Wickham was effective enough when he came on, contributed to our winner. Shameful truth is that missing a target man for 90% of the season has made our entire team dysfunctional, so "effective enough" looks great to most of us. It's why Chuks looks like a God when he comes on too.
And this was SO avoidable. As soon as Leaburn got injured pre season, we should have signed someone like Wickham then. This season could have been so different.
Saved me the trouble of writing it out LOL. For me, Wickham did exactly what it said on the tin.
"you realise a significant part of their overall remuneration relies on appearance and performance bonuses?"
You are making a big assumption there.
You don't know how any of the current players' deals are structured and neither do any of us.
The view of one of the current UK board, admittedly not an unbiased source, was too many of the existing deals AREN'T significantly performance based.
To suggest that focusing on injury records is somehow "perverse" is bizarre.
No matter how performance based an individual's contract is s/he will still be paid a base wage.
If s/he is consistantly injured then that money is not generating a useful input to the business. Expenditure is being spent on a broken asset.
And in football is not like having a broken down van that you can't use because you can buy or hire as many additional vans as you like.
In league football there are squad number limits so there is an opportunity cost.
On Wickham, it is a short term deal for an experienced, high quality ( for this level) player in a position where we are short.
The obvious downside is that his fitness record is poor.
It is quite legitimate to factor that in any consideration of offering him a longer deal.
A broken down vehicle? Is it how you see players? How commendable.
Did I place my comment against the Andy Scott Appointed Technical Director or the Next Seasons squad thread? No I placed my comments on a player signing on a 2 month contract or in your vehicular parlance a 2 month rental.
Whilst there are broader connotations with nonsense comments seen on Ramsay & Taylor (apply the same logic in other times we would never have seen Steve Brown) the topic under discussion is one Connor Wickham. The perversity of no little social media comment here is the exposure/ commitment is 2 months.
It is a manageable risk. God forbid social media was around in the days of the somewhat more fraught relegation fights when signing one Clifford Holton a 37yr old Watford reserve and the following year the 34yr old Southend reserve Eddie Firmani.
Now Mr Wickham doesn’t quite make those standards but he has come to make contribution. He may fail but in a squad of 10 midfield players, of whose compelling performance are we to be deprived by his 2 month contract?
My fiscal assumptions mirror the endlessly quoted figures purporting to be players genuine remuneration. However in this type of arrangement if you don’t think the remuneration is weighted toward appearance & performance bonuses then you haven’t played under a short term contract. It doesn’t even cover a week of the close season.
No, none of us know the detail here but I was not referencing the cost to the club but an injured players loss of earnings & inability to even project any long term financial prospects.
Of course I share the frustration when any player on a lucrative, long term contract is unable to perform to his contract while occupying a squad position to the detriment of squad performance. Does either apply in this instance? No.
In any event when failure to perform arises through injury it is self serving to suggest your / the clubs frustration is greater than the individual who has suffered the injury. Still if you wish to abuse a player for issues beyond his control, have at it. I don’t.
Employees get sick, sometimes seriously. Industrial Injuries are part of this business. It is the cost of business. EFL clubs should in any season scope for 2 long term* & 2 rotational medium term injuries. People businesses need margins. Mr Jones’ 22 outfield players speak to a 10% margin re 2 players competing for each outfield position.
*We have 4/5 - Aneke, Taylor, Camara, Leaburn and now McGrandles returning.
Ultimately it is naive not to recognise clubs will take punts in this aspect of business. Injury profiles today are well documented and we can but hope a common sense approach will reflect it in the nature of contracts awarded. Wickhams’ recent contracts speak to such consideration.
At what level do I suggest a fuller commitment? I specifically referenced increasing use of niche players. That said both Euell & Hughes filled such roles for us in 2011/2012.
The critical issue is the balance of players within the squad. I have in the past been hugely critical of the imbalance of injury profiles carried within the core squad. Look at the Centre Back rotations under Bowyer. They were however business risks we chose to take. The responsibility is with the club.
Would I have collectively signed any number of the core players we have in recent years inc. Arter, Aneke & Pearce in his later years, Camara, Hector even Jones as core members of my squad at the same time? No. Could you carry one or two? Possibly. Jonny Williams was key to our promotion.
Indeed the risk of carrying such players increased when the EFL imposed squad restrictions pushing all such profiles toward unemployment. It is arguably a restraint of trade. If a club wants to employ a player and he wants to play beyond fiscal jurisprudence who are the EFL to intervene.
Even NFL teams can replace long term casualties put in «Players Unable to Perform» reserve.
I repeat Wickham, over the past 2 yrs made 47 senior appearances. He like thousands before him is trying to recover his career. I do not see it as a matter for abuse.
Mr Jones is of the opinion Wickham earned a 2 month contract. In the event he views his contribution over this period warrants a further 3m, 6m, 12m contract offer with us (when considering all options) I will, if it is ok with you, respect his judgement.
A long post Grapevine but sadly rambling and not addressing the key point I made regarding your false assumption that a "significant" part of the players pay is performance related when you don't know that to be the case.
As for the broken van, please dont pretend you don't know the difference between an analogy and a comparison. You are far too intelligent for that.
A long post Grapevine but sadly rambling and not addressing the key point I made regarding your false assumption that a "significant" part of the players pay is performance related when you don't know that to be the case.
As for the broken van, please dont pretend you don't know the difference between an analogy and a comparison. You are far too intelligent for that.
Wickham was effective enough when he came on, contributed to our winner. Shameful truth is that missing a target man for 90% of the season has made our entire team dysfunctional, so "effective enough" looks great to most of us. It's why Chuks looks like a God when he comes on too.
And this was SO avoidable. As soon as Leaburn got injured pre season, we should have signed someone like Wickham then. This season could have been so different.
And even with a fit Miles, a "battering ram" striker option is a real asset up front, as that isn't Miles' strength at the moment. Miles has the pace to play alongside a Wickham (or a Chuks).
The club made 2 mistakes when Miles was injured. One was to not sign someone straight away, leaving us short up from for several weeks at the start of the season, long enough to cost Holden his job. The second was then bringing in Tedic, instead of an experienced target man.
I'm team Henry Irving on this one. Ever since Grapevine69's gushing (almost "perverse") support of Michael Appleton on previous threads, I have found myself reading his long-winded posts in a different light.
I'm team Henry Irving on this one. Ever since Grapevine69's gushing (almost "perverse") support of Michael Appleton on previous threads, I have found myself reading his long-winded posts in a different light.
There was a sentence that referenced Michael Appleton lacking customer service skills that felt slightly misaligned in the game called football.
Hope he impresses, wouldnt be the worst player in the world to give a one year deal to competing with Leaburn and Aneke (what is it with us, finding injury hit target men these days)
Can we judge Wickham on his performance over the rest of this season before any premature exhilaration; having said that it was promising to see Connor's head on for Sam Lavelle's assist for Alfie's goal and then being in the 6 yard box for any potential pass. 👍
Just like we didn't want to write off Thierry Small after his wild pass back early on his debut.
I'm team Henry Irving on this one. Ever since Grapevine69's gushing (almost "perverse") support of Michael Appleton on previous threads, I have found myself reading his long-winded posts in a different light.
I take the @Grapevine49 post as pulling up those who are saying we shouldn't have signed him because of his injury record even if, as shown by his initial cameo, he might be able to do a valuable fill-in job. Simply a different view to those who say that because of his poor injury record, and nothing else, he shouldn't have been signed.
Apart from saying "it might reasonably be assumed Wickham is on a performance based contract" instead of asserting is as a fact, I'm not sure what the ruck is about. Every player has an appearance element to his contract and I think most of us would be surprised if it isn't a significant element in Wickham's case.
Whatever, its up to Jones to make the call and he has the knowledge about his current fitness and his contract that we do not - that's why it's perverse to call it a bad decision on Wickham based on no knowledge apart from his past injury record.
I wouldn't dismiss @Grapevine49 because he supported Appleton's appointment. If you ignored the obvious bias in some of the re-telling of his backstory, a case to support him wasn't difficult to make for a rational thinker.
Interesting interview that, especially when he mentioned training at Bisham Abbey, as you do have this impression of unemployed footballers training in the park and local gym.
Surprised he lives in Buckinghamshire, rather than having his permanent base nearer to Palace, his last main employer.
Interesting interview that, especially when he mentioned training at Bisham Abbey, as you do have this impression of unemployed footballers training in the park and local gym.
Surprised he lives in Buckinghamshire, rather than having his permanent base nearer to Palace, his last main employer.
He didnt need to live near palace, he was never there 😀
I'm team Henry Irving on this one. Ever since Grapevine69's gushing (almost "perverse") support of Michael Appleton on previous threads, I have found myself reading his long-winded posts in a different light.
You are entitled to your view. To respond fully I’d seek to use more words than is clearly welcome. I have no time for social media politics
I am not sure my words on Appleton are in anyway relevant to Wickham or indeed were overly supportive. I noted the task before Appleton, the muddled environment in which he (& several before him) chose to work and his methodology. If you didn’t, thats your problem not mine. He failed. It happens.
It didn’t mean the rest of us had the right to wallow in the cesspool of confusion & abuse.
Of note is of the squad now available 75% are additions made in the past 8 months. I speak to my working & sporting experiences. There are those who are accountable and those who are held accountable. I am entirely comfortable with the detail of my position.
I ultimately have no axe to grind for Bowyer, Adkins, Jackson, Garner, Holden or Appleton. They can’t all be shit, can they?. They took the job. Just like any of us if they did so without understanding the challenges there will always be a price to pay.
Indeed I respected Bowyer for recognising the direction of travel was beyond his skillset.
Comments
Did I place my comment against the Andy Scott Appointed Technical Director or the Next Seasons squad thread? No I placed my comments on a player signing on a 2 month contract or in your vehicular parlance a 2 month rental.
Whilst there are broader connotations with nonsense comments seen on Ramsay & Taylor (apply the same logic in other times we would never have seen Steve Brown) the topic under discussion is one Connor Wickham. The perversity of no little social media comment here is the exposure/ commitment is 2 months.
It is a manageable risk. God forbid social media was around in the days of the somewhat more fraught relegation fights when signing one Clifford Holton a 37yr old Watford reserve and the following year the 34yr old Southend reserve Eddie Firmani.
Now Mr Wickham doesn’t quite make those standards but he has come to make contribution. He may fail but in a squad of 10 midfield players, of whose compelling performance are we to be deprived by his 2 month contract?
My fiscal assumptions mirror the endlessly quoted figures purporting to be players genuine remuneration. However in this type of arrangement if you don’t think the remuneration is weighted toward appearance & performance bonuses then you haven’t played under a short term contract. It doesn’t even cover a week of the close season.
No, none of us know the detail here but I was not referencing the cost to the club but an injured players loss of earnings & inability to even project any long term financial prospects.
Of course I share the frustration when any player on a lucrative, long term contract is unable to perform to his contract while occupying a squad position to the detriment of squad performance. Does either apply in this instance? No.
In any event when failure to perform arises through injury it is self serving to suggest your / the clubs frustration is greater than the individual who has suffered the injury. Still if you wish to abuse a player for issues beyond his control, have at it. I don’t.
Employees get sick, sometimes seriously. Industrial Injuries are part of this business. It is the cost of business. EFL clubs should in any season scope for 2 long term* & 2 rotational medium term injuries. People businesses need margins. Mr Jones’ 22 outfield players speak to a 10% margin re 2 players competing for each outfield position.
*We have 4/5 - Aneke, Taylor, Camara, Leaburn and now McGrandles returning.
Ultimately it is naive not to recognise clubs will take punts in this aspect of business. Injury profiles today are well documented and we can but hope a common sense approach will reflect it in the nature of contracts awarded. Wickhams’ recent contracts speak to such consideration.
At what level do I suggest a fuller commitment? I specifically referenced increasing use of niche players. That said both Euell & Hughes filled such roles for us in 2011/2012.
The critical issue is the balance of players within the squad. I have in the past been hugely critical of the imbalance of injury profiles carried within the core squad. Look at the Centre Back rotations under Bowyer. They were however business risks we chose to take. The responsibility is with the club.
Would I have collectively signed any number of the core players we have in recent years inc. Arter, Aneke & Pearce in his later years, Camara, Hector even Jones as core members of my squad at the same time? No. Could you carry one or two? Possibly. Jonny Williams was key to our promotion.
Indeed the risk of carrying such players increased when the EFL imposed squad restrictions pushing all such profiles toward unemployment. It is arguably a restraint of trade. If a club wants to employ a player and he wants to play beyond fiscal jurisprudence who are the EFL to intervene.
Even NFL teams can replace long term casualties put in «Players Unable to Perform» reserve.
I repeat Wickham, over the past 2 yrs made 47 senior appearances. He like thousands before him is trying to recover his career. I do not see it as a matter for abuse.
Mr Jones is of the opinion Wickham earned a 2 month contract. In the event he views his contribution over this period warrants a further 3m, 6m, 12m contract offer with us (when considering all options) I will, if it is ok with you, respect his judgement.
As for the broken van, please dont pretend you don't know the difference between an analogy and a comparison. You are far too intelligent for that.
The club made 2 mistakes when Miles was injured. One was to not sign someone straight away, leaving us short up from for several weeks at the start of the season, long enough to cost Holden his job. The second was then bringing in Tedic, instead of an experienced target man.
who know's about next season - but at only 30, he could well earn himself a deal
I have made the point before but I think the likes of CW ,lua lua and Fosu have been attracted here as NJ is here.
Am not ITK but also heard that we are after another Dutch prospect by the name of Avis Van Rental
Still, it's a change from house buying analogies
Just like we didn't want to write off Thierry Small after his wild pass back early on his debut.
Apart from saying "it might reasonably be assumed Wickham is on a performance based contract" instead of asserting is as a fact, I'm not sure what the ruck is about. Every player has an appearance element to his contract and I think most of us would be surprised if it isn't a significant element in Wickham's case.
Whatever, its up to Jones to make the call and he has the knowledge about his current fitness and his contract that we do not - that's why it's perverse to call it a bad decision on Wickham based on no knowledge apart from his past injury record.
I wouldn't dismiss @Grapevine49 because he supported Appleton's appointment. If you ignored the obvious bias in some of the re-telling of his backstory, a case to support him wasn't difficult to make for a rational thinker.
Surprised he lives in Buckinghamshire, rather than having his permanent base nearer to Palace, his last main employer.
I am not sure my words on Appleton are in anyway relevant to Wickham or indeed were overly supportive. I noted the task before Appleton, the muddled environment in which he (& several before him) chose to work and his methodology. If you didn’t, thats your problem not mine. He failed. It happens.
It didn’t mean the rest of us had the right to wallow in the cesspool of confusion & abuse.
Of note is of the squad now available 75% are additions made in the past 8 months. I speak to my working & sporting experiences. There are those who are accountable and those who are held accountable. I am entirely comfortable with the detail of my position.
I ultimately have no axe to grind for Bowyer, Adkins, Jackson, Garner, Holden or Appleton. They can’t all be shit, can they?. They took the job. Just like any of us if they did so without understanding the challenges there will always be a price to pay.
Indeed I respected Bowyer for recognising the direction of travel was beyond his skillset.