|
Cobbler78
|
I don't think he did. I suppose if we were signing him it would be done by now.
JEDs comments about the trialists being lined up before pre-season and that we'd moved on to other targets since the investment probably mean he isn't going to be coming.
Will be interesting to see who the 4th Central Defender is, you would think Brady had exactly the right profile for that spot.
Do we really want to waste a chunk of our budget on a 4th choice center back. Give a youth team player a go in training and invest the money saved on the first 11-18 players, not players who 9 times out of ten won't make the squad. |
|
|
|
|
|
ntfc01
|
Do we really want to waste a chunk of our budget on a 4th choice center back. Give a youth team player a go in training and invest the money saved on the first 11-18 players, not players who 9 times out of ten won't make the squad.
Yes... Because you need 4 centre backs... What if you end up with a n injury and then a suspension. Why leave yourself short when you don't have to. We can't bring anyone in once the window closes anymore |
|
|
|
|
|
cobbler_rob
|
What's to say the centre backs going to be a 4th choice? Now we have extra investment we might sign someone who's going to be a 1st choice and allow Poole and Taylor to battle it out
|
|
|
|
|
|
guest170
|
Wes Brown is looking for a club  |
|
|
|
|
|
guest3063
|
Wes Brown is looking for a club So is Steven Taylor ex-Newcastle & Ipswich. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cobbler78
|
Yes... Because you need 4 centre backs... What if you end up with a n injury and then a suspension. Why leave yourself short when you don't have to. We can't bring anyone in once the window closes anymore
Is a decent center back going to come here knowing the options we already have. |
|
|
|
|
|
guest2487
|
Is a decent center back going to come here knowing the options we already have.
On that basis teams would never sign anyone? |
|
|
|
|
|
Vince Planner
|
Is a decent center back going to come here knowing the options we already have.
What's a center back? |
|
|
|
|
|
Cobbler78
|
On that basis teams would never sign anyone?
You've missed the point. I'd rather have 2 x 3k per week centre backs and 2 x 1k per week centre backs than 4 x 2k per week centre backs as that's a lot of wasted budget sat on the bench or not in the squad. I'd rather go with 14-15 high quality players and 8 or 9 back ups then a squad of 22 average players. |
|
|
|
|
|
guest2487
|
You've missed the point. I'd rather have 2 x 3k per week centre backs and 2 x 1k per week centre backs than 4 x 2k per week centre backs as that's a lot of wasted budget sat on the bench or not in the squad. I'd rather go with 14-15 high quality players and 8 or 9 back ups then a squad of 22 average players.
I agree. Who's to say the new centre back won't be one of the ones that is first choice though? E.g. one of the ones on a higher wage. Who knows. |
|
|
|
|
|
Cobbler78
|
I agree.
Who's to say the new centre back won't be one of the ones that is first choice though? E.g. one of the ones on a higher wage. Who knows.
I would guess Regan Poole didn't come cheap, we may even have to start him a certain number of time as part of the agreement, as per Kenji Gorre. Ash Taylor won't have been cheap either, these two will be our first choice centre backs. |
|
|
|
|
|
EssTeeFree
|
I would guess Regan Poole didn't come cheap, we may even have to start him a certain number of time as part of the agreement, as per Kenji Gorre. Ash Taylor won't have been cheap either, these two will be our first choice centre backs.
All of this is why I thought that Brady seemed the ideal choice to be the ideal option to be the 4th Centre Back and why it is seems, on the face of it, strange that we seemed to have moved on from him. Maybe the investment level is higher than we thought? Just on the Gorre point, what was the agreed number of starts we had to give him? What would have happened if we didn't meet them? It seems odd given that he disappeared from sight after the first month or so |
|
|
|
|
|
Glastonbury Cobbler
|
All of this is why I thought that Brady seemed the ideal choice to be the ideal option to be the 4th Centre Back and why it is seems, on the face of it, strange that we seemed to have moved on from him. Maybe the investment level is higher than we thought?
Just on the Gorre point, what was the agreed number of starts we had to give him? What would have happened if we didn't meet them? It seems odd given that he disappeared from sight after the first month or so
I am pretty sure the whol;e Gorre thing was rumour and conjecture and nobody actually know what his loan agreement looked like. We seemed to continue to play him whilst he was frankly awful, when his form seemed to pick up we dropped him and never saw him again - most odd!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
rebelspawn
|
I am pretty sure the whol;e Gorre thing was rumour and conjecture and nobody actually know what his loan agreement looked like. We seemed to continue to play him whilst he was frankly awful, when his form seemed to pick up we dropped him and never saw him again - most odd!!!
That can be explained in two words... Rob Page  |
|
|
|
|
|
EssTeeFree
|
That can be explained in two words... Rob Page You beat me to it Rebel I'm probably naïve but I just don't see these clauses existing, especially with the new loan rules. Take Gorre as an example, he was on a half season loan and players can't be recalled outside of a transfer window. Say we agreed to play him in 75% of games, if it got to November and he'd played 10% what could Swansea do? They couldn't recall him. Similarly with Poole, if we aren't playing him enough he may get recalled in January but then I doubt we'll be too upset if he isn't making the team. I suppose there could be financial penalties, or some sort of scale where we pay a higher % of the players wage if we don't play them enough but that would be hard to calculate with injuries etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
lodgeadam
|
You beat me to it Rebel I'm probably naïve but I just don't see these clauses existing, especially with the new loan rules. Take Gorre as an example, he was on a half season loan and players can't be recalled outside of a transfer window. Say we agreed to play him in 75% of games, if it got to November and he'd played 10% what could Swansea do? They couldn't recall him. Similarly with Poole, if we aren't playing him enough he may get recalled in January but then I doubt we'll be too upset if he isn't making the team. I suppose there could be financial penalties, or some sort of scale where we pay a higher % of the players wage if we don't play them enough but that would be hard to calculate with injuries etc.You've answered your own question there. Any clause in a footballers contract is plausible these days, and Page would've been so desperate I can see it being true. |
--- 'Shoe Army' is THE worst chant ever! --- Twitter @lodgeadam
|
|
|
|
Welly Cobb
|
People were saying the same thing about Matt Taylor. I assume it's just rationalisation for why a player you don't like is continuing to be picked in a team. "It must be because they're contractually obliged to be picked, it definitely can't be because someone else has a different judgement about their ability".
Anyway, if Matt Crooks doesn't sign today, after the speculation previously that today would be the day, do we start to panic that the deal has broken down?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Battery Man
|
I think some of these clauses do exist, I was chatting to my cousin at the weekend, he is the supporters trust member on the board of Grimsby Town. He was telling me that for Premier League club loans there is usually a clause that they will pay the players wages only if he plays. If he doesnt play one week you pay the wage, whereas if he does play they pay. What he was saying was that it usually based on percentages that is paid by parent club and loan club, so Premier league club will pay like 60% of his wage each week and if he doesn't play that may go down to 10% or something like that depending on the agreement you can get.
|
|
|
|
|
|
threeinabed
|
I think some of these clauses do exist, I was chatting to my cousin at the weekend, he is the supporters trust member on the board of Grimsby Town. He was telling me that for Premier League club loans there is usually a clause that they will pay the players wages only if he plays. If he doesnt play one week you pay the wage, whereas if he does play they pay. What he was saying was that it usually based on percentages that is paid by parent club and loan club, so Premier league club will pay like 60% of his wage each week and if he doesn't play that may go down to 10% or something like that depending on the agreement you can get.
it's almost as if people negotiate contracts?! |
|
|
|
|
|
