If one of the three to arrive before deadline day is a striker, then if we don't take maximum points from all our games after that, people won't be able to claim it's because Sandgaard didn't sign a striker 👍
I really like stockley. He is an old school centre forward with limitations. He's Strong,aggressive and intelligent. Trouble is he's not very mobile and I think it's quite clear to see with garnerball we are screaming out for an attacking mobile forward!
Fuck of Sheffield Wednesday you don’t need any more good players.
All these top promotion chasing top league one clubs in for Stockton I see.
All the top promotion teams are stocked up with striking options.
Those teams probably realise if they secure him their chances of survival increase significantly just as it would increase our chances of promotion significantly
Perhaps it’s a case they have enquired about strikers but the ones they think will be an improvement on Stockley, who is doing better than some will give him credit for, or Leaburn, who looks better than I think a lot of us expected, are out of reach. No point signing someone just for the sake of it.
Or perhaps they just want to play their cards very close to their chest for fear of losing a deal by it becoming public knowledge too early.
We’ll find out in a couple of weeks.
If Stockley or Leaburn get injured we are up creek.... we need another striker.
IF. It’s not definitely going to happen so the management team has to balance that risk against what it will cost to sign a striker that will be worth actually adding to the wage bill. And whatever the bed wetting doom mongers will say, Aneke will be available for selection at some point.
Ideally we would be able to sign a decent striker, but this isn’t like January 2019 when we were playing 2 up front and sold Grant to leave us with only Taylor and the injured Vetokele so had to sign Parker because he was all we could get. Right now we have two decent, fit options for one position.
If we just sign someone for the sake of it they might end being unused and unwanted and then, in January, maybe a better option comes on the market but we already spent our budget on the d-list option.
it’s made out like it’s a black and white decision but it’s not.
It will though won’t it.
Maybe, but if our new signing striker is no good, would it matter? For example, if we’d kept Josh Davison, would you be saying we don’t need a striker? And would you feel better about the prospect of starting him instead of, say, adapting so, perhaps, Payne plays as a false nine for a few matches?
Stockley may not be heading goals at the moment but 2 of our recent goals have come as a direct result of him heading at goal. Do you think Payne will be able to do that, get on the end of aerial crosses and hold the ball up that's not played to feet ?
Ohh and forgot do you think Payne will be able to do the defensive headers out of our box at set plays.
Absolute madness if you're keeping a striker in the squad for his defensive ability
That was not the point. I did not say a striker should be in the team for his defensive ability. It was suggested that Payne could play as a striker (false 9). To that I made the point Payne could not fulfil the role and in addition wouldn't be able help out at set plays in defending.
Gilbey is nowhere near as bad as many on here believe but he doesn’t fit Garnerball/is too expensive, so it looks like we’ll all move on. Personally think Lincoln fans will like him.
I’d hold off about being smug about swapping Gilbey for McGrandles. I’m not a big fan of Gilbey, but we’ve hardly seen McGrandles yet, thanks to injury, and he’s been both good and bad in the limited time he has been on the pitch. Jury is very much still out on him
I’d hold off about being smug about swapping Gilbey for McGrandles. I’m not a big fan of Gilbey, but we’ve hardly seen McGrandles yet, thanks to injury, and he’s been both good and bad in the limited time he has been on the pitch. Jury is very much still out on him
I’d hold off about being smug about swapping Gilbey for McGrandles. I’m not a big fan of Gilbey, but we’ve hardly seen McGrandles yet, thanks to injury, and he’s been both good and bad in the limited time he has been on the pitch. Jury is very much still out on him
Once he’s back fit McGrandles will be a fan favourite. Quality player who I’d have snapped your hands off for a swap with Gilbey in the summer. Showed signs of his quality against Plymouth but then a freak injury. He will come good…just like we WILL sign a striker! 😉
Ipswich, Peterborough and Pompey are all scoring goals and have far more depth up front than we have. Failure to strengthen up front will almost certainly consign us to yet another season of mid-table mediocrity.
Ipswich have scored one more goal than us although they’ve played the current 18th, 20th, 22nd and 24th team in the league.
They've also let in 3 fewer
Ipswich have a rock solid defence, they don't need to score lots of goals. We play open, attacking football so will concede more than them, we need to score more goals.
Yeah and they’ve also played 18th, 20th, 22nd and 24th in the league. We’ve not played anyone lower than 12th.
How well would both of us done if the teams we had played had been reversed. We just don’t know yet, and it’s difficult to really compare this early on in the season.
Does league position say much 5 games into the season?
It doesn't but you could argue that the table won't be that much different in May.
Ipswich, Peterborough, Portsmouth, Sheff Weds, Plymouth, us, Bolton and Derby is the current top 8.
You could make a case for Wycombe, Barnsley, MK Dons and maybe Oxford getting in there but I'd bet that most, if not all, of the current 8 sides will still be in the top 8 at the end of the season.
I’d hold off about being smug about swapping Gilbey for McGrandles. I’m not a big fan of Gilbey, but we’ve hardly seen McGrandles yet, thanks to injury, and he’s been both good and bad in the limited time he has been on the pitch. Jury is very much still out on him
He only needs to have more than two good games a season to be an improvement on Gilbs...
I’d hold off about being smug about swapping Gilbey for McGrandles. I’m not a big fan of Gilbey, but we’ve hardly seen McGrandles yet, thanks to injury, and he’s been both good and bad in the limited time he has been on the pitch. Jury is very much still out on him
He only needs to have more than two good games a season to be an improvement on Gilbs...
Even if McGrandles does flop, it just means that he's not playing well. It doesn't mean that Gilbey was actually good all along because outside of one or two games, he's not.
Perhaps it’s a case they have enquired about strikers but the ones they think will be an improvement on Stockley, who is doing better than some will give him credit for, or Leaburn, who looks better than I think a lot of us expected, are out of reach. No point signing someone just for the sake of it.
Or perhaps they just want to play their cards very close to their chest for fear of losing a deal by it becoming public knowledge too early.
We’ll find out in a couple of weeks.
If Stockley or Leaburn get injured we are up creek.... we need another striker.
IF. It’s not definitely going to happen so the management team has to balance that risk against what it will cost to sign a striker that will be worth actually adding to the wage bill. And whatever the bed wetting doom mongers will say, Aneke will be available for selection at some point.
Ideally we would be able to sign a decent striker, but this isn’t like January 2019 when we were playing 2 up front and sold Grant to leave us with only Taylor and the injured Vetokele so had to sign Parker because he was all we could get. Right now we have two decent, fit options for one position.
If we just sign someone for the sake of it they might end being unused and unwanted and then, in January, maybe a better option comes on the market but we already spent our budget on the d-list option.
it’s made out like it’s a black and white decision but it’s not.
It will though won’t it.
Maybe, but if our new signing striker is no good, would it matter? For example, if we’d kept Josh Davison, would you be saying we don’t need a striker? And would you feel better about the prospect of starting him instead of, say, adapting so, perhaps, Payne plays as a false nine for a few matches?
Stockley may not be heading goals at the moment but 2 of our recent goals have come as a direct result of him heading at goal. Do you think Payne will be able to do that, get on the end of aerial crosses and hold the ball up that's not played to feet ?
Ohh and forgot do you think Payne will be able to do the defensive headers out of our box at set plays.
Absolute madness if you're keeping a striker in the squad for his defensive ability
That was not the point. I did not say a striker should be in the team for his defensive ability. It was suggested that Payne could play as a striker (false 9). To that I made the point Payne could not fulfil the role and in addition wouldn't be able help out at set plays in defending.
Not just you who uses it as an argument for Stockley though.
How does Gilbey leave on loan with a view to a permanent deal? He’s out of contract at the end of the season so available on a free. The only way I see this working for us financially is that we get some, or all, his wages off the books and/or a suitable loan fee.
How does Gilbey leave on loan with a view to a permanent deal? He’s out of contract at the end of the season so available on a free. The only way I see this working for us financially is that we get some, or all, his wages off the books and/or a suitable loan fee.
Wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a loan and a good portion of his wages paid by Lincoln. If Lincoln sign him at the end of the season then they pay us a small fee.
Perhaps we have an option to extend his contract in the Club’s favour.
Perhaps it’s a case they have enquired about strikers but the ones they think will be an improvement on Stockley, who is doing better than some will give him credit for, or Leaburn, who looks better than I think a lot of us expected, are out of reach. No point signing someone just for the sake of it.
Or perhaps they just want to play their cards very close to their chest for fear of losing a deal by it becoming public knowledge too early.
We’ll find out in a couple of weeks.
If Stockley or Leaburn get injured we are up creek.... we need another striker.
IF. It’s not definitely going to happen so the management team has to balance that risk against what it will cost to sign a striker that will be worth actually adding to the wage bill. And whatever the bed wetting doom mongers will say, Aneke will be available for selection at some point.
Ideally we would be able to sign a decent striker, but this isn’t like January 2019 when we were playing 2 up front and sold Grant to leave us with only Taylor and the injured Vetokele so had to sign Parker because he was all we could get. Right now we have two decent, fit options for one position.
If we just sign someone for the sake of it they might end being unused and unwanted and then, in January, maybe a better option comes on the market but we already spent our budget on the d-list option.
it’s made out like it’s a black and white decision but it’s not.
It will though won’t it.
Maybe, but if our new signing striker is no good, would it matter? For example, if we’d kept Josh Davison, would you be saying we don’t need a striker? And would you feel better about the prospect of starting him instead of, say, adapting so, perhaps, Payne plays as a false nine for a few matches?
Stockley may not be heading goals at the moment but 2 of our recent goals have come as a direct result of him heading at goal. Do you think Payne will be able to do that, get on the end of aerial crosses and hold the ball up that's not played to feet ?
Ohh and forgot do you think Payne will be able to do the defensive headers out of our box at set plays.
Absolute madness if you're keeping a striker in the squad for his defensive ability
That was not the point. I did not say a striker should be in the team for his defensive ability. It was suggested that Payne could play as a striker (false 9). To that I made the point Payne could not fulfil the role and in addition wouldn't be able help out at set plays in defending.
Not just you who uses it as an argument for Stockley though.
Its a fact he does do a job there but I'm not arguing about Stockley any striker we have will still need to pick up a CB at set pieces otherwise you are likely to have 2 opposing strikers plus two CB's attacking in your penalty box, 2 of which will be having a chance of a free header. Other teams don't give a toss about what system you are playing if you are naive to leave there aerial threat free in your penalty area at set pieces.
How does Gilbey leave on loan with a view to a permanent deal? He’s out of contract at the end of the season so available on a free. The only way I see this working for us financially is that we get some, or all, his wages off the books and/or a suitable loan fee.
I think that's just it. We get him off the books and free up space in the budget for another player. Perhaps Lincoln aren't willing to gamble on offering him a multi-year contract at this point.
I imagine they'll pay all or nearly all of his wages, but don't have to commit to a longer deal yet
After all we had both Shinnie and Lee on loan from Luton in similar circumstances, with both in the final year of their contracts and unwanted by their parent club.
We will get 50K loan fee for Gilbey and wages paid in full.. As Killerandflash mentioned, it is basically a long term trial for Lincoln and Gilbey, if it doesn't suit both parties they are not committed to long term contract.
We will get 50K loan fee for Gilbey and wages paid in full.. As Killerandflash mentioned, it is basically a long term trial for Lincoln and Gilbey, if it doesn't suit both parties they are not committed to long term contract.
Wouldn’t that be the same as just buying him for £50k on a one year deal and paying all his wages though?
I don’t see how a loan deal is good for us as it would surely mean that we’re paying a percentage of his wages, whereas he’d be off the books completely if it was permanent?
We will get 50K loan fee for Gilbey and wages paid in full.. As Killerandflash mentioned, it is basically a long term trial for Lincoln and Gilbey, if it doesn't suit both parties they are not committed to long term contract.
Wouldn’t that be the same as just buying him for £50k on a one year deal and paying all his wages though?
I don’t see how a loan deal is good for us as it would surely mean that we’re paying a percentage of his wages, whereas he’d be off the books completely if it was permanent?
It says wages paid in full.
It could well be that Gilbey doesn't want to sign a longer contact, there could be reasons he won't emd his contract with us, reasons Lincoln don't want to sign him permanently or multiple other reasons.
Comments
Strikers for Charlton... Station!
Ipswich, Peterborough, Portsmouth, Sheff Weds, Plymouth, us, Bolton and Derby is the current top 8.
You could make a case for Wycombe, Barnsley, MK Dons and maybe Oxford getting in there but I'd bet that most, if not all, of the current 8 sides will still be in the top 8 at the end of the season.
After all we had both Shinnie and Lee on loan from Luton in similar circumstances, with both in the final year of their contracts and unwanted by their parent club.
I don’t see how a loan deal is good for us as it would surely mean that we’re paying a percentage of his wages, whereas he’d be off the books completely if it was permanent?
It could well be that Gilbey doesn't want to sign a longer contact, there could be reasons he won't emd his contract with us, reasons Lincoln don't want to sign him permanently or multiple other reasons.