Atrocious footballer. Decent finisher. Never go back. And by that, I mean, Charlton should never go back and talk to QPR again after they somehow managed a seven figure fee for Bonne.
“This summer we've been able to rely on free agents so far and that has been very helpful, with relatively few loan players so we're still building a squad for the future which is important. We will continue to do that here over the next several transfer windows.”
That’s another 40 pages on here, at least
I wholeheartedly agree here with TS I've said it a few times over the past 2 or 3 seasons - having 5 loan players (who don't generally return the next season) just means having to replace them season after season. Add to that players who naturally leave at the end of their contracts means replacing 8,9,10 (or more) every season. This means a big squad churn & no consistency or stability.
It's a good statement, but you don't get points for statements.
Also, I think the idea of having a system and style for the club is good. I think he deserves credit for that.
And, for an owner, his footballing knowledge is fine.
But I have a decent understanding of football and business, and I have a style and system I like to see played that is very much aligned with Garner's. That's all well and good, but I have no fucking idea how to run a football club having never run one or done business in the UK.
The problem is, he has put himself and his son in charge of executing on that vision and system, as well as the day-to-day running of the club. And neither have any experience of doing that. And we have seen the results in the last couple of years of signing players who don't fit, bringing in managers with no continuity, and then doing the same again.
As I bang on and on about, the issue isn't simply needing another striker (one to stretch defenses, as Sandgaard points out), it's having two expensive strikers in terms of fees and wages already on the books.
I think this summer is a step in the right direction. We still need a CB, LB, and Striker in my opinion, but the window isn't over yet, and I think we could be okay with a CB and ST. I think we're trying to remedy past mistakes. But I am always wary of letting people who made mistakes in sport remedy them. I think they're prone to making the same mistakes, just in a different way, or overcorrecting.
“This summer we've been able to rely on free agents so far and that has been very helpful, with relatively few loan players so we're still building a squad for the future which is important. We will continue to do that here over the next several transfer windows.”
That’s another 40 pages on here, at least
I wholeheartedly agree here with TS I've said it a few times over the past 2 or 3 seasons - having 5 loan players (who don't generally return the next season) just means having to replace them season after season. Add to that players who naturally leave at the end of their contracts means replacing 8,9,10 (or more) every season. This means a big squad churn & no consistency or stability.
Consistency and stability is great if you get it right. But we aren't going to sign players, in enough volume, of the quilty of people like JRS etc that we need to get promoted.
We have now churned through all our Championship players. Look at the team Bowyer took up it had loan players, youth team graduates, freebies, players we paid a league 1 fortune for and loans.
Unless your going to spend "big" you need the loans.
That’s about as good a statement as can be. Obviously, it massively leaves the board vulnerable if deadline day ends as a damp squib.
Regardless of how the window ends, we’ve had a good window. We’ve got a set play style, we’ve recruited for that. We got the vast majority of our business done before the start to the season, we’re now looking for squad depth, not desperate to fill holes in the system.
We might not get promoted, but we’re certainly moving in the the right direction (in terms of recruitment).
Fans have zero impact on business. Calm down and enjoy the ride.
Moving in the right direction in terms of our thinking. But cutting the budget year on year trying to break even is going to reduce our chances of promotion year on year in the future. If we don’t go up this year (hopefully we do but I think it’s unlikely) then we cut the budget further then we will be drifting back away from the top 6 and into mid table again. We’ve had a good summer but it will be wasted if we don’t have that little bit more backing that would give us a really good chance
Agree.
The break even mantra is as ridiculous as "blow the league away".
There's nothing wrong in the statement from Sandgaard regarding the possible signings other than it should be the manager or the head of recruitment saying that, not the owner.
The break even over two seasons? What does that even actually mean?
At the moment it seems taking sponsorship from dodgy NFT pyramid schemes and sacking non-playing staff at the training ground and the Valley.
The laudable attempt to get cat 1 failed (and TS hasn't said why) so no extra money from EPL but lots of extra coaches etc hired to meet cat 1 requirements. They'll be gone soon IMHO.
Meanwhile at the Valley staff are hired and fired (or walk) in weeks or a few months as the Sandgaard’s lurch from boom to bust.
And the few long standing staff fear for their roles having seen Olly so shabbily treated.
The only veteran who has nothing to worry is the most incompetent but Tony Keohane knows how to do one thing very well and that kiss arse or should i say ass.
So, great, get that striker, get that centre back, both could be vital and we all, no matter what we think about the owner, want success on the pitch but I'd rather Thomas would STFU, let Garner and Gallen do their jobs without his interruptions and accept that running a league one football club is neither "easy" nor a business that will break even in this league or even the one above
I'll say this now in case it happens & then when I comment I'll be told I'm never happy / always moaning blah blah blah.
I do not want to see any ex players coming in over the next 2 days.....apart from maybe Karlan Grant 😉🙂. So no....
Bonne Leko Smyth
Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second). To get out of this division you need an experienced striker.
There, said it. Now let's see what happens over the next 2 days.
Bonne is a pure finisher. We need someone who can hold the ball and make play. Absolute non-starter
I personally think a finisher is exactly what we need, seen as Garnerball is about creating loads of chances.
We need a finisher, who is quick, hard-working, has stamina and willingness to press high and ideally who is comfortable positionally and technically to switch position, or at least play, with the wide players up top.
That is a lot to ask of a league 1 (or PL/champ youth) forward.
When you're trying to live a possession/high press philosophy on a tight budget and in the 3rd tier, the number of players it's worth being interested in is not big.
I don’t disagree (regarding what we need).
So did we let the wrong forward go then? Would many of been happier had Washington been given a new deal and Stockley went, I’m not sure this would have gone down well back in July.
In my opinion we should not have let Washington go. However, I wouldn't have swapped him for Stockley, I would have kept both. In my view, two things made his squad place untenable:
1) Resigning Aneke. Couldn't accommodate 3 reasonably large salaries for strikers, first one out of contract was always on the way.
2) The perception that Washington was a problem. The whole contract/JJ whisper story involving Washington and Martin Sandgaard sounds like an absolute train wreck. Whether that was the problem or symptomatic of an existing perceived problem, that episode was the end for Washington.
We also let him go before totally re-defining the new philosophy under a new manager and coaching team.
In short, terrible terrible decision-making. Washington is not going to fire any L1 team to promotion single-handedly, but is he more suited to our current set-up than Aneke or Stockley? Absolutely.
I rated Washington far more highly than most. I felt he was under appreciated for much of his time here, and that he was a Championship level striker. His movement and intelligence were an absolute nightmare for defenses. And he could score goals, contrary to what the popular opinion of him was.
I think your two assessments are spot on, although even if we had big wages to spend on a striker I'm not sure we can compete with a Championship club.
But I don't agree with your assessment that he fits the system better than Aneke and Stockley, certainly not Aneke. When fit, Chuks can play with the ball at his feet, including running at teams, he also has the mobility to run in behind (not his most common trait, but he does do it), and he has the strength to hold the ball up. He should be a good fit for our current system, he's just never fit.
As far as Stockley, he can hold the ball up and he's done alright at dropping deep. His understanding of space is pretty decent. But there is the mobility issue with him, and it's a big issue, especially with no senior striker behind him.
As far as Washington goes, so much of what he did relied on space in behind or out wide of defenses. Hold up play was not his thing. He was decent with the ball at his feet, but his touch wasn't great. I think he would have loved our pressing style, but when we have possession of the ball, him having to come deep would not have suited him. And keeping the ball in the opposition half really removes the space in behind opposition defenses, which is where Washington thrives. I think there are parts of our style he would have done well with, namely pressing and in transition, but those are only part of the way we're looking to play.
I said it at the time, but had he stayed, I think he would have been played wide left. And he might have done a decent job there, pressing well and looking to run in behind. But it's not his strongest position. And it's not a place where we could afford to match a Championship level club in terms of wages--he's just not as effective wide left as he is up top in a front two.
I wish there was a way he could have stayed. But I just don't think it made sense for him or the club for on-field reasons, never mind whatever happened with his contract.
That’s about as good a statement as can be. Obviously, it massively leaves the board vulnerable if deadline day ends as a damp squib.
Regardless of how the window ends, we’ve had a good window. We’ve got a set play style, we’ve recruited for that. We got the vast majority of our business done before the start to the season, we’re now looking for squad depth, not desperate to fill holes in the system.
We might not get promoted, but we’re certainly moving in the the right direction (in terms of recruitment).
Fans have zero impact on business. Calm down and enjoy the ride.
Moving in the right direction in terms of our thinking. But cutting the budget year on year trying to break even is going to reduce our chances of promotion year on year in the future. If we don’t go up this year (hopefully we do but I think it’s unlikely) then we cut the budget further then we will be drifting back away from the top 6 and into mid table again. We’ve had a good summer but it will be wasted if we don’t have that little bit more backing that would give us a really good chance
Agree.
The break even mantra is as ridiculous as "blow the league away".
There's nothing wrong in the statement from Sandgaard regarding the possible signings other than it should be the manager or the head of recruitment saying that, not the owner.
The break even over two seasons? What does that even actually mean?
At the moment it seems taking sponsorship from dodgy NFT pyramid schemes and sacking non-playing staff at the training ground and the Valley.
The laudable attempt to get cat 1 failed (and TS hasn't said why) so no extra money from EPL but lots of extra coaches etc hired to meet cat 1 requirements. They'll be gone soon IMHO.
Meanwhile at the Valley staff are hired and fired (or walk) in weeks or a few months as the Sandgaard’s lurch from boom to bust.
And the few long standing staff fear for their roles having seen Olly so shabbily treated.
The only veteran who has nothing to worry is the most incompetent but Tony Keohane knows how to do one thing very well and that kiss arse or should i say ass.
So, great, get that striker, get that centre back, both could be vital and we all, no matter what we think about the owner, want success on the pitch but I'd rather Thomas would STFU, let Garner and Gallen do their jobs without his interruptions and accept that running a league one football club is neither "easy" nor a business that will break even in this league or even the one above
Apologies. This is the rumours thread so WIOTOS
Well said. You will never break even in this league. I don't know if "breaking even" means reducing the budget or selling more players but either way, it almost certainly weakens the first team. You are better off trying to invest in an academy that produces players that can be sold on. A Lookman or Gomez or Konsa or Grant doesn't come along every year, but when they do, selling them on can finance part of a season for the playing squad--both in initial fees, but also in add-ons and sell-on fees. It sounds like TS tried to improve the academy and failed at it. The "why" would be very interesting to hear.
"Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second)."
"Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second)."
"Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second)."
I think three categories: 1: 'Has-been" 2: Premiership youngster (JRS) 3: no previous game time (Leaburn) Agree with Golfie on has-been. The Prem youngster depends on the individual, but I want a permanent signing, whoever it is. The CB a loan is fine as we have a lot of promise in the ranks.
"Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second)."
It means the poster is seldom wrong...
it means we need an established proven striker even if that isn't literally what he has said - obvious to everybody and something i agree with
Well I’m going to moan even if I’m in the minority. I don’t like Sandgaards statement at all.We have moved from an objective of reaching Europe and the Premier League in 5 years (which is an ambitious football club objective) to’ we are going to break even or be cash neutral next year (which is a pretty negative business objective) They are 2 completely conflicting objectives. What has not losing money and cutting costs got to do with running a football club, particularly at such a low level as the 3rd division. The only place in football where you have the opportunity to break even or make money is the Premier League - unless you are aiming to be Accrington - which now appears to be Thomas’s new road map. With very few exceptions any kind of progress on the pitch is pretty much directly related to how much money you spend on the team. He is living in la la land if he thinks we can be successful on the pitch, cut costs and not lose money. They are mutually exclusive. Obviously its conceivable that we’ve just employed the next Brian Clough or that we are going to be incredibly lucky but the likelihood is that we haven’t and wont be. Let’s see what happens by close of play Thursday but given the mood music I think we are all hoping against expectation. Whilst generally well meaning Sandgaard seems likely to be yet another disappointing owner in the long line since our Premiership days.
"Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second)."
It means the poster is seldom wrong...
it means we need an established proven striker even if that isn't literally what he has said - obvious to everybody and something i agree with
Get me the list then
Proven where? Anyone we sign is going to come with some sort of risk aren't they? It's not like there is some sort of league 1 Haaland we are going to magic out of thin air.
On the basis that I, like 90% of others, probably won't have seen them play more than a couple of times I'll judge them on what they do on the pitch, not if they are established or not.
"Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second)."
It means the poster is seldom wrong...
it means we need an established proven striker even if that isn't literally what he has said - obvious to everybody and something i agree with
Get me the list then
Proven where? Anyone we sign is going to come with some sort of risk aren't they? It's not like there is some sort of league 1 Haaland we are going to magic out of thin air.
On the basis that I, like 90% of others, probably won't have seen them play more than a couple of times I'll judge them on what they do on the pitch, not if they are established or not.
not my job - is it too much to ask to sign a striker who isn't either an up and coming youth or a has been?
"Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second)."
It means the poster is seldom wrong...
it means we need an established proven striker even if that isn't literally what he has said - obvious to everybody and something i agree with
Get me the list then
Proven where? Anyone we sign is going to come with some sort of risk aren't they? It's not like there is some sort of league 1 Haaland we are going to magic out of thin air.
On the basis that I, like 90% of others, probably won't have seen them play more than a couple of times I'll judge them on what they do on the pitch, not if they are established or not.
not my job - is it too much to ask to sign a striker who isn't either an up and coming youth or a has been?
That’s kind of all options though isn’t it? Once a player proves themselves at this level they don’t stay at this level for long..
"Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second)."
It means the poster is seldom wrong...
it means we need an established proven striker even if that isn't literally what he has said - obvious to everybody and something i agree with
Get me the list then
Proven where? Anyone we sign is going to come with some sort of risk aren't they? It's not like there is some sort of league 1 Haaland we are going to magic out of thin air.
On the basis that I, like 90% of others, probably won't have seen them play more than a couple of times I'll judge them on what they do on the pitch, not if they are established or not.
not my job - is it too much to ask to sign a striker who isn't either an up and coming youth or a has been?
That’s kind of all options though isn’t it? Once a player proves themselves at this level they don’t stay at this level for long..
don't agree - you could say that about every division in the football pyramid
"Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second)."
Sorry, but of a typo.
Meant to say - A Premiership youngster (JRS) or a youngster with no previous game time (Leaburn).
"Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second)."
I think three categories: 1: 'Has-been" 2: Premiership youngster (JRS) 3: no previous game time (Leaburn) Agree with Golfie on has-been. The Prem youngster depends on the individual, but I want a permanent signing, whoever it is. The CB a loan is fine as we have a lot of promise in the ranks.
"Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second)."
It means the poster is seldom wrong...
it means we need an established proven striker even if that isn't literally what he has said - obvious to everybody and something i agree with
Get me the list then
Proven where? Anyone we sign is going to come with some sort of risk aren't they? It's not like there is some sort of league 1 Haaland we are going to magic out of thin air.
On the basis that I, like 90% of others, probably won't have seen them play more than a couple of times I'll judge them on what they do on the pitch, not if they are established or not.
not my job - is it too much to ask to sign a striker who isn't either an up and coming youth or a has been?
Well yes, basically.
The 20 goal a season 25 year old league 1 striker literally doesn't exist.
How many current league 1 strikers have ever scored 20 league 1 goals in a season?
Stockton, Pigott, Clark-Harris, Marquis maybe missed one or two but it's not a long list.
"Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second)."
It means the poster is seldom wrong...
it means we need an established proven striker even if that isn't literally what he has said - obvious to everybody and something i agree with
Get me the list then
Proven where? Anyone we sign is going to come with some sort of risk aren't they? It's not like there is some sort of league 1 Haaland we are going to magic out of thin air.
On the basis that I, like 90% of others, probably won't have seen them play more than a couple of times I'll judge them on what they do on the pitch, not if they are established or not.
not my job - is it too much to ask to sign a striker who isn't either an up and coming youth or a has been?
Well yes, basically.
The 20 goal a season 25 year old league 1 striker literally doesn't exist.
How many current league 1 strikers have ever scored 20 league 1 goals in a season?
Stockton, Pigott, Clark-Harris, Marquis maybe missed one or two but it's not a long list.
"Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second)."
Sorry, but of a typo.
Meant to say - A Premiership youngster (JRS) or a youngster with no previous game time (Leaburn).
Thanks, it didn't make sense but as you say a typo.
Comments
Also, I think the idea of having a system and style for the club is good. I think he deserves credit for that.
And, for an owner, his footballing knowledge is fine.
But I have a decent understanding of football and business, and I have a style and system I like to see played that is very much aligned with Garner's. That's all well and good, but I have no fucking idea how to run a football club having never run one or done business in the UK.
The problem is, he has put himself and his son in charge of executing on that vision and system, as well as the day-to-day running of the club. And neither have any experience of doing that. And we have seen the results in the last couple of years of signing players who don't fit, bringing in managers with no continuity, and then doing the same again.
As I bang on and on about, the issue isn't simply needing another striker (one to stretch defenses, as Sandgaard points out), it's having two expensive strikers in terms of fees and wages already on the books.
I think this summer is a step in the right direction. We still need a CB, LB, and Striker in my opinion, but the window isn't over yet, and I think we could be okay with a CB and ST. I think we're trying to remedy past mistakes. But I am always wary of letting people who made mistakes in sport remedy them. I think they're prone to making the same mistakes, just in a different way, or overcorrecting.
We have now churned through all our Championship players. Look at the team Bowyer took up it had loan players, youth team graduates, freebies, players we paid a league 1 fortune for and loans.
Unless your going to spend "big" you need the loans.
The break even mantra is as ridiculous as "blow the league away".
There's nothing wrong in the statement from Sandgaard regarding the possible signings other than it should be the manager or the head of recruitment saying that, not the owner.
The break even over two seasons? What does that even actually mean?
At the moment it seems taking sponsorship from dodgy NFT pyramid schemes and sacking non-playing staff at the training ground and the Valley.
The laudable attempt to get cat 1 failed (and TS hasn't said why) so no extra money from EPL but lots of extra coaches etc hired to meet cat 1 requirements. They'll be gone soon IMHO.
Meanwhile at the Valley staff are hired and fired (or walk) in weeks or a few months as the Sandgaard’s lurch from boom to bust.
And the few long standing staff fear for their roles having seen Olly so shabbily treated.
The only veteran who has nothing to worry is the most incompetent but Tony Keohane knows how to do one thing very well and that kiss arse or should i say ass.
So, great, get that striker, get that centre back, both could be vital and we all, no matter what we think about the owner, want success on the pitch but I'd rather Thomas would STFU, let Garner and Gallen do their jobs without his interruptions and accept that running a league one football club is neither "easy" nor a business that will break even in this league or even the one above
Apologies. This is the rumours thread so WIOTOS
I do not want to see any ex players coming in over the next 2 days.....apart from maybe Karlan Grant 😉🙂. So no....
Bonne
Leko
Smyth
Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second). To get out of this division you need an experienced striker.
There, said it. Now let's see what happens over the next 2 days.
I think your two assessments are spot on, although even if we had big wages to spend on a striker I'm not sure we can compete with a Championship club.
But I don't agree with your assessment that he fits the system better than Aneke and Stockley, certainly not Aneke. When fit, Chuks can play with the ball at his feet, including running at teams, he also has the mobility to run in behind (not his most common trait, but he does do it), and he has the strength to hold the ball up. He should be a good fit for our current system, he's just never fit.
As far as Stockley, he can hold the ball up and he's done alright at dropping deep. His understanding of space is pretty decent. But there is the mobility issue with him, and it's a big issue, especially with no senior striker behind him.
As far as Washington goes, so much of what he did relied on space in behind or out wide of defenses. Hold up play was not his thing. He was decent with the ball at his feet, but his touch wasn't great. I think he would have loved our pressing style, but when we have possession of the ball, him having to come deep would not have suited him. And keeping the ball in the opposition half really removes the space in behind opposition defenses, which is where Washington thrives. I think there are parts of our style he would have done well with, namely pressing and in transition, but those are only part of the way we're looking to play.
I said it at the time, but had he stayed, I think he would have been played wide left. And he might have done a decent job there, pressing well and looking to run in behind. But it's not his strongest position. And it's not a place where we could afford to match a Championship level club in terms of wages--he's just not as effective wide left as he is up top in a front two.
I wish there was a way he could have stayed. But I just don't think it made sense for him or the club for on-field reasons, never mind whatever happened with his contract.
"Or any other has been or Premiership youngster with no previous game time. We already have Rak -Sakyi (fits the first) and Leaburn (fits the second)."
Agree with Golfie on has-been. The Prem youngster depends on the individual, but I want a permanent signing, whoever it is. The CB a loan is fine as we have a lot of promise in the ranks.
With very few exceptions any kind of progress on the pitch is pretty much directly related to how much money you spend on the team. He is living in la la land if he thinks we can be successful on the pitch, cut costs and not lose money. They are mutually exclusive.
Obviously its conceivable that we’ve just employed the next Brian Clough or that we are going to be incredibly lucky but the likelihood is that we haven’t and wont be.
Let’s see what happens by close of play Thursday but given the mood music I think we are all hoping against expectation. Whilst generally well meaning Sandgaard seems likely to be yet another disappointing owner in the long line since our Premiership days.
Proven where? Anyone we sign is going to come with some sort of risk aren't they? It's not like there is some sort of league 1 Haaland we are going to magic out of thin air.
On the basis that I, like 90% of others, probably won't have seen them play more than a couple of times I'll judge them on what they do on the pitch, not if they are established or not.
Meant to say - A Premiership youngster (JRS) or a youngster with no previous game time (Leaburn).
The 20 goal a season 25 year old league 1 striker literally doesn't exist.
How many current league 1 strikers have ever scored 20 league 1 goals in a season?
Stockton, Pigott, Clark-Harris, Marquis maybe missed one or two but it's not a long list.
Anyone we sign will be a gamble.
It does now.