Churchino on last season
Comments
-
I would imagine that the circumstances when we signed him (i.e. we were totally desperate and had no strikers on the books and the season was just about to start) meant that he was able to negotiate terms that were more beneficial to him than to us.
Also I don't know how a club (manager etc.) are supposed to move a player on that is not worth his place/wages (delete as appropriate), without telling the player.
I don't approve of treating players badly but we have had our fair share of players that we had to, ultimately, pay to leave and if the decision was already made that he wasn't part of our plans, and if the player had been told and asked to find another club I don't see how he can be surprised that he had the number 9 shirt taken from him. We need to remember that football is full or egos and Bob might have been very disappointed that Simon refused to leave when he was told he wasn't wanted. His wages could have funded a player that we really needed, when, to be blunt, Simon wasn't needed or wanted.
I appreciate that contracts are going to be beneficial to both parties sometimes and or one or the other on other occasions. We did give him the contract, but I suspect that had he been a rip roaring success and a top Premier League side had come in for him and offered him a huge pay increase, he would have been just as keen to move on as we were to have him leave when it didn't work out.
All that aside I wish him well. He always gave what looked like 100% effort and, in truth, we can't ask for any more than that.7 -
An current international playing for the 10th best international side in the world and we let him go for free.....are we mad!!!!
'Smiley thingy'5 -
"He always gave what looked like 100% effort and, in truth, we can't ask for any more than that."
Well... we really kind of can. I mean, a striker who doesn't score, doesn't really hold the ball up or provide chances for others, and for all the much lauded effort he put in never actually achieved anything... sorry, but he was an awful player for us. A nice guy, and perhaps he gave his best... but his best was shit. If you wanted someone who could run a lot pop down the local gym and sign whoever was on the treadmill at the time and save a bit of dosh.
I have nothing against him as a person of course. But as a player? Terrible. Just terrible.3 -
Proper Charlton player.
Tries hard, chases the ball non stop, has dignity and integrity, wants to play and have a career rather than float by on a wage, wants to form a bond with the fans and become a legend, wants to score goals, wants to run and run himself into the ground, believes in teamwork, follows strategy and instructions wants to make unselfish runs.
But unfortunately lacks the ability to achieve any of the above.
Proper Charlton player.12 -
Churchino is basically a Welsh football playing version of this dude:
He tries hard, so very hard. And it's painful to watch, and you really want him to succeed, just once. But he never, ever, does.3 -
I would argue that it is up to the scouts and the management team to identify if a player has talent. Once he's been signed it is up to the player to give 100% and follow instructions. There is no indication that he failed to do as he was told - except to leave when asked to.thenewbie said:"He always gave what looked like 100% effort and, in truth, we can't ask for any more than that."
Well... we really kind of can. I mean, a striker who doesn't score, doesn't really hold the ball up or provide chances for others, and for all the much lauded effort he put in never actually achieved anything... sorry, but he was an awful player for us. A nice guy, and perhaps he gave his best... but his best was shit. If you wanted someone who could run a lot pop down the local gym and sign whoever was on the treadmill at the time and save a bit of dosh.
I have nothing against him as a person of course. But as a player? Terrible. Just terrible.0 -
I am pretty sure he was signed as a striker, or at the bare minimum a 'forward' and as such score goals or at least make it possible for goals to be scored. This is something he completely and consistently failed to do. He did not get the 'spongefoot' nickname for no reason - no coach in the game would instruct him 'just give the ball a little tap and roll it at about snail speed.' That was purely because he wasn't very good at doing what we needed him to do - provide goals.
I am sure he was a nice bloke. I am sure he tried hard. But frankly a knackered Igor was still more of a threat than Church giving 100% and that's pretty damning.0 -
I'm sure he still is.thenewbie said:I am pretty sure he was signed as a striker, or at the bare minimum a 'forward' and as such score goals or at least make it possible for goals to be scored. This is something he completely and consistently failed to do. He did not get the 'spongefoot' nickname for no reason - no coach in the game would instruct him 'just give the ball a little tap and roll it at about snail speed.' That was purely because he wasn't very good at doing what we needed him to do - provide goals.
I am sure he was a nice bloke. I am sure he tried hard. But frankly a knackered Igor was still more of a threat than Church giving 100% and that's pretty damning.0 -
If it's true that he was on more than the others then I'm surprised and impressed that no one has mentioned how it could've paid for Yann's increased wages..
Lights touch paper, backs away slowly3 -
Aha, yes indeed. But his Charlton career is now entirely past tense, fortunately. Whether he is a saint or a complete [insert insult of choice] it really doesn't matter any more.bobmunro said:
I'm sure he still is.thenewbie said:I am pretty sure he was signed as a striker, or at the bare minimum a 'forward' and as such score goals or at least make it possible for goals to be scored. This is something he completely and consistently failed to do. He did not get the 'spongefoot' nickname for no reason - no coach in the game would instruct him 'just give the ball a little tap and roll it at about snail speed.' That was purely because he wasn't very good at doing what we needed him to do - provide goals.
I am sure he was a nice bloke. I am sure he tried hard. But frankly a knackered Igor was still more of a threat than Church giving 100% and that's pretty damning.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Good guy, always gave his best, but his best wasn't quite up to it - pretty much sums him up for me.thenewbie said:
Aha, yes indeed. But his Charlton career is now entirely past tense, fortunately. Whether he is a saint or a complete [insert insult of choice] it really doesn't matter any more.bobmunro said:
I'm sure he still is.thenewbie said:I am pretty sure he was signed as a striker, or at the bare minimum a 'forward' and as such score goals or at least make it possible for goals to be scored. This is something he completely and consistently failed to do. He did not get the 'spongefoot' nickname for no reason - no coach in the game would instruct him 'just give the ball a little tap and roll it at about snail speed.' That was purely because he wasn't very good at doing what we needed him to do - provide goals.
I am sure he was a nice bloke. I am sure he tried hard. But frankly a knackered Igor was still more of a threat than Church giving 100% and that's pretty damning.
1 -
That interview told me nothing I didn't already know.
Simon Church- Decent fella, crap footballer
Bob Peeters- Egotistical twat, crap manager.............5 -
we could have refused the move, just like he did.kings hill addick said:
I appreciate that contracts are going to be beneficial to both parties sometimes and or one or the other on other occasions. We did give him the contract, but I suspect that had he been a rip roaring success and a top Premier League side had come in for him and offered him a huge pay increase, he would have been just as keen to move on as we were to have him leave when it didn't work out.0 -
Given the timing and circumstances of his arrival I doubt if Church was especially well paid for a striker. It's more likely that there was pressure to get him off the books simply because he was not seen to be delivering corresponding value, which appears to have also been the case with Morrison and now to be with Wiggins, etc.0
-
It is worth sometimes looking at this from the club's perspective. They aren't a charity, this is purely a results business. If a manager feels, rightly or wrongly, that he can improve quality in a position - tough decisions must be made regarding the current inhabitant.
Take Wiggins: I personally like him a lot, and hope he rediscovers his form. However GL may think we can make a small improvement in that position, in either quality or fitness. We aren't at a level where we can realistically have more than 2 left-backs, and Fox is more than adequate cover, so Wiggins goes. It may not be palatable to us, but it's just the way it is.
You can only really tell after the fact whether the decision to get rid was the correct one. In the case of Morrison, I think Bob misjudged the situation badly. He obviously felt Bikey was the better player, and Morrison was too close in terms of standing and wages to keep hanging around. We know now that was wrong, And Bikey deteriorated badly. Perhaps if we swap Wiggins for Bergdich we'll feel the same in a few months, or maybe not.
2 -
I understand that Peeters argued he was acting under instructions re Morrison and the same may have applied re Church (although he wasn't good enough, just what we could afford to get in 2013). The difference with Wiggins is that the current regime gave him a four-and-a-half-year contract, so it's their own judgement they are second-guessing.daveydanger said:It is worth sometimes looking at this from the club's perspective. They aren't a charity, this is purely a results business. If a manager feels, rightly or wrongly, that he can improve quality in a position - tough decisions must be made regarding the current inhabitant.
Take Wiggins: I personally like him a lot, and hope he rediscovers his form. However GL may think we can make a small improvement in that position, in either quality or fitness. We aren't at a level where we can realistically have more than 2 left-backs, and Fox is more than adequate cover, so Wiggins goes. It may not be palatable to us, but it's just the way it is.
You can only really tell after the fact whether the decision to get rid was the correct one. In the case of Morrison, I think Bob misjudged the situation badly. He obviously felt Bikey was the better player, and Morrison was too close in terms of standing and wages to keep hanging around. We know now that was wrong, And Bikey deteriorated badly. Perhaps if we swap Wiggins for Bergdich we'll feel the same in a few months, or maybe not.0 -
Oh fucking hell have a break mateAirman Brown said:
I understand that Peeters argued he was acting under instructions re Morrison and the same may have applied re Church (although he wasn't good enough, just what we could afford to get in 2013). The difference with Wiggins is that the current regime gave him a four-and-a-half-year contract, so it's their own judgement they are second-guessing.daveydanger said:It is worth sometimes looking at this from the club's perspective. They aren't a charity, this is purely a results business. If a manager feels, rightly or wrongly, that he can improve quality in a position - tough decisions must be made regarding the current inhabitant.
Take Wiggins: I personally like him a lot, and hope he rediscovers his form. However GL may think we can make a small improvement in that position, in either quality or fitness. We aren't at a level where we can realistically have more than 2 left-backs, and Fox is more than adequate cover, so Wiggins goes. It may not be palatable to us, but it's just the way it is.
You can only really tell after the fact whether the decision to get rid was the correct one. In the case of Morrison, I think Bob misjudged the situation badly. He obviously felt Bikey was the better player, and Morrison was too close in terms of standing and wages to keep hanging around. We know now that was wrong, And Bikey deteriorated badly. Perhaps if we swap Wiggins for Bergdich we'll feel the same in a few months, or maybe not.2 -
If that is true, why was he given the two year deal? Even more odd that he was then moved on for freeAirman Brown said:
I understand that Peeters argued he was acting under instructions re Morrison and the same may have applied re Church (although he wasn't good enough, just what we could afford to get in 2013). The difference with Wiggins is that the current regime gave him a four-and-a-half-year contract, so it's their own judgement they are second-guessing.daveydanger said:It is worth sometimes looking at this from the club's perspective. They aren't a charity, this is purely a results business. If a manager feels, rightly or wrongly, that he can improve quality in a position - tough decisions must be made regarding the current inhabitant.
Take Wiggins: I personally like him a lot, and hope he rediscovers his form. However GL may think we can make a small improvement in that position, in either quality or fitness. We aren't at a level where we can realistically have more than 2 left-backs, and Fox is more than adequate cover, so Wiggins goes. It may not be palatable to us, but it's just the way it is.
You can only really tell after the fact whether the decision to get rid was the correct one. In the case of Morrison, I think Bob misjudged the situation badly. He obviously felt Bikey was the better player, and Morrison was too close in terms of standing and wages to keep hanging around. We know now that was wrong, And Bikey deteriorated badly. Perhaps if we swap Wiggins for Bergdich we'll feel the same in a few months, or maybe not.1 -
I'd forgotten they gave Morrison a contract too, to be fair. I agree that it makes no sense, but I know that Peeters tried to get across subsequently that he had been acting under orders to get the wage bill down when he pushed him out.wmcf123 said:
If that is true, why was he given the two year deal? Even more odd that he was then moved on for freeAirman Brown said:
I understand that Peeters argued he was acting under instructions re Morrison and the same may have applied re Church (although he wasn't good enough, just what we could afford to get in 2013). The difference with Wiggins is that the current regime gave him a four-and-a-half-year contract, so it's their own judgement they are second-guessing.daveydanger said:It is worth sometimes looking at this from the club's perspective. They aren't a charity, this is purely a results business. If a manager feels, rightly or wrongly, that he can improve quality in a position - tough decisions must be made regarding the current inhabitant.
Take Wiggins: I personally like him a lot, and hope he rediscovers his form. However GL may think we can make a small improvement in that position, in either quality or fitness. We aren't at a level where we can realistically have more than 2 left-backs, and Fox is more than adequate cover, so Wiggins goes. It may not be palatable to us, but it's just the way it is.
You can only really tell after the fact whether the decision to get rid was the correct one. In the case of Morrison, I think Bob misjudged the situation badly. He obviously felt Bikey was the better player, and Morrison was too close in terms of standing and wages to keep hanging around. We know now that was wrong, And Bikey deteriorated badly. Perhaps if we swap Wiggins for Bergdich we'll feel the same in a few months, or maybe not.0 -
That is of course assuming we believe Peeters... I have no idea if he was lying or telling the truth there by the way, simply that he could well be attempting a bit of spin to try and polish up his own role in the debacle and push the blame onto the ownership. Or maybe he genuinely was under orders the whole time!Airman Brown said:
I'd forgotten they gave Morrison a contract too, to be fair. I agree that it makes no sense, but I know that Peeters tried to get across subsequently that he had been acting under orders to get the wage bill down when he pushed him out.wmcf123 said:
If that is true, why was he given the two year deal? Even more odd that he was then moved on for freeAirman Brown said:
I understand that Peeters argued he was acting under instructions re Morrison and the same may have applied re Church (although he wasn't good enough, just what we could afford to get in 2013). The difference with Wiggins is that the current regime gave him a four-and-a-half-year contract, so it's their own judgement they are second-guessing.daveydanger said:It is worth sometimes looking at this from the club's perspective. They aren't a charity, this is purely a results business. If a manager feels, rightly or wrongly, that he can improve quality in a position - tough decisions must be made regarding the current inhabitant.
Take Wiggins: I personally like him a lot, and hope he rediscovers his form. However GL may think we can make a small improvement in that position, in either quality or fitness. We aren't at a level where we can realistically have more than 2 left-backs, and Fox is more than adequate cover, so Wiggins goes. It may not be palatable to us, but it's just the way it is.
You can only really tell after the fact whether the decision to get rid was the correct one. In the case of Morrison, I think Bob misjudged the situation badly. He obviously felt Bikey was the better player, and Morrison was too close in terms of standing and wages to keep hanging around. We know now that was wrong, And Bikey deteriorated badly. Perhaps if we swap Wiggins for Bergdich we'll feel the same in a few months, or maybe not.
It does sound like something did happen or change somehow during Peeters' brief reign. It started well then went terribly off the rails, I suspect things happened behind the scenes or on the training ground that we still don't fully know about and probably won't find out.1 -
Sponsored links:
-
He had a massive NO goal bonus as well.PL54 said:
How could Church have been our highest earner ?se9addick said:
I hope you are very, very wrong. If he was the highest earner, how much would he have taken out of Charlton ?Swisdom said:Don't shoot the messenger but I was told he was our highest earner.
Makes sense given he was a Bosman but, if true, I can see why we would want him off the wage bill.2
