Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Steve Gallen
Comments
-
I think TS would ultimately bow to both Adkins and Gallen if push came to shove. Yes he’s passionate enough to want to be involved but smart enough to have good people around him. I’m not worried at all.SELR_addicks said:
Biggest worry I have about the summer.Henry Irving said:
We know there is now a four man recruitment team.ShootersHillGuru said:We keep talking as if it’s Gallen alone but I’m confident that Nigel Adkins will have very much his own ideas and list.
GallenRoddyAdkins
Sandgaard
Or GRAS for short
And all four have to agree on a player and that includes Sandgaard who is doing more than just signing the cheques. He said he's watching videos and has said no about at least one player.
So are four heads better than one or do many cooks spoil the broth?
Does it make a difference that they will have a bigger budget, months to prepare and a long term plan based on playing a certain way.
But we know they have already been looking at players and had lists for either division at least a month ago.19 -
Until I hear different, I’m going to assume it’s like my world. I’ve had my boss say no to hires because he doesn’t like something. Then, if I really want that person, I need to go back and sell it. It’s a good way of making sure we’re hiring a person we want, rather than just hiring the best person we’ve seen.ShootersHillGuru said:
I think TS would ultimately bow to both Adkins and Gallen if push came to shove. Yes he’s passionate enough to want to be involved but smart enough to have good people around him. I’m not worried at all.SELR_addicks said:
Biggest worry I have about the summer.Henry Irving said:
We know there is now a four man recruitment team.ShootersHillGuru said:We keep talking as if it’s Gallen alone but I’m confident that Nigel Adkins will have very much his own ideas and list.
GallenRoddyAdkins
Sandgaard
Or GRAS for short
And all four have to agree on a player and that includes Sandgaard who is doing more than just signing the cheques. He said he's watching videos and has said no about at least one player.
So are four heads better than one or do many cooks spoil the broth?
Does it make a difference that they will have a bigger budget, months to prepare and a long term plan based on playing a certain way.
But we know they have already been looking at players and had lists for either division at least a month ago.Footballs different in many ways, but recently we’ve seem to have been signing people because they were available, rather than we really wanted them.8 -
I think that's the most likely case. Every now and then your boss may also suggest someone.SomervilleAddick said:
Until I hear different, I’m going to assume it’s like my world. I’ve had my boss say no to hires because he doesn’t like something. Then, if I really want that person, I need to go back and sell it. It’s a good way of making sure we’re hiring a person we want, rather than just hiring the best person we’ve seen.ShootersHillGuru said:
I think TS would ultimately bow to both Adkins and Gallen if push came to shove. Yes he’s passionate enough to want to be involved but smart enough to have good people around him. I’m not worried at all.SELR_addicks said:
Biggest worry I have about the summer.Henry Irving said:
We know there is now a four man recruitment team.ShootersHillGuru said:We keep talking as if it’s Gallen alone but I’m confident that Nigel Adkins will have very much his own ideas and list.
GallenRoddyAdkins
Sandgaard
Or GRAS for short
And all four have to agree on a player and that includes Sandgaard who is doing more than just signing the cheques. He said he's watching videos and has said no about at least one player.
So are four heads better than one or do many cooks spoil the broth?
Does it make a difference that they will have a bigger budget, months to prepare and a long term plan based on playing a certain way.
But we know they have already been looking at players and had lists for either division at least a month ago.Footballs different in many ways, but recently we’ve seem to have been signing people because they were available, rather than we really wanted them.1 -
Scoham said:
Agree, both poor signings, but I hope it’s a mistake we learn from rather than repeat - especially when we should a budget that means we can bring in some of the best younger players in this division.BigRedEvil said:In hindsight offering Gunter and Watson 2 year deals to take out a large chunk of the wage cap budget was a poor decision.
If older/Championship players come in they need to be more like Morrison and Kermorgant - young enough to have something to prove, not more like Gunter and Watson who are past their best and on the decline. If we keep a few of our older players we won’t need to add many more in that age group.
I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with having one or two older heads around, even if on their way down career wise. As long as they are of the right character they can impart useful knowledge and leadership around the place. The problem becomes when they are relied on too heavily to be starting games and not there as wise heads to help see out games. Andy Hughes and Jason Euell in 11/12, Jacko (pick your season based on exactly when his legs went), Pratley in 18/19 for example. Jason Pearce is one I'd be tempted to keep on that basis but you probably want 3 players ahead of him in the pecking order so he's (hopefully) playing less than 20 matches and mostly as a sub.
1 -
I think it's pretty clear Schwartz was a signing pushed by Sandgaard. Not ideal imo and Charlton fans have more reason to be skeptical of this than most, but it's his money at the end of the day. The important thing is, judging by how little game time Schwartz has had, it doesn't seem like there has been pressure exerted to actually play him - which is a significant difference from Powell being instructed to drop Hamer for Thuram, for example.
1 -
100% the owner should have a veto, especially when it's all his own money.
If he doesn't do it himself I have no problem him delegating it either. I think it actually improves the whole process, even if the approver is a no nothing mark.
I actually think the recruitment when Gallen and the manager had to filter it through little Tommy D was between very good and outstanding. I don't think we would have signed some of the players we did last summer if we had a filter. Lazy isn't the right word but it did feel a bit lazy, if you know what I mean?1 -
Schwartz isn’t much of an upgrade of Polish Pete, Nego , Reza etc. We really don’t want 5/6 of those this summer, eating into budgets, regardless of whether the manager is told to play them or otherwise.Exiled_Addick said:I think it's pretty clear Schwartz was a signing pushed by Sandgaard. Not ideal imo and Charlton fans have more reason to be skeptical of this than most, but it's his money at the end of the day. The important thing is, judging by how little game time Schwartz has had, it doesn't seem like there has been pressure exerted to actually play him - which is a significant difference from Powell being instructed to drop Hamer for Thuram, for example.1 -
You have no evidence to back up this statement whatsoever. He's barely been utilised despite scoring in his first game. With a full summer, I think we'll see a different player.wmcf123 said:
Schwartz isn’t much of an upgrade of Polish Pete, Nego , Reza etc. We really don’t want 5/6 of those this summer, eating into budgets, regardless of whether the manager is told to play them or otherwise.Exiled_Addick said:I think it's pretty clear Schwartz was a signing pushed by Sandgaard. Not ideal imo and Charlton fans have more reason to be skeptical of this than most, but it's his money at the end of the day. The important thing is, judging by how little game time Schwartz has had, it doesn't seem like there has been pressure exerted to actually play him - which is a significant difference from Powell being instructed to drop Hamer for Thuram, for example.
5 -
Probably about eleven of them....Dazzler21 said:
You have no evidence to back up this statement whatsoever. He's barely been utilised despite scoring in his first game. With a full summer, I think we'll see a different player.wmcf123 said:
Schwartz isn’t much of an upgrade of Polish Pete, Nego , Reza etc. We really don’t want 5/6 of those this summer, eating into budgets, regardless of whether the manager is told to play them or otherwise.Exiled_Addick said:I think it's pretty clear Schwartz was a signing pushed by Sandgaard. Not ideal imo and Charlton fans have more reason to be skeptical of this than most, but it's his money at the end of the day. The important thing is, judging by how little game time Schwartz has had, it doesn't seem like there has been pressure exerted to actually play him - which is a significant difference from Powell being instructed to drop Hamer for Thuram, for example.
But I agree with you about Schwartz, he has a record in Danish top flight football that shouldn't be forgotten, and which indicates that he is a more substantial player than most, if not all, of the Duchatelet era.2 -
I think even that is giving Driesen too much credit. What qualifications did TD have? TS certainly has a great deal more business experience but I know that wasn't you main point.Chunes said:
I assumed the context Henners gave in his post, around him watching videos... If he's doing that and turning players down based on his assessment of their skill level, I find that worrying.Scoham said:
Disturbing? What about the context...Chunes said:
Where has he said this? That's disturbing.Henry Irving said:ShootersHillGuru said:We keep talking as if it’s Gallen alone but I’m confident that Nigel Adkins will have very much his own ideas and list.He said he's watching videos and has said no about at least one player.
Why did he say no?
Perhaps the transfer fee or wage demands didn’t seem good value?
Or maybe had another very similar option (DJ or Stockley for example) and went for him instead?
Did he overrule Bowyer, Gallen and Roddy? Or did any of them agree with the decision?
If it has turned out to be a mistake has he learnt from it?
We’ve been under a salary cap under both windows since TS bought the club and made the most of it, so it seems likely it was a decision that resulted in us signing someone else over the player he said no to.
We’ve seen enough to know he’s completely different from RD, we haven’t had a stream of budget players coming over from Denmark and his contacts.
What we haven’t yet seen is how serious he is in the transfer market with plenty of time to plan and no restrictions - that’ll become clear over the next two months.
As CL's self-appointed number one Driesen despiser, I can honestly say that Tommy D was more qualified for that job than Tommy S.
As I said in the Bromley Addicks notes I knew as soon as he said it that it would cause a bit of stir and some unease and understandably so.
I think the big difference is that TS isn't trying to invent some new system that no one else has even thought of, unlike RD.
He's using the best practice from other clubs, like Brentford who he talked about.
As I said
"TS is building much better recruitment systems based more on information and metrics and more independent of agents."
So it's not just TS watching a video and saying yes or no. It's making a stronger case for a player based on info, metrics (My guesses are how fit is he, how many games has he missed through injury in the last three years, how old is he, etc, etc, etc) and well as old fashioned knowledge or the player and having watched him.
And the key for me is all four have to agree. So yes, TS can veto the others but the others can veto him if he sees some kid kicking the ball on Woolwich Common.
With Driesen he was the whole show and could ignore what managers and coaches said.
Will this new recruitment panel work? We shall see.
It certainly takes the pressure off Gallen to do everything, it involves the manager as it should, the owner, rightly should have some input although I agree that has to be carefully managed and Roddy should give a long term overview of what the club needs. He's also a successful coach albeit at a much lower level.
The danger is that every flop, and there will be flops regardless, will be blamed by some on the panel and TS interfering and every success will be deemed an obvious no-brainer.
Without being in the meetings and seeing how the discussion goes we won't know exactly how it works in practice.12 - Sponsored links:
-
It sounds like sensible business plan and operation to me. The ‘team’ agree on decisions and live by the sword, die by the sword together, all invested in the same goal to build the best possible squad to achieve goals A (promotion out of league one), B (promotion out of Championship) and C (long term Premiership stability). That does not immunise the coaching staff if it is obvious that the playing squad is suitably strong and they are not getting the most out of them of course.
Using stats/CV + HR records in most of our Worlds is really encouraging. We have brought in too many committed but ‘broken’ players over the last couple of years. An ability to last 20-30 mins in games is not what any side needs from its players, let alone a promotion chasing one, no matter what their contribution. We need reliable, consistent quality at this level.2 -
I think Schwartz is a weird one. If as has been suggested we tracked Ronnie well before Thomas was on the scene then either our scouting has gone awry or Schwartz just hasn’t settled. To think he’s just not up to scratch implies to me that Thomas was indeed the driver behind the signing which if true will have taught him a salutary lesson. My guess is that he’s just not settled and will either be sold if possible or more likely go back on loan to Denmark.Dazzler21 said:
You have no evidence to back up this statement whatsoever. He's barely been utilised despite scoring in his first game. With a full summer, I think we'll see a different player.wmcf123 said:
Schwartz isn’t much of an upgrade of Polish Pete, Nego , Reza etc. We really don’t want 5/6 of those this summer, eating into budgets, regardless of whether the manager is told to play them or otherwise.Exiled_Addick said:I think it's pretty clear Schwartz was a signing pushed by Sandgaard. Not ideal imo and Charlton fans have more reason to be skeptical of this than most, but it's his money at the end of the day. The important thing is, judging by how little game time Schwartz has had, it doesn't seem like there has been pressure exerted to actually play him - which is a significant difference from Powell being instructed to drop Hamer for Thuram, for example.1 -
I don't think Gunter was bad business at all. He's been a bit disappointing, but we go into next season with an experienced back-up right back on the books, and we can make a decision whether we upgrade on Adam Matthews. Gunter hasn't even been that bad; he's not been as good as we'd hoped but he's also had to fill in for us at CB when we were desperate and played pretty well there in a few games. There's not a lot of RBs we've had in the past few years who you would want to put there, certainly wouldn't put Matthews there! Personally I always thought he'd end up being second choice once we signed Matthews as long as Matthews could stay fit, which he's mostly managed once he got up to speed. We always have so much churn in the squad, I'm comfortable with Gunter being around as a back-up. Watson hasn't been anywhere near consistent enough though and his engine really does seem to have goneBigRedEvil said:In hindsight offering Gunter and Watson 2 year deals to take out a large chunk of the wage cap budget was a poor decision.
3 -
Nego has played and scored in both the champions league and international football since leaving us. Reza scored 22 goals in the Eredivisie the year after leaving us, and still plays at that level now.wmcf123 said:
Schwartz isn’t much of an upgrade of Polish Pete, Nego , Reza etc. We really don’t want 5/6 of those this summer, eating into budgets, regardless of whether the manager is told to play them or otherwise.Exiled_Addick said:I think it's pretty clear Schwartz was a signing pushed by Sandgaard. Not ideal imo and Charlton fans have more reason to be skeptical of this than most, but it's his money at the end of the day. The important thing is, judging by how little game time Schwartz has had, it doesn't seem like there has been pressure exerted to actually play him - which is a significant difference from Powell being instructed to drop Hamer for Thuram, for example.
Polish Pete hasn't had the worst career either since leaving us.
Maybe Driesen did know what he was doing after all.......................joking.1 -
That's certainly a fairer view and makes me feel a bit better.Henry Irving said:
I think even that is giving Driesen too much credit. What qualifications did TD have? TS certainly has a great deal more business experience but I know that wasn't you main point.Chunes said:
I assumed the context Henners gave in his post, around him watching videos... If he's doing that and turning players down based on his assessment of their skill level, I find that worrying.Scoham said:
Disturbing? What about the context...Chunes said:
Where has he said this? That's disturbing.Henry Irving said:ShootersHillGuru said:We keep talking as if it’s Gallen alone but I’m confident that Nigel Adkins will have very much his own ideas and list.He said he's watching videos and has said no about at least one player.
Why did he say no?
Perhaps the transfer fee or wage demands didn’t seem good value?
Or maybe had another very similar option (DJ or Stockley for example) and went for him instead?
Did he overrule Bowyer, Gallen and Roddy? Or did any of them agree with the decision?
If it has turned out to be a mistake has he learnt from it?
We’ve been under a salary cap under both windows since TS bought the club and made the most of it, so it seems likely it was a decision that resulted in us signing someone else over the player he said no to.
We’ve seen enough to know he’s completely different from RD, we haven’t had a stream of budget players coming over from Denmark and his contacts.
What we haven’t yet seen is how serious he is in the transfer market with plenty of time to plan and no restrictions - that’ll become clear over the next two months.
As CL's self-appointed number one Driesen despiser, I can honestly say that Tommy D was more qualified for that job than Tommy S.
As I said in the Bromley Addicks notes I knew as soon as he said it that it would cause a bit of stir and some unease and understandably so.
I think the big difference is that TS isn't trying to invent some new system that no one else has even thought of, unlike RD.
He's using the best practice from other clubs, like Brentford who he talked about.
As I said
"TS is building much better recruitment systems based more on information and metrics and more independent of agents."
So it's not just TS watching a video and saying yes or no. It's making a stronger case for a player based on info, metrics (My guesses are how fit is he, how many games has he missed through injury in the last three years, how old is he, etc, etc, etc) and well as old fashioned knowledge or the player and having watched him.
And the key for me is all four have to agree. So yes, TS can veto the others but the others can veto him if he sees some kid kicking the ball on Woolwich Common.
With Driesen he was the whole show and could ignore what managers and coaches said.
Will this new recruitment panel work? We shall see.
It certainly takes the pressure off Gallen to do everything, it involves the manager as it should, the owner, rightly should have some input although I agree that has to be carefully managed and Roddy should give a long term overview of what the club needs. He's also a successful coach albeit at a much lower level.
The danger is that every flop, and there will be flops regardless, will be blamed by some on the panel and TS interfering and every success will be deemed an obvious no-brainer.
Without being in the meetings and seeing how the discussion goes we won't know exactly how it works in practice.
Yes, just meant that Driesen at least had a few years 'experience' in scouting.0 -
Gunter is on decent money though, star first team player money, rather than squad player money. I'm not sure having a RB as one of your best paid players makes a great deal of senseGarrymanilow said:
I don't think Gunter was bad business at all. He's been a bit disappointing, but we go into next season with an experienced back-up right back on the books, and we can make a decision whether we upgrade on Adam Matthews. Gunter hasn't even been that bad; he's not been as good as we'd hoped but he's also had to fill in for us at CB when we were desperate and played pretty well there in a few games. There's not a lot of RBs we've had in the past few years who you would want to put there, certainly wouldn't put Matthews there! Personally I always thought he'd end up being second choice once we signed Matthews as long as Matthews could stay fit, which he's mostly managed once he got up to speed. We always have so much churn in the squad, I'm comfortable with Gunter being around as a back-up. Watson hasn't been anywhere near consistent enough though and his engine really does seem to have goneBigRedEvil said:In hindsight offering Gunter and Watson 2 year deals to take out a large chunk of the wage cap budget was a poor decision.2 -
We actually signed some good players during that period, but many of them either weren't suitable for English football or were never given the chance to settle inChris_from_Sidcup said:
Nego has played and scored in both the champions league and international football since leaving us. Reza scored 22 goals in the Eredivisie the year after leaving us, and still plays at that level now.wmcf123 said:
Schwartz isn’t much of an upgrade of Polish Pete, Nego , Reza etc. We really don’t want 5/6 of those this summer, eating into budgets, regardless of whether the manager is told to play them or otherwise.Exiled_Addick said:I think it's pretty clear Schwartz was a signing pushed by Sandgaard. Not ideal imo and Charlton fans have more reason to be skeptical of this than most, but it's his money at the end of the day. The important thing is, judging by how little game time Schwartz has had, it doesn't seem like there has been pressure exerted to actually play him - which is a significant difference from Powell being instructed to drop Hamer for Thuram, for example.
Polish Pete hasn't had the worst career either since leaving us.
Maybe Driesen did know what he was doing after all.......................joking.
It often takes times to settle into a new country and style of football, never mind a new club. Taylor and Bonne have flopped this season since leaving us, and that's in the same country2 -
Now that Charlton have finally returned as "our football club" after too many years of shenanigans, I am confident we have the recruitment team who will find the right blend of players over the Summer to form a team we can all be proud of again.
I cannot wait to see the new season start with a settled squad willing to give everything for our/their club. Success, when it comes, will be a real bonus after the torment we have been dragged through in recent years.
COYR!!!!0 -
I think he was something like our 10th highest paid player when the window closed and was our only senior right back. That was a pretty essential signing and I don't think it's crazy money we're paying him, I thought it was about the same as Deji. With the cap gone his wage will hopefully be lower in terms of the squad again next season. I think Matthews is on one of the lowest in the squad as well, so it's balanced out this season.killerandflash said:
Gunter is on decent money though, star first team player money, rather than squad player money. I'm not sure having a RB as one of your best paid players makes a great deal of senseGarrymanilow said:
I don't think Gunter was bad business at all. He's been a bit disappointing, but we go into next season with an experienced back-up right back on the books, and we can make a decision whether we upgrade on Adam Matthews. Gunter hasn't even been that bad; he's not been as good as we'd hoped but he's also had to fill in for us at CB when we were desperate and played pretty well there in a few games. There's not a lot of RBs we've had in the past few years who you would want to put there, certainly wouldn't put Matthews there! Personally I always thought he'd end up being second choice once we signed Matthews as long as Matthews could stay fit, which he's mostly managed once he got up to speed. We always have so much churn in the squad, I'm comfortable with Gunter being around as a back-up. Watson hasn't been anywhere near consistent enough though and his engine really does seem to have goneBigRedEvil said:In hindsight offering Gunter and Watson 2 year deals to take out a large chunk of the wage cap budget was a poor decision.
1 -
I personally think Gunter has been one of our worse performers this season. How he was getting game time over Matthews at the start of the year was criminal.Garrymanilow said:
I don't think Gunter was bad business at all. He's been a bit disappointing, but we go into next season with an experienced back-up right back on the books, and we can make a decision whether we upgrade on Adam Matthews. Gunter hasn't even been that bad; he's not been as good as we'd hoped but he's also had to fill in for us at CB when we were desperate and played pretty well there in a few games. There's not a lot of RBs we've had in the past few years who you would want to put there, certainly wouldn't put Matthews there! Personally I always thought he'd end up being second choice once we signed Matthews as long as Matthews could stay fit, which he's mostly managed once he got up to speed. We always have so much churn in the squad, I'm comfortable with Gunter being around as a back-up. Watson hasn't been anywhere near consistent enough though and his engine really does seem to have goneBigRedEvil said:In hindsight offering Gunter and Watson 2 year deals to take out a large chunk of the wage cap budget was a poor decision.
There must be a U23 who can do the job with Matthews and let Gunter go.
3 - Sponsored links:
-
Gunter has another year left so i doubt they'll pay him off.Addick_8 said:
I personally think Gunter has been one of our worse performers this season. How he was getting game time over Matthews at the start of the year was criminal.Garrymanilow said:
I don't think Gunter was bad business at all. He's been a bit disappointing, but we go into next season with an experienced back-up right back on the books, and we can make a decision whether we upgrade on Adam Matthews. Gunter hasn't even been that bad; he's not been as good as we'd hoped but he's also had to fill in for us at CB when we were desperate and played pretty well there in a few games. There's not a lot of RBs we've had in the past few years who you would want to put there, certainly wouldn't put Matthews there! Personally I always thought he'd end up being second choice once we signed Matthews as long as Matthews could stay fit, which he's mostly managed once he got up to speed. We always have so much churn in the squad, I'm comfortable with Gunter being around as a back-up. Watson hasn't been anywhere near consistent enough though and his engine really does seem to have goneBigRedEvil said:In hindsight offering Gunter and Watson 2 year deals to take out a large chunk of the wage cap budget was a poor decision.
There must be a U23 who can do the job with Matthews and let Gunter go.
If Adkins isn't interested in Matthews (or if Matthews doesn't want to stay) then it's more likely to be signing another RB with Gunter as back up.1 -
He might have been 10th highest in terms of actually salary, but him and Watson took up 4 players worth of wage cap between them.Garrymanilow said:
I think he was something like our 10th highest paid player when the window closed and was our only senior right back. That was a pretty essential signing and I don't think it's crazy money we're paying him, I thought it was about the same as Deji. With the cap gone his wage will hopefully be lower in terms of the squad again next season. I think Matthews is on one of the lowest in the squad as well, so it's balanced out this season.killerandflash said:
Gunter is on decent money though, star first team player money, rather than squad player money. I'm not sure having a RB as one of your best paid players makes a great deal of senseGarrymanilow said:
I don't think Gunter was bad business at all. He's been a bit disappointing, but we go into next season with an experienced back-up right back on the books, and we can make a decision whether we upgrade on Adam Matthews. Gunter hasn't even been that bad; he's not been as good as we'd hoped but he's also had to fill in for us at CB when we were desperate and played pretty well there in a few games. There's not a lot of RBs we've had in the past few years who you would want to put there, certainly wouldn't put Matthews there! Personally I always thought he'd end up being second choice once we signed Matthews as long as Matthews could stay fit,8 which he's mostly managed once he got up to speed. We always have so much churn in the squad, I'm comfortable with Gunter being around as a back-up. Watson hasn't been anywhere near consistent enough though and his engine really does seem to have goneBigRedEvil said:In hindsight offering Gunter and Watson 2 year deals to take out a large chunk of the wage cap budget was a poor decision.
I will defend both of them as players but the decision to sign them, on that much money, in the circumstances, admittedly with hindsight, was a poor one1 -
As you say, with hindsight.Cafc43v3r said:
He might have been 10th highest in terms of actually salary, but him and Watson took up 4 players worth of wage cap between them.Garrymanilow said:
I think he was something like our 10th highest paid player when the window closed and was our only senior right back. That was a pretty essential signing and I don't think it's crazy money we're paying him, I thought it was about the same as Deji. With the cap gone his wage will hopefully be lower in terms of the squad again next season. I think Matthews is on one of the lowest in the squad as well, so it's balanced out this season.killerandflash said:
Gunter is on decent money though, star first team player money, rather than squad player money. I'm not sure having a RB as one of your best paid players makes a great deal of senseGarrymanilow said:
I don't think Gunter was bad business at all. He's been a bit disappointing, but we go into next season with an experienced back-up right back on the books, and we can make a decision whether we upgrade on Adam Matthews. Gunter hasn't even been that bad; he's not been as good as we'd hoped but he's also had to fill in for us at CB when we were desperate and played pretty well there in a few games. There's not a lot of RBs we've had in the past few years who you would want to put there, certainly wouldn't put Matthews there! Personally I always thought he'd end up being second choice once we signed Matthews as long as Matthews could stay fit,8 which he's mostly managed once he got up to speed. We always have so much churn in the squad, I'm comfortable with Gunter being around as a back-up. Watson hasn't been anywhere near consistent enough though and his engine really does seem to have goneBigRedEvil said:In hindsight offering Gunter and Watson 2 year deals to take out a large chunk of the wage cap budget was a poor decision.
I will defend both of them as players but the decision to sign them, on that much money, in the circumstances, admittedly with hindsight, was a poor one
But at the time Gunter and Watson were signed, it would have appeared to Bowyer that those 2 players, with all their experience at higher levels, were intended to be cornerstones of the team and helping along younger players in the squad.
On that basis, surely it would have been considered that they were worth gambling "4 players worth of wage cape" between them?
4 -
Yes and no. What young players needed guiding? You already had the likes of Pratley and Pearce in the squad. It left us woefully short in other areas, that's the problem.Oggy Red said:
As you say, with hindsight.Cafc43v3r said:
He might have been 10th highest in terms of actually salary, but him and Watson took up 4 players worth of wage cap between them.Garrymanilow said:
I think he was something like our 10th highest paid player when the window closed and was our only senior right back. That was a pretty essential signing and I don't think it's crazy money we're paying him, I thought it was about the same as Deji. With the cap gone his wage will hopefully be lower in terms of the squad again next season. I think Matthews is on one of the lowest in the squad as well, so it's balanced out this season.killerandflash said:
Gunter is on decent money though, star first team player money, rather than squad player money. I'm not sure having a RB as one of your best paid players makes a great deal of senseGarrymanilow said:
I don't think Gunter was bad business at all. He's been a bit disappointing, but we go into next season with an experienced back-up right back on the books, and we can make a decision whether we upgrade on Adam Matthews. Gunter hasn't even been that bad; he's not been as good as we'd hoped but he's also had to fill in for us at CB when we were desperate and played pretty well there in a few games. There's not a lot of RBs we've had in the past few years who you would want to put there, certainly wouldn't put Matthews there! Personally I always thought he'd end up being second choice once we signed Matthews as long as Matthews could stay fit,8 which he's mostly managed once he got up to speed. We always have so much churn in the squad, I'm comfortable with Gunter being around as a back-up. Watson hasn't been anywhere near consistent enough though and his engine really does seem to have goneBigRedEvil said:In hindsight offering Gunter and Watson 2 year deals to take out a large chunk of the wage cap budget was a poor decision.
I will defend both of them as players but the decision to sign them, on that much money, in the circumstances, admittedly with hindsight, was a poor one
But at the time Gunter and Watson were signed, it would have appeared to Bowyer that those 2 players, with all their experience at higher levels, were intended to be cornerstones of the team and helping along younger players in the squad.
On that basis, surely it would have been considered that they were worth gambling "4 players worth of wage cape" between them?
It may also have been worth gambling if we had 2 or 3 more u21 players, who didn't count towards the wage cap. Maybe that was the logic at the time?0 -
Not just that, Watson was ready to sign the day Thomas completed his takeover. We started the game the day after he signed with a midfield 3 of Pratley, Levitt and Oztumer. You can't look back at a transfer window as a whole without the context of the timings of some of the signings, and getting Watson in when we did was huge as we'd been so short there with numbers, fitness and injuries. I think Vennings started the next game. When we signed Gunter we'd been reliant on Barker, a youth CB playing out of position and Deji, who then got badly injured. Gunter then came into a defence that didn't concede for the next 5 games, and towards the end of that period we managed to re-sign Matthews, but up to that point we had been without a proper senior RB. We picked up 15 points out of 15 in the period immediately after we signed Gunter in performances that were built on not conceding. He's subsequently disappointed as the season has gone on but the timing of his signing and Watson's were essential for us going through that early purple patch that was our most consistent winning period all season. I wish they'd been better or that someone younger and better had been available to come in immediately after the takeover but they were logical, sensible signings at a time when we were pretty desperate for some experienced players.Oggy Red said:
As you say, with hindsight.Cafc43v3r said:
He might have been 10th highest in terms of actually salary, but him and Watson took up 4 players worth of wage cap between them.Garrymanilow said:
I think he was something like our 10th highest paid player when the window closed and was our only senior right back. That was a pretty essential signing and I don't think it's crazy money we're paying him, I thought it was about the same as Deji. With the cap gone his wage will hopefully be lower in terms of the squad again next season. I think Matthews is on one of the lowest in the squad as well, so it's balanced out this season.killerandflash said:
Gunter is on decent money though, star first team player money, rather than squad player money. I'm not sure having a RB as one of your best paid players makes a great deal of senseGarrymanilow said:
I don't think Gunter was bad business at all. He's been a bit disappointing, but we go into next season with an experienced back-up right back on the books, and we can make a decision whether we upgrade on Adam Matthews. Gunter hasn't even been that bad; he's not been as good as we'd hoped but he's also had to fill in for us at CB when we were desperate and played pretty well there in a few games. There's not a lot of RBs we've had in the past few years who you would want to put there, certainly wouldn't put Matthews there! Personally I always thought he'd end up being second choice once we signed Matthews as long as Matthews could stay fit,8 which he's mostly managed once he got up to speed. We always have so much churn in the squad, I'm comfortable with Gunter being around as a back-up. Watson hasn't been anywhere near consistent enough though and his engine really does seem to have goneBigRedEvil said:In hindsight offering Gunter and Watson 2 year deals to take out a large chunk of the wage cap budget was a poor decision.
I will defend both of them as players but the decision to sign them, on that much money, in the circumstances, admittedly with hindsight, was a poor one
But at the time Gunter and Watson were signed, it would have appeared to Bowyer that those 2 players, with all their experience at higher levels, were intended to be cornerstones of the team and helping along younger players in the squad.
On that basis, surely it would have been considered that they were worth gambling "4 players worth of wage cape" between them?
12 -
It's not signing them that was the problem, it was the amount we are/were paying them in the circumstances we were in.Garrymanilow said:
Not just that, Watson was ready to sign the day Thomas completed his takeover. We started the game the day after he signed with a midfield 3 of Pratley, Levitt and Oztumer. You can't look back at a transfer window as a whole without the context of the timings of some of the signings, and getting Watson in when we did was huge as we'd been so short there with numbers, fitness and injuries. I think Vennings started the next game. When we signed Gunter we'd been reliant on Barker, a youth CB playing out of position and Deji, who then got badly injured. Gunter then came into a defence that didn't concede for the next 5 games, and towards the end of that period we managed to re-sign Matthews, but up to that point we had been without a proper senior RB. We picked up 15 points out of 15 in the period immediately after we signed Gunter in performances that were built on not conceding. He's subsequently disappointed as the season has gone on but the timing of his signing and Watson's were essential for us going through that early purple patch that was our most consistent winning period all season. I wish they'd been better or that someone younger and better had been available to come in immediately after the takeover but they were logical, sensible signings at a time when we were pretty desperate for some experienced players.Oggy Red said:
As you say, with hindsight.Cafc43v3r said:
He might have been 10th highest in terms of actually salary, but him and Watson took up 4 players worth of wage cap between them.Garrymanilow said:
I think he was something like our 10th highest paid player when the window closed and was our only senior right back. That was a pretty essential signing and I don't think it's crazy money we're paying him, I thought it was about the same as Deji. With the cap gone his wage will hopefully be lower in terms of the squad again next season. I think Matthews is on one of the lowest in the squad as well, so it's balanced out this season.killerandflash said:
Gunter is on decent money though, star first team player money, rather than squad player money. I'm not sure having a RB as one of your best paid players makes a great deal of senseGarrymanilow said:
I don't think Gunter was bad business at all. He's been a bit disappointing, but we go into next season with an experienced back-up right back on the books, and we can make a decision whether we upgrade on Adam Matthews. Gunter hasn't even been that bad; he's not been as good as we'd hoped but he's also had to fill in for us at CB when we were desperate and played pretty well there in a few games. There's not a lot of RBs we've had in the past few years who you would want to put there, certainly wouldn't put Matthews there! Personally I always thought he'd end up being second choice once we signed Matthews as long as Matthews could stay fit,8 which he's mostly managed once he got up to speed. We always have so much churn in the squad, I'm comfortable with Gunter being around as a back-up. Watson hasn't been anywhere near consistent enough though and his engine really does seem to have goneBigRedEvil said:In hindsight offering Gunter and Watson 2 year deals to take out a large chunk of the wage cap budget was a poor decision.
I will defend both of them as players but the decision to sign them, on that much money, in the circumstances, admittedly with hindsight, was a poor one
But at the time Gunter and Watson were signed, it would have appeared to Bowyer that those 2 players, with all their experience at higher levels, were intended to be cornerstones of the team and helping along younger players in the squad.
On that basis, surely it would have been considered that they were worth gambling "4 players worth of wage cape" between them?
1 -
I read this morning that Everton and a few other Prem clubs are lining up offers for Ivan Toney. Another decent payday for Brentford I would think is on the horizon. Decent model to follow imo4
-
Maybe on the financial side but they seemed to have bottled getting into the Premier League on the footballing side for a few years now.AndyG said:I read this morning that Everton and a few other Prem clubs are lining up offers for Ivan Toney. Another decent payday for Brentford I would think is on the horizon. Decent model to follow imo1 -
Yep, he’ll do!AndyG said:I read this morning that Everton and a few other Prem clubs are lining up offers for Ivan Toney. Another decent payday for Brentford I would think is on the horizon. Decent model to follow imo1 -
No seriously, my hope is that we can start signing players that don’t end up on the treatment table constantly, how involved the physios team will be with their input , I don’t know?0
