Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Steve Gallen
Comments
-
Even if we don’t go up this season I can see the talk next season being about aiming for the top 6. TS has seen how his comment massively increased by the fans expectations and probably player/agent/club expectations when trying to sign players too.
I’m sure NA will have high expectations with the squad - we know he’s aiming for 25 clean sheets for example. If you aim low like we did in the RD years it’s not a surprise when you eventually fail. We’re in a league where so many clubs are aiming for promotion (also applies to the Championship). It gives players ready made excuses and fewer reasons to push harder.
0 -
That is very worrying if they didn't realise the squad wasn't of the required standard before a few poor results or was sandgaard just keeping his purse tightly shut & not listening.TeeC said:Interviewed from 17 mins. Highlights: arter took a couple of weeks as the player needed persuading to drop down a league. Seems the poor start to the season influenced the decision to bring in a few more at the end of the window.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p09tyt5c1 -
Either way, it should never have had to get to what it did before something clearly changed. However, the positive is that it did change and we got in some quality at the end.charltonbob said:
That is very worrying if they didn't realise the squad wasn't of the required standard before a few poor results or was sandgaard just keeping his purse tightly shut & not listening.TeeC said:Interviewed from 17 mins. Highlights: arter took a couple of weeks as the player needed persuading to drop down a league. Seems the poor start to the season influenced the decision to bring in a few more at the end of the window.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p09tyt5c
We could have a similar situation as last season where players we got in aren’t good enough and leave in the January.16 -
I think our lack of budget in the early window meant we missed out on the best free agents0
-
Not sure that’s true. In the early window I believe we were going for high quality player who eventually signed for championship sides instead.killerandflash said:I think our lack of budget in the early window meant we missed out on the best free agents5 -
Hardly surprising if what I read on here that we were offering players 3k per week is true.stoneroses19 said:
Not sure that’s true. In the early window I believe we were going for high quality player who eventually signed for championship sides instead.killerandflash said:I think our lack of budget in the early window meant we missed out on the best free agents1 -
At the same time we aren't paying Stockley and MacGillivray 3k a week. I strongly suspect we aren't planning on paying Famewo that either, if we make it a perm.charltonbob said:
Hardly surprising if what I read on here that we were offering players 3k per week is true.stoneroses19 said:
Not sure that’s true. In the early window I believe we were going for high quality player who eventually signed for championship sides instead.killerandflash said:I think our lack of budget in the early window meant we missed out on the best free agents
This transfer window is so hard to actually dissect, not only in terms of cold hard facts (who we have actually signed), the rumour and innuendo on here, the national press links, nor what Thomas, Nigel and Steve have said in public.
My guess is they gambled on not replacing Gilbey and JFC and they realised after MK Dons they couldn't. So they went after Arter. The Wigan game was the final straw in the "Morgan isn't an number 10", Adkins said Washington would have played there, if he was fit, and we then moved quickly to get Lee.
I think a center half and a wild card were always on the cards for the end of the window. I think the midfield cost us a left back though.9 -
I personally don’t think left back was ever a priority. Mathews has played there before so we have three. Barker can cover right back so three there.MCafc43v3r said:
At the same time we aren't paying Stockley and MacGillivray 3k a week. I strongly suspect we aren't planning on paying Famewo that either, if we make it a perm.charltonbob said:
Hardly surprising if what I read on here that we were offering players 3k per week is true.stoneroses19 said:
Not sure that’s true. In the early window I believe we were going for high quality player who eventually signed for championship sides instead.killerandflash said:I think our lack of budget in the early window meant we missed out on the best free agents
This transfer window is so hard to actually dissect, not only in terms of cold hard facts (who we have actually signed), the rumour and innuendo on here, the national press links, nor what Thomas, Nigel and Steve have said in public.
My guess is they gambled on not replacing Gilbey and JFC and they realised after MK Dons they couldn't. So they went after Arter. The Wigan game was the final straw in the "Morgan isn't an number 10", Adkins said Washington would have played there, if he was fit, and we then moved quickly to get Lee.
I think a center half and a wild card were always on the cards for the end of the window. I think the midfield cost us a left back though.
We now have five CH which was a big issue last season, the RHS looking particularly strong.
There is the ideal world and then a budget world. I think that overall we strengthened in the right places.0 -
Then why is a left back currently training with the first team? Signing both Lee and Arter meant we couldn't get a left back on loan.Redrobo said:
I personally don’t think left back was ever a priority. Mathews has played there before so we have three. Barker can cover right back so three there.MCafc43v3r said:
At the same time we aren't paying Stockley and MacGillivray 3k a week. I strongly suspect we aren't planning on paying Famewo that either, if we make it a perm.charltonbob said:
Hardly surprising if what I read on here that we were offering players 3k per week is true.stoneroses19 said:
Not sure that’s true. In the early window I believe we were going for high quality player who eventually signed for championship sides instead.killerandflash said:I think our lack of budget in the early window meant we missed out on the best free agents
This transfer window is so hard to actually dissect, not only in terms of cold hard facts (who we have actually signed), the rumour and innuendo on here, the national press links, nor what Thomas, Nigel and Steve have said in public.
My guess is they gambled on not replacing Gilbey and JFC and they realised after MK Dons they couldn't. So they went after Arter. The Wigan game was the final straw in the "Morgan isn't an number 10", Adkins said Washington would have played there, if he was fit, and we then moved quickly to get Lee.
I think a center half and a wild card were always on the cards for the end of the window. I think the midfield cost us a left back though.
We now have five CH which was a big issue last season, the RHS looking particularly strong.
There is the ideal world and then a budget world. I think that overall we strengthened in the right places.
It's not a priority as in spend a load of money on one but that's different to knowing you need one.0 -
On or close to deadline day Cawley said we were after a left sided defender. He’s since said we looking at bringing in two free agents, I expect that’ll be a left back and either a goalkeeper or a striker.3
- Sponsored links:
-
You can only sign a player who is available and better than you currently have. I think this is the problem with LB.Redrobo said:
I personally don’t think left back was ever a priority. Mathews has played there before so we have three. Barker can cover right back so three there.
We now have five CH which was a big issue last season, the RHS looking particularly strong.
There is the ideal world and then a budget world. I think that overall we strengthened in the right places.
Having watched Barker in pre season games and last Tuesday I'm afraid he is not an option. His statistics for the Papa Johns Trophy game were awful.
0 -
I'd love to be a fly on the wall when TS and SG are in conversation.
I can only imagine TS enthusing about fabulous football, promotion, the Premier league and Europe ... until SG advises that he sits down.
'Listen Thomas, we still need half a dozen players before we can compete - even in League 1. Then and only then we might with a following tail wind get into the mix for the top six. Realistically, if we continue to do the right things and have a degree of luck we might - just might- get promotion in 2-3 years time'.
TS: Stunned into silence.
SG: 'Shall I get your guitar?'7 -
Having a freebie on trial kinda suggests to me that it was not a priority. I think the budget was spent wisely and if we have a bit left over to sign a left back than all good.Cafc43v3r said:
Then why is a left back currently training with the first team? Signing both Lee and Arter meant we couldn't get a left back on loan.Redrobo said:
I personally don’t think left back was ever a priority. Mathews has played there before so we have three. Barker can cover right back so three there.MCafc43v3r said:
At the same time we aren't paying Stockley and MacGillivray 3k a week. I strongly suspect we aren't planning on paying Famewo that either, if we make it a perm.charltonbob said:
Hardly surprising if what I read on here that we were offering players 3k per week is true.stoneroses19 said:
Not sure that’s true. In the early window I believe we were going for high quality player who eventually signed for championship sides instead.killerandflash said:I think our lack of budget in the early window meant we missed out on the best free agents
This transfer window is so hard to actually dissect, not only in terms of cold hard facts (who we have actually signed), the rumour and innuendo on here, the national press links, nor what Thomas, Nigel and Steve have said in public.
My guess is they gambled on not replacing Gilbey and JFC and they realised after MK Dons they couldn't. So they went after Arter. The Wigan game was the final straw in the "Morgan isn't an number 10", Adkins said Washington would have played there, if he was fit, and we then moved quickly to get Lee.
I think a center half and a wild card were always on the cards for the end of the window. I think the midfield cost us a left back though.
We now have five CH which was a big issue last season, the RHS looking particularly strong.
There is the ideal world and then a budget world. I think that overall we strengthened in the right places.
It's not a priority as in spend a load of money on one but that's different to knowing you need one.
I don’t understand how you can conclude that having a left back on trial means that this was a priority for our recruitment team all along. At best I would suggest it became something worth looking at when additional funding was made available.0 -
When they sat down in May, or when ever it was, and made a list of what recruitment they needed to do I suspect there was a left back on it.Redrobo said:
Having a freebie on trial kinda suggests to me that it was not a priority. I think the budget was spent wisely and if we have a bit left over to sign a left back than all good.Cafc43v3r said:
Then why is a left back currently training with the first team? Signing both Lee and Arter meant we couldn't get a left back on loan.Redrobo said:
I personally don’t think left back was ever a priority. Mathews has played there before so we have three. Barker can cover right back so three there.MCafc43v3r said:
At the same time we aren't paying Stockley and MacGillivray 3k a week. I strongly suspect we aren't planning on paying Famewo that either, if we make it a perm.charltonbob said:
Hardly surprising if what I read on here that we were offering players 3k per week is true.stoneroses19 said:
Not sure that’s true. In the early window I believe we were going for high quality player who eventually signed for championship sides instead.killerandflash said:I think our lack of budget in the early window meant we missed out on the best free agents
This transfer window is so hard to actually dissect, not only in terms of cold hard facts (who we have actually signed), the rumour and innuendo on here, the national press links, nor what Thomas, Nigel and Steve have said in public.
My guess is they gambled on not replacing Gilbey and JFC and they realised after MK Dons they couldn't. So they went after Arter. The Wigan game was the final straw in the "Morgan isn't an number 10", Adkins said Washington would have played there, if he was fit, and we then moved quickly to get Lee.
I think a center half and a wild card were always on the cards for the end of the window. I think the midfield cost us a left back though.
We now have five CH which was a big issue last season, the RHS looking particularly strong.
There is the ideal world and then a budget world. I think that overall we strengthened in the right places.
It's not a priority as in spend a load of money on one but that's different to knowing you need one.
I don’t understand how you can conclude that having a left back on trial means that this was a priority for our recruitment team all along. At best I would suggest it became something worth looking at when additional funding was made available.
A long with a center forward, 3 wingers etc etc.
What it probably didn't have on it was a replacement for Gilbey and possibly for JFC as well. Once that changed, whether it was reproritisng the resources, including loan spaces, or additional funding.
I would say getting a left back was always on the to do list. If you want to say it isn't a priority fine. But I can almost guarantee that always wanted a left back but needing Arter and Lee restricted who and how they could get one.2 -
While my guitar gently weeps.Raith_C_Chattonell said:I'd love to be a fly on the wall when TS and SG are in conversation.
I can only imagine TS enthusing about fabulous football, promotion, the Premier league and Europe ... until SG advises that he sits down.
'Listen Thomas, we still need half a dozen players before we can compete - even in League 1. Then and only then we might with a following tail wind get into the mix for the top six. Realistically, if we continue to do the right things and have a degree of luck we might - just might- get promotion in 2-3 years time'.
TS: Stunned into silence.
SG: 'Shall I get your guitar?'2 -
I am certain a left back position was on the wish list.Cafc43v3r said:
When they sat down in May, or when ever it was, and made a list of what recruitment they needed to do I suspect there was a left back on it.Redrobo said:
Having a freebie on trial kinda suggests to me that it was not a priority. I think the budget was spent wisely and if we have a bit left over to sign a left back than all good.Cafc43v3r said:
Then why is a left back currently training with the first team? Signing both Lee and Arter meant we couldn't get a left back on loan.Redrobo said:
I personally don’t think left back was ever a priority. Mathews has played there before so we have three. Barker can cover right back so three there.MCafc43v3r said:
At the same time we aren't paying Stockley and MacGillivray 3k a week. I strongly suspect we aren't planning on paying Famewo that either, if we make it a perm.charltonbob said:
Hardly surprising if what I read on here that we were offering players 3k per week is true.stoneroses19 said:
Not sure that’s true. In the early window I believe we were going for high quality player who eventually signed for championship sides instead.killerandflash said:I think our lack of budget in the early window meant we missed out on the best free agents
This transfer window is so hard to actually dissect, not only in terms of cold hard facts (who we have actually signed), the rumour and innuendo on here, the national press links, nor what Thomas, Nigel and Steve have said in public.
My guess is they gambled on not replacing Gilbey and JFC and they realised after MK Dons they couldn't. So they went after Arter. The Wigan game was the final straw in the "Morgan isn't an number 10", Adkins said Washington would have played there, if he was fit, and we then moved quickly to get Lee.
I think a center half and a wild card were always on the cards for the end of the window. I think the midfield cost us a left back though.
We now have five CH which was a big issue last season, the RHS looking particularly strong.
There is the ideal world and then a budget world. I think that overall we strengthened in the right places.
It's not a priority as in spend a load of money on one but that's different to knowing you need one.
I don’t understand how you can conclude that having a left back on trial means that this was a priority for our recruitment team all along. At best I would suggest it became something worth looking at when additional funding was made available.
A long with a center forward, 3 wingers etc etc.
What it probably didn't have on it was a replacement for Gilbey and possibly for JFC as well. Once that changed, whether it was reproritisng the resources, including loan spaces, or additional funding.
I would say getting a left back was always on the to do list. If you want to say it isn't a priority fine. But I can almost guarantee that always wanted a left back but needing Arter and Lee restricted who and how they could get one.But even back in May I would have thought a CF and a CB and a GK were our three priority’s.Then I would have had at least two midfielders and a winger.But you think a LB was a priority. Fine. I think you are wrong.0 -
Surely finally getting Kirk made getting an upgrade at left back a priority.
2 -
Certainly desirable, but I would guess the budget did not allow for it.alangee said:Surely finally getting Kirk made getting an upgrade at left back a priority.
Say the choice was right sided CH or a left back? Which would you have gone for? I am a bit jaundiced by last season, but would have gone for the CH.0 -
People taking about not having the budget, we were in for will grigg and sniffed at nugent on deadline day. The budget is there to get a left back.0
-
Will be some budget left given we’re looking at free agents.Redrobo said:
Certainly desirable, but I would guess the budget did not allow for it.alangee said:Surely finally getting Kirk made getting an upgrade at left back a priority.
Say the choice was right sided CH or a left back? Which would you have gone for? I am a bit jaundiced by last season, but would have gone for the CH.3 - Sponsored links:
-
But then again, Inniss' fitness record also makes a CB a priority and a lack of cover for Stockley means that another forward is yet another priority. All the options have to be pursued simultaneously. If we'd managed to get a LB on loan, Leko probably wouldn't have happened, if the Lavelle move had collapsed maybe a LB would have come in.alangee said:Surely finally getting Kirk made getting an upgrade at left back a priority.
It's not really a linear process.2 -
I wonder if there was really any truth in Grigg and Nugent.J BLOCK said:People taking about not having the budget, we were in for will grigg and sniffed at nugent on deadline day. The budget is there to get a left back.
If there is it would suggest the two free agents we’re after are a left back and striker - that would be ideal.1 -
I remember when Dijksteel was sold, Lee Bowyer made a point of saying full back was a position that wasn't such a priority and could be filled more easily from within than other positions.Redrobo said:
I am certain a left back position was on the wish list.Cafc43v3r said:
When they sat down in May, or when ever it was, and made a list of what recruitment they needed to do I suspect there was a left back on it.Redrobo said:
Having a freebie on trial kinda suggests to me that it was not a priority. I think the budget was spent wisely and if we have a bit left over to sign a left back than all good.Cafc43v3r said:
Then why is a left back currently training with the first team? Signing both Lee and Arter meant we couldn't get a left back on loan.Redrobo said:
I personally don’t think left back was ever a priority. Mathews has played there before so we have three. Barker can cover right back so three there.MCafc43v3r said:
At the same time we aren't paying Stockley and MacGillivray 3k a week. I strongly suspect we aren't planning on paying Famewo that either, if we make it a perm.charltonbob said:
Hardly surprising if what I read on here that we were offering players 3k per week is true.stoneroses19 said:
Not sure that’s true. In the early window I believe we were going for high quality player who eventually signed for championship sides instead.killerandflash said:I think our lack of budget in the early window meant we missed out on the best free agents
This transfer window is so hard to actually dissect, not only in terms of cold hard facts (who we have actually signed), the rumour and innuendo on here, the national press links, nor what Thomas, Nigel and Steve have said in public.
My guess is they gambled on not replacing Gilbey and JFC and they realised after MK Dons they couldn't. So they went after Arter. The Wigan game was the final straw in the "Morgan isn't an number 10", Adkins said Washington would have played there, if he was fit, and we then moved quickly to get Lee.
I think a center half and a wild card were always on the cards for the end of the window. I think the midfield cost us a left back though.
We now have five CH which was a big issue last season, the RHS looking particularly strong.
There is the ideal world and then a budget world. I think that overall we strengthened in the right places.
It's not a priority as in spend a load of money on one but that's different to knowing you need one.
I don’t understand how you can conclude that having a left back on trial means that this was a priority for our recruitment team all along. At best I would suggest it became something worth looking at when additional funding was made available.
A long with a center forward, 3 wingers etc etc.
What it probably didn't have on it was a replacement for Gilbey and possibly for JFC as well. Once that changed, whether it was reproritisng the resources, including loan spaces, or additional funding.
I would say getting a left back was always on the to do list. If you want to say it isn't a priority fine. But I can almost guarantee that always wanted a left back but needing Arter and Lee restricted who and how they could get one.But even back in May I would have thought a CF and a CB and a GK were our three priority’s.Then I would have had at least two midfielders and a winger.But you think a LB was a priority. Fine. I think you are wrong.
Within the management team, maybe that opinion still holds?
Personally I feel we need a pacy more attacking LB to give us a different option to the more defensive Purrington, as and when required.
1 -
Some budget, but if LB had been a priority I am convinced that we would have got one in, even if it had been a loan. We had a plan A and B for a good CH.Scoham said:
Will be some budget left given we’re looking at free agents.Redrobo said:
Certainly desirable, but I would guess the budget did not allow for it.alangee said:Surely finally getting Kirk made getting an upgrade at left back a priority.
Say the choice was right sided CH or a left back? Which would you have gone for? I am a bit jaundiced by last season, but would have gone for the CH.
I doubt that any free agent is going to be better than Purrington.0 -
Thank goodness we didn’t get either of them!J BLOCK said:People taking about not having the budget, we were in for will grigg and sniffed at nugent on deadline day. The budget is there to get a left back.1 -
I’m sure it was on the list but not a high priority, especially after we decided we had to improve central midfield by going for Arter and Lee - surely that wouldn’t have happened had Clare and Dobson started better and Gilbey been available.Redrobo said:
Some budget, but if LB had been a priority I am convinced that we would have got one in, even if it had been a loan. We had a plan A and B for a good CH.Scoham said:
Will be some budget left given we’re looking at free agents.Redrobo said:
Certainly desirable, but I would guess the budget did not allow for it.alangee said:Surely finally getting Kirk made getting an upgrade at left back a priority.
Say the choice was right sided CH or a left back? Which would you have gone for? I am a bit jaundiced by last season, but would have gone for the CH.
I doubt that any free agent is going to be better than Purrington.
NA clearly rates Purrington enough to feel comfortable being in no rush for an alternative. Might not get better than him but if we can get a similar level but with pace and a more attacking style that’ll improve us.1 -
thenewbie said:
But then again, Inniss' fitness record also makes a CB a priority and a lack of cover for Stockley means that another forward is yet another priority. All the options have to be pursued simultaneously. If we'd managed to get a LB on loan, Leko probably wouldn't have happened, if the Lavelle move had collapsed maybe a LB would have come in.alangee said:Surely finally getting Kirk made getting an upgrade at left back a priority.
It's not really a linear process.
I accept that it is not a linear process, but there were and are some decent left backs available.
0 -
If we do not have any major injury issues in January then I think we would be interested if the right player is available.Scoham said:
I’m sure it was on the list but not a high priority, especially after we decided we had to improve central midfield by going for Arter and Lee - surely that wouldn’t have happened had Clare and Dobson started better and Gilbey been available.Redrobo said:
Some budget, but if LB had been a priority I am convinced that we would have got one in, even if it had been a loan. We had a plan A and B for a good CH.Scoham said:
Will be some budget left given we’re looking at free agents.Redrobo said:
Certainly desirable, but I would guess the budget did not allow for it.alangee said:Surely finally getting Kirk made getting an upgrade at left back a priority.
Say the choice was right sided CH or a left back? Which would you have gone for? I am a bit jaundiced by last season, but would have gone for the CH.
I doubt that any free agent is going to be better than Purrington.
NA clearly rates Purrington enough to feel comfortable being in no rush for an alternative. Might not get better than him but if we can get a similar level but with pace and a more attacking style that’ll improve us.
I am really really hoping we do not need help up front though.0 -
And I am 100% confident that we were and are trying to sign one of those.alangee said:thenewbie said:
But then again, Inniss' fitness record also makes a CB a priority and a lack of cover for Stockley means that another forward is yet another priority. All the options have to be pursued simultaneously. If we'd managed to get a LB on loan, Leko probably wouldn't have happened, if the Lavelle move had collapsed maybe a LB would have come in.alangee said:Surely finally getting Kirk made getting an upgrade at left back a priority.
It's not really a linear process.
I accept that it is not a linear process, but there were and are some decent left backs available.0
