He'd never have signed a new contract if Rotherham were calling anyway.
I think he would have had we offered in it say, March. Always the risk when you leave it to the last minute, look what happened last year with Amos and Aneke.
Nobody will ever know the facts here the guy has gone and I wish him luck. Now move on. One thing about the trouble maker rumour, he is a longstanding pro who has been at a number of clubs and an International set up for a few years, apparently he was a moaner in training and upset some coaches, wonder if these are the same coaches that are upset because apparently they have been asked to change things up ?
I loved his work rate and reading of the game…..as we all did. However…….as to his finishing, the less said the better. Good luck to the fella though but I’m not too concerned at his departure, but would have kept him and released Davison.
Never forget. Some people on the released thread describing him as average mid table League One level and thinking he might go to Wimbledon with Jacko..!
He is average league 1. He must have a good agent.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I doubt he will score more than 5 in the league next season, excluding penalties
"he won't get a Championship deal"
*gets a Championship deal"
"must have a good agent"
...or maybe Paul Warne & team at Rotherham know more about what makes a good player than the average bloke on the internet.
Let's wait and see how he gets on next season.
& where will the goalposts be moved to next if he scores a few?
The Rotherham offer wouldn’t have been a thing if he’d signed a deal when we were talking to him. That only came about because he was a free agent.
He’s quoted saying Rotherham showed very early interest.
Genuinely glad I won’t be watching him again next season as he’s an extremely frustrating player to watch and completely one dimensional. I can’t see Rotherham staying up if this is the calibre of player they’re going for but good luck to them
Sport is littered with 'prickly' characters who don't necessarily get on with their team mates.
Aussie cricket is full of 'em. In fact, work in general is like that - and what about rock music - where anger and animosity seems to almost be a prerequisite for great music happen?
From a selfish point of view, I want to see Charlton win over the 90 minutes of my involvement. Yeah, great if they get on, but if not, just go and play well and win on a Saturday afternoon and Tuesday evening.
When we release players the idea is to replace them with better. Looking at who we have released it should be easy to replace players like Watson Gunter Leco Lee etc with better. Not sure we will get better than Washington unless Sandgaard is prepared to pay a decent fee.
I do find the way people's attitudes to players changes based on their current mood with the club and who else they sign for fascinating. I was always someone who defended Washington. He works hard, scores 10 goals a season and runs the channels. I would have been happy with him as a backup striker to someone new but not as a first choice. I also don't know what purpose he would serve in a 1 striker formation as he's not a lone striker and he didn't like playing wide under Adkins.
We also don't know what kind of contract he wanted. He's just turned 30. That's when players are looking for a contract with proper security, probably 3 years; does anyone think a 33 year old Conor Washington is a top investment for us based on his goal return and general level? Probably not. Really, the ideal would be for a player like Washington to have one year left on his deal in a promotion season, and then unless he has a total transformative blinder you could release him with thanks as you go up a division. Not here though. We also don't know what money he asked for. Almost certainly a payrise. I believe he was already one of the higher earners, certainly top ten, do you want to give a payrise on top that would probably make him around our highest earner to a player who even his biggest supporters were saying is a good backup option? Doesn't sound like great business. There's plenty complaining about giving 28 year old Chuks a 3.5 year deal, Washington is older than Chuks and hasn't had a fantastic injury record for us either.
Then you look at Rotherham. A league up, newly promoted, Conor is exactly the kind of signing I would expect them to make. They're not flush with cash, they need to bring in new players and they need hard workers. They'll likely be willing to pay him what he asks and he'll likely be backup there as well. I would be truly shocked if they swapped Conor in for Ladapo, I reckon Conor is there as the backup to a better striker, which is what we were hoping to do at L1 level. They lost Ladapo for nothing, so it's not like they've sold a good player for a good fee and can reinvest it. They've got gaps to fill and Conor is a good gap-filler. Conor is also, sadly, proven to be not quite good enough at Championship level. His highest return in 4 seasons there was 7, and in two of those (though one wasn't full) he scored 0 goals. 13 goals in 107 appearances. Is that worth a longer, more expensive deal when we're looking to go up? I don't really think it is.
Mostly though, I think people need to have a word with themselves about this obsession with Martin Sandgaard. It's become, from the perspective of someone who spends a lot of time on here and is now feeling the need to reduce it, quite embarrassing. Every football-related thread on every page someone has to pop up with a fresh new comment about him. It's happening. It's weird. Will it work? Don't know, let's see who we bring in. There's very little to be gained by using the quiet period to create yet another bogeyman within our own club. I'm beginning to think that post-Roland if there isn't someone to shriek at about destroying the club then people can't function. Can we not just give the Martin stuff a rest until we've actually gone through a full summer transfer window with the new system in place? To be honest, I know what the answers to that will be, but at least consider what good the whinging constantly on here does
It was stupid to let him go. You need 6 Strikers at the club, two playing, two on the bench, two in reserve (in case of injuries). Yes he could have scored more. He did ok, he was good enough to be in the squad.
It was stupid to let him go. You need 6 Strikers at the club, two playing, two on the bench, two in reserve (in case of injuries). Yes he could have scored more. He did ok, he was good enough to be in the squad.
Who the hell has 6 strikers? How you funding these?
It was stupid to let him go. You need 6 Strikers at the club, two playing, two on the bench, two in reserve (in case of injuries). Yes he could have scored more. He did ok, he was good enough to be in the squad.
Who the hell has 6 strikers? How you funding these?
Ipswich have about 10 don't they?
Mind you, Man City have none really until they got in Haaland
It was stupid to let him go. You need 6 Strikers at the club, two playing, two on the bench, two in reserve (in case of injuries). Yes he could have scored more. He did ok, he was good enough to be in the squad.
Who the hell has 6 strikers? How you funding these?
Ipswich have about 10 don't they?
Mind you, Man City have none really until they got in Haaland
Three and I'd be surprised if both Jackson and Pigott are Ipswich players at the end of the window.
It was stupid to let him go. You need 6 Strikers at the club, two playing, two on the bench, two in reserve (in case of injuries). Yes he could have scored more. He did ok, he was good enough to be in the squad.
Who the hell has 6 strikers? How you funding these?
Two would be youngsters from under 23 Youth teams.
It was stupid to let him go. You need 6 Strikers at the club, two playing, two on the bench, two in reserve (in case of injuries). Yes he could have scored more. He did ok, he was good enough to be in the squad.
Who the hell has 6 strikers? How you funding these?
Two would be youngsters from under 23 Youth teams.
Fair enough, I would agree that 4 senior strikers is about right. 3 will be sufficient if we play something like 433 though.
Comments
One thing about the trouble maker rumour, he is a longstanding pro who has been at a number of clubs and an International set up for a few years, apparently he was a moaner in training and upset some coaches, wonder if these are the same coaches that are upset because apparently they have been asked to change things up ?
However…….as to his finishing, the less said the better.
Good luck to the fella though but I’m not too concerned at his departure, but would have kept him and released Davison.
Aussie cricket is full of 'em. In fact, work in general is like that - and what about rock music - where anger and animosity seems to almost be a prerequisite for great music happen?
From a selfish point of view, I want to see Charlton win over the 90 minutes of my involvement. Yeah, great if they get on, but if not, just go and play well and win on a Saturday afternoon and Tuesday evening.
Looking at who we have released it should be easy to replace players like Watson Gunter Leco Lee etc with better.
Not sure we will get better than Washington unless Sandgaard is prepared to pay a decent fee.
Mind you, Man City have none really until they got in Haaland