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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We could have a similar situation as last season where players we got in aren’t good enough and leave in the January.
I think our lack of budget in the early window meant we missed out on the best free agents
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.
Hardly surprising if what I read on here that we were offering players 3k per week is true.
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.
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.
I think our lack of budget in the early window meant we missed out on the best free agents
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.
Hardly surprising if what I read on here that we were offering players 3k per week is true.
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.
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.
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.
I think our lack of budget in the early window meant we missed out on the best free agents
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.
Hardly surprising if what I read on here that we were offering players 3k per week is true.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's not a priority as in spend a load of money on one but that's different to knowing you need one.
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.
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.
You can only sign a player who is available and better than you currently have. I think this is the problem with LB.
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.
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'.
I think our lack of budget in the early window meant we missed out on the best free agents
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.
Hardly surprising if what I read on here that we were offering players 3k per week is true.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's not a priority as in spend a load of money on one but that's different to knowing you need one.
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. 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.
I think our lack of budget in the early window meant we missed out on the best free agents
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.
Hardly surprising if what I read on here that we were offering players 3k per week is true.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's not a priority as in spend a load of money on one but that's different to knowing you need one.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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'.
I think our lack of budget in the early window meant we missed out on the best free agents
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.
Hardly surprising if what I read on here that we were offering players 3k per week is true.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's not a priority as in spend a load of money on one but that's different to knowing you need one.
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. 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.
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.
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.
I am certain a left back position was on the wish list.
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.
Surely finally getting Kirk made getting an upgrade at left back a priority.
Certainly desirable, but I would guess the budget did not allow for it. 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.
Surely finally getting Kirk made getting an upgrade at left back a priority.
Certainly desirable, but I would guess the budget did not allow for it. 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.
Will be some budget left given we’re looking at free agents.
Surely finally getting Kirk made getting an upgrade at left back a priority.
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.
I think our lack of budget in the early window meant we missed out on the best free agents
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.
Hardly surprising if what I read on here that we were offering players 3k per week is true.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's not a priority as in spend a load of money on one but that's different to knowing you need one.
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. 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.
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.
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.
I am certain a left back position was on the wish list.
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.
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.
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.
Surely finally getting Kirk made getting an upgrade at left back a priority.
Certainly desirable, but I would guess the budget did not allow for it. 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.
Will be some budget left given we’re looking at free agents.
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. I doubt that any free agent is going to be better than Purrington.
Surely finally getting Kirk made getting an upgrade at left back a priority.
Certainly desirable, but I would guess the budget did not allow for it. 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.
Will be some budget left given we’re looking at free agents.
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. I doubt that any free agent is going to be better than Purrington.
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.
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.
Surely finally getting Kirk made getting an upgrade at left back a priority.
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.
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.
Surely finally getting Kirk made getting an upgrade at left back a priority.
Certainly desirable, but I would guess the budget did not allow for it. 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.
Will be some budget left given we’re looking at free agents.
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. I doubt that any free agent is going to be better than Purrington.
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.
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.
If we do not have any major injury issues in January then I think we would be interested if the right player is available. I am really really hoping we do not need help up front though.
Surely finally getting Kirk made getting an upgrade at left back a priority.
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.
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.
And I am 100% confident that we were and are trying to sign one of those.
Comments
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.
We could have a similar situation as last season where players we got in aren’t good enough and leave in the January.
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.
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.
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?'
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.
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.
It's not really a linear process.
If there is it would suggest the two free agents we’re after are a left back and striker - that would be ideal.
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.
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 accept that it is not a linear process, but there were and are some decent left backs available.
I am really really hoping we do not need help up front though.