far as Stockley, he can hold the ball up and he's done alright at dropping deep. His understanding of space is pretty decent. But there is the mobility issue with him, and it's a big issue, especially with no senior striker behind him.

    As far as Washington goes, so much of what he did relied on space in behind or out wide of defenses. Hold up play was not his thing. He was decent with the ball at his feet, but his touch wasn't great. I think he would have loved our pressing style, but when we have possession of the ball, him having to come deep would not have suited him. And keeping the ball in the opposition half really removes the space in behind opposition defenses, which is where Washington thrives. I think there are parts of our style he would have done well with, namely pressing and in transition, but those are only part of the way we're looking to play. 

    I said it at the time, but had he stayed, I think he would have been played wide left. And he might have done a decent job there, pressing well and looking to run in behind. But it's not his strongest position. And it's not a place where we could afford to match a Championship level club in terms of wages--he's just not as effective wide left as he is up top in a front two.

    I wish there was a way he could have stayed. But I just don't think it made sense for him or the club for on-field reasons, never mind whatever happened with his contract. 
  • edited August 2022
    NabySarr said:
    That’s about as good a statement as can be. Obviously, it massively leaves the board vulnerable if deadline day ends as a damp squib. 

    Regardless of how the window ends, we’ve had a good window. We’ve got a set play style, we’ve recruited for that. We got the vast majority of our business done before the start to the season, we’re now looking for squad depth, not desperate to fill holes in the system. 

    We might not get promoted, but we’re certainly moving in the the right direction (in terms of recruitment). 

    Fans have zero impact on business. Calm down and enjoy the ride. 
    Moving in the right direction in terms of our thinking. But cutting the budget year on year trying to break even is going to reduce our chances of promotion year on year in the future. If we don’t go up this year (hopefully we do but I think it’s unlikely) then we cut the budget further then we will be drifting back away from the top 6 and into mid table again. We’ve had a good summer but it will be wasted if we don’t have that little bit more backing that would give us a really good chance 
    Agree.

    The break even mantra is as ridiculous as "blow the league away".

    There's nothing wrong in the statement from Sandgaard regarding the possible signings other than it should be the manager or the head of recruitment saying that, not the owner.

    The break even over two seasons?  What does that even actually mean?  

    At the moment it seems taking sponsorship from dodgy NFT pyramid schemes and sacking  non-playing staff at the training ground and the Valley. 

    The laudable attempt to get cat 1 failed (and TS hasn't said why) so no extra money from EPL but lots of extra coaches etc hired to meet cat 1 requirements. They'll be gone soon IMHO.

    Meanwhile at the Valley staff are hired and fired (or walk) in weeks or a few months as the Sandgaard’s lurch from boom to bust.

    And the few long standing staff fear for their roles having seen Olly so shabbily treated.

    The only veteran who has nothing to worry is the most incompetent but Tony Keohane knows how to do one thing very well and that kiss arse or should i say ass.

    So, great, get that striker, get that centre back, both could be vital and we all, no matter what we think about the owner, want success on the pitch but I'd rather Thomas would STFU, let Garner and Gallen do their jobs without his interruptions and accept that running a league one football club is neither "easy" nor a business that will break even in this league or even the one above 

    Apologies. This is the rumours thread  so WIOTOS
    Well said. You will never break even in this league. I don't know if "breaking even" means reducing the budget or selling more players but either way, it almost certainly weakens the first team. You are better off trying to invest in an academy that produces players that can be sold on. A Lookman or Gomez or Konsa or Grant doesn't come along every year, but when they do, selling them on can finance part of a season for the playing squad--both in initial fees, but also in add-ons and sell-on fees. It sounds like TS tried to improve the academy and failed at it. The "why" would be very interesting to hear. 
  • Anyone able to explain what this means?

    "Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second)."
  • Sponsored links:


  • I wondered the same! 
  • Anyone able to explain what this means?

    "Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second)."
    It means the poster is seldom wrong... 
  • Anyone able to explain what this means?

    "Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second)."
    I think three categories: 1: 'Has-been" 2: Premiership youngster (JRS) 3: no previous game time (Leaburn)
    Agree with Golfie on has-been. The Prem youngster depends on the individual, but I want a permanent signing, whoever it is. The CB a loan is fine as we have a lot of promise in the ranks. 
  • Cafc43v3r said:
    Anyone able to explain what this means?

    "Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second)."
    It means the poster is seldom wrong... 
    it means we need an established proven striker even if that isn't literally what he has said - obvious to everybody and something i agree with  
  • DOUCHER said:
    Cafc43v3r said:
    Anyone able to explain what this means?

    "Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second)."
    It means the poster is seldom wrong... 
    it means we need an established proven striker even if that isn't literally what he has said - obvious to everybody and something i agree with  
    Get me the list then :smile:

    Proven where? Anyone we sign is going to come with some sort of risk aren't they?  It's not like there is some sort of league 1 Haaland we are going to magic out of thin air. 

    On the basis that I, like 90% of others, probably won't have seen them play more than a couple of times I'll judge them on what they do on the pitch, not if they are established or not. 

  • Cafc43v3r said:
    DOUCHER said:
    Cafc43v3r said:
    Anyone able to explain what this means?

    "Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second)."
    It means the poster is seldom wrong... 
    it means we need an established proven striker even if that isn't literally what he has said - obvious to everybody and something i agree with  
    Get me the list then :smile:

    Proven where? Anyone we sign is going to come with some sort of risk aren't they?  It's not like there is some sort of league 1 Haaland we are going to magic out of thin air. 

    On the basis that I, like 90% of others, probably won't have seen them play more than a couple of times I'll judge them on what they do on the pitch, not if they are established or not. 

    not my job - is it too much to ask to sign a striker who isn't either an up and coming youth or a has been? 
  • DOUCHER said:
    Cafc43v3r said:
    DOUCHER said:
    Cafc43v3r said:
    Anyone able to explain what this means?

    "Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second)."
    It means the poster is seldom wrong... 
    it means we need an established proven striker even if that isn't literally what he has said - obvious to everybody and something i agree with  
    Get me the list then :smile:

    Proven where? Anyone we sign is going to come with some sort of risk aren't they?  It's not like there is some sort of league 1 Haaland we are going to magic out of thin air. 

    On the basis that I, like 90% of others, probably won't have seen them play more than a couple of times I'll judge them on what they do on the pitch, not if they are established or not. 

    not my job - is it too much to ask to sign a striker who isn't either an up and coming youth or a has been? 
    That’s kind of all options though isn’t it? Once a player proves themselves at this level they don’t stay at this level for long..
    don't agree - you could say that about every division in the football pyramid 
  • wonder who the targets are.
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited August 2022
    Everton not likely to let Tom Cannon go out on loan. Again, according to Alan Nixon... but I think he was the source of the rumour in the first place!
  • Just have to wait and see what happens by Thursday, sounds potentially positive, but who knows 
  • Anyone able to explain what this means?

    "Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second)."
    Sorry, but of a typo.

     Meant to say  - A Premiership youngster (JRS) or a youngster with no previous game time (Leaburn).

  • Jonniesta said:
    Anyone able to explain what this means?

    "Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second)."
    I think three categories: 1: 'Has-been" 2: Premiership youngster (JRS) 3: no previous game time (Leaburn)
    Agree with Golfie on has-been. The Prem youngster depends on the individual, but I want a permanent signing, whoever it is. The CB a loan is fine as we have a lot of promise in the ranks. 
    Thank you. 
  • DOUCHER said:
    Cafc43v3r said:
    DOUCHER said:
    Cafc43v3r said:
    Anyone able to explain what this means?

    "Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second)."
    It means the poster is seldom wrong... 
    it means we need an established proven striker even if that isn't literally what he has said - obvious to everybody and something i agree with  
    Get me the list then :smile:

    Proven where? Anyone we sign is going to come with some sort of risk aren't they?  It's not like there is some sort of league 1 Haaland we are going to magic out of thin air. 

    On the basis that I, like 90% of others, probably won't have seen them play more than a couple of times I'll judge them on what they do on the pitch, not if they are established or not. 

    not my job - is it too much to ask to sign a striker who isn't either an up and coming youth or a has been? 
    Well yes, basically. 

    The 20 goal a season 25 year old league 1 striker literally doesn't exist.

    How many current league 1 strikers have ever scored 20 league 1 goals in a season?

    Stockton, Pigott, Clark-Harris, Marquis maybe missed one or two but it's not a long list.

    Anyone we sign will be a gamble. 
  • Everton not likely to let Tom Cannon go out on loan. Again, according to Alan Nixon... but I think he was the source of the rumour in the first place!
    Cannon scored in a 3-3 draw away at Morecambe in the Pizza Cup tonight.
  • I do know that there will be a new face down at The Valley tomorrow night. Cant say anymore at the moment but all will be revealed after tomorrow.
    In the playing capticity?
  • Cafc43v3r said:
    DOUCHER said:
    Cafc43v3r said:
    DOUCHER said:
    Cafc43v3r said:
    Anyone able to explain what this means?

    "Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second)."
    It means the poster is seldom wrong... 
    it means we need an established proven striker even if that isn't literally what he has said - obvious to everybody and something i agree with  
    Get me the list then :smile:

    Proven where? Anyone we sign is going to come with some sort of risk aren't they?  It's not like there is some sort of league 1 Haaland we are going to magic out of thin air. 

    On the basis that I, like 90% of others, probably won't have seen them play more than a couple of times I'll judge them on what they do on the pitch, not if they are established or not. 

    not my job - is it too much to ask to sign a striker who isn't either an up and coming youth or a has been? 
    Well yes, basically. 

    The 20 goal a season 25 year old league 1 striker literally doesn't exist.

    How many current league 1 strikers have ever scored 20 league 1 goals in a season?

    Stockton, Pigott, Clark-Harris, Marquis maybe missed one or two but it's not a long list.

    Anyone we sign will be a gamble. 
    see above - don't agree 
  • Anyone able to explain what this means?

    "Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second)."
    Sorry, but of a typo.

     Meant to say  - A Premiership youngster (JRS) or a youngster with no previous game time (Leaburn).

    Thanks, it didn't make sense but as you say a typo.

    It does now.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!