I've read all the comments re JFC- that it's not that simple, we won't let him prove himself, we may have to pay somebody to play him.
Which completely answers my point.
Why sign him again in the first place because we don't want him and we don't appear to be able to sell him!!!
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I don't remember anyone on this board criticising the decision to extend his contract at the time. If they'd have let him go for free and he'd gone and done well for another club, the club would have been criticised again.
I've read all the comments re JFC- that it's not that simple, we won't let him prove himself, we may have to pay somebody to play him.
Which completely answers my point.
Why sign him again in the first place because we don't want him and we don't appear to be able to sell him!!!
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I don't remember anyone on this board criticising the decision to extend his contract at the time. If they'd have let him go for free and he'd gone and done well for another club, the club would have been criticised again.
100% this.
Whatever the club had done they would have got pelters.
I've read all the comments re JFC- that it's not that simple, we won't let him prove himself, we may have to pay somebody to play him.
Which completely answers my point.
Why sign him again in the first place because we don't want him and we don't appear to be able to sell him!!!
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I don't remember anyone on this board criticising the decision to extend his contract at the time. If they'd have let him go for free and he'd gone and done well for another club, the club would have been criticised again.
I don't remember half the board being convinced we have to unload him to have a half chance of bringing in a striker either.
Personal I would keep him as a player. I also don't buy its a fact his wages are preventing us bringing in a striker either.
If it is that's poor budgeting by the club. Both things can be true.
Some free agent striker options... don't get the pulses racing but keeping in mind my post from above, some of these could do a job and/or add experience:
- Oumar Niasse (was with Everton 2016-2020, last with Burton) - Marc McNulty (spells with Coventry and Reading, recently on loan at Dundee) - Lewis Grabban (last with Forest, has had a long and successful career in the Championship) - Mamadou Thiam (last played in France, spent 2017-2020 with Barnsley) - Hal Robson-Kanu (long career in top two tiers with Reading and WBA) - Sam Winnall (bounced between Champ and L1, last with Oxford) - Simon Makienok (don't laugh) - Fraizer Campbell (last with Huddersfield) - Nadir Ciftci (CharltonLife legend, last with St Johnstone)
That's all around the most depressing post this week on the 2022 transfer rumours thread
Grabban stands out like a sore thumb in that list. Would score 30 goals in League one without breaking sweat
I've read all the comments re JFC- that it's not that simple, we won't let him prove himself, we may have to pay somebody to play him.
Which completely answers my point.
Why sign him again in the first place because we don't want him and we don't appear to be able to sell him!!!
Shouldn't have given him a new contract when he was injured in the first place imo. Might have been harsh but we wouldn't be in this position (trying to recoup money we've spent on rehabilitation) in that case. Wouldn't have had a problem letting him use our facilities to get fit but essentially we've spent over 12 months treading water & now cant get him off our books.
I've read all the comments re JFC- that it's not that simple, we won't let him prove himself, we may have to pay somebody to play him.
Which completely answers my point.
Why sign him again in the first place because we don't want him and we don't appear to be able to sell him!!!
Shouldn't have given him a new contract when he was injured in the first place imo. Might have been harsh but we wouldn't be in this position (trying to recoup money we've spent on rehabilitation) in that case. Wouldn't have had a problem letting him use our facilities to get fit but essentially we've spent over 12 months treading water & now cant get him off our books.
If you did that no one would play for the last month, or more, before their contracts run out and you would be the first to moan about it.
I've read all the comments re JFC- that it's not that simple, we won't let him prove himself, we may have to pay somebody to play him.
Which completely answers my point.
Why sign him again in the first place because we don't want him and we don't appear to be able to sell him!!!
Shouldn't have given him a new contract when he was injured in the first place imo. Might have been harsh but we wouldn't be in this position (trying to recoup money we've spent on rehabilitation) in that case. Wouldn't have had a problem letting him use our facilities to get fit but essentially we've spent over 12 months treading water & now cant get him off our books.
If you did that no one would play for the last month, or more, before their contracts run out and you would be the first to moan about it.
I've read all the comments re JFC- that it's not that simple, we won't let him prove himself, we may have to pay somebody to play him.
Which completely answers my point.
Why sign him again in the first place because we don't want him and we don't appear to be able to sell him!!!
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I don't remember anyone on this board criticising the decision to extend his contract at the time. If they'd have let him go for free and he'd gone and done well for another club, the club would have been criticised again.
We can’t just have a body up top as back up to Stockley. If that’s the case keep Leaburn and Aneke and bring Kanu through as well, job done. A body up top implies we could end up with Josh Parker or someone like that.
Somehow we always seem to adapt to ‘he’ll do’.
Stockley might not work in Garner’s system. I think we need another quality forward player in. Of course, that’s easier said than done, but the need for someone just as cover isn’t the right approach imo
I've read all the comments re JFC- that it's not that simple, we won't let him prove himself, we may have to pay somebody to play him.
Which completely answers my point.
Why sign him again in the first place because we don't want him and we don't appear to be able to sell him!!!
Shouldn't have given him a new contract when he was injured in the first place imo. Might have been harsh but we wouldn't be in this position (trying to recoup money we've spent on rehabilitation) in that case. Wouldn't have had a problem letting him use our facilities to get fit but essentially we've spent over 12 months treading water & now cant get him off our books.
If you did that no one would play for the last month, or more, before their contracts run out and you would be the first to moan about it.
Hundreds of players play whilst they are in the last months of their contracts.
As I said, unpopular thinking, but why give a new contract to a player who is injured.
I've read all the comments re JFC- that it's not that simple, we won't let him prove himself, we may have to pay somebody to play him.
Which completely answers my point.
Why sign him again in the first place because we don't want him and we don't appear to be able to sell him!!!
Shouldn't have given him a new contract when he was injured in the first place imo. Might have been harsh but we wouldn't be in this position (trying to recoup money we've spent on rehabilitation) in that case. Wouldn't have had a problem letting him use our facilities to get fit but essentially we've spent over 12 months treading water & now cant get him off our books.
If you did that no one would play for the last month, or more, before their contracts run out and you would be the first to moan about it.
Hundreds of players play whilst they are in the last months of their contracts.
As I said, unpopular thinking, but why give a new contract to a player who is injured.
Because it was the right thing to do mate. The bloke got injured playing for us and to leave him without a contract would have just been wrong.
Controversial opinion time but I don’t even think the striker we need has to be that good. We just need *someone* who can help us avoid a situation like last season where we went to Wigan with Burstow and Elliot Lee up front, for example.
Obviously the player coming in would need chip in with a few goals when they play over the course of the season but Plan A is obviously to move forward with club captain Stockley as often as possible.
As long as we have a senior body that is available to play when called upon and does a half decent job at dropping into midfield and linking the play, we can still score goals from the likes of CBT, JRS, Kirk, Fraser and Payne.
And then when Stockley is back after a short absence, they’ll drop back to the bench.
For me, it’s more important to get a player that fits the style and can replace Jayden’s link up without disruption more so than finding a poacher who can score a goal but not contribute anything else.
It’s become clear over the last few weeks that that poaching kind of forward won’t fit the Garner style.
I don't think that this is controversial. As you said, stockley is clearly first choice with aneke being the impact sub (obviously fitness permitting). The emergence of leaburn means we could be looking for a 4th choice, a Parker type signing rather than someone being brought in to challenge stockley.
I still don't see why people think we have an incoming striker. Seems to me that the only reason to believe there is one incoming is because the manager said there isn't, by that theory then if he said there is then that would clearly mean there aint....................I think ??
Most recent interview I'm sure he's said he wants a striker as well as defensive cover.
He also said the money he has been allocated does not stretch to bringing a striker in unless something changes in terms of players leaving. Now unless I have missed something, players who could leave are Gilbey and Forster Caskey. I grant you that both leaving frees up two wages but any fees would minimal and certainly not enough to purchase some of the names being mentioned on here.
We can’t just have a body up top as back up to Stockley. If that’s the case keep Leaburn and Aneke and bring Kanu through as well, job done. A body up top implies we could end up with Josh Parker or someone like that.
Somehow we always seem to adapt to ‘he’ll do’.
Stockley might not work in Garner’s system. I think we need another quality forward player in. Of course, that’s easier said than done, but the need for someone just as cover isn’t the right approach imo
I think it's fair enough to accept we can't afford a Mckirdy/Stockton/Haaland/Wilkes.
What isn't really acceptable is if we have "spunked" the whole budget and still only got the strikers we have got. We have brought in 7 players yet no one thought we needed a striker until 10 days before the window shut?
If it ment not signing McGrandles or Payne, in an area we were well stocked so be it IMO.
Comments
Bollocks.
Personal I would keep him as a player. I also don't buy its a fact his wages are preventing us bringing in a striker either.
If it is that's poor budgeting by the club. Both things can be true.
And I got pelters for it.
Stockley might not work in Garner’s system. I think we need another quality forward player in. Of course, that’s easier said than done, but the need for someone just as cover isn’t the right approach imo
As I said, unpopular thinking, but why give a new contract to a player who is injured.
What isn't really acceptable is if we have "spunked" the whole budget and still only got the strikers we have got. We have brought in 7 players yet no one thought we needed a striker until 10 days before the window shut?
If it ment not signing McGrandles or Payne, in an area we were well stocked so be it IMO.