Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Summer 2022 transfer rumours (Gilbey loan confirmed p513, a signing falls through last minute p541)
Comments
-
I suspect this is because he like his name but he is a left footed centre back.Weegie Addick said:Am I misreading the figures Airman posted or does that show a profit of £4M+ in 2021?
Mungo Bridge has to be worth a punt.0 -
I go because I love the club, not because I'm forced to go. You please yourself, but don't have the audacity to say you are more important to the club because you won't go.MuttleyCAFC said:I don't really care what some might think. I buy the streams and watch the club but going to matches when I have a long journey home totally disapointed is not what I want to do aged 58 years. I have done all that and bought the T-shirt. I am fed up with us being owned by crooks and fools and with every opportunity that supports itself, that opportunity is missed.
My point about the importance of different types of fans I know is not a popular one, but telling people to attend isn't going to make it happen. It is a reality which any business owner has to understand and address. If I did force myself to go, it would make absolutely no diference and the dog would be more likely to get kicked!(not really I am an animal lover). But I am going to do things I get some pleasure from at this stage of my life.
Sickening.2 -
This is absolutely spot on. People saying TS is skint, he isn’t, he just doesn’t want to bankroll us which is fair enough. So many babies on here at the moment having an entitled moancolthe3rd said:So much overreaction on here. In May with JJ gone, many of us wanted a wholesale clear out including backroom staff, most of kind of agreed we'd need around 10 new signings to stand a chance. Well we got Garner and his staff and 7 new players. Of the starting 11 for most games so far we have around 4 who were here immediately after the August transfer window shut last year. Without doubt we have a stronger team/squad than the one that started last season, you just need to look at Gilbey and JFC struggling to get game time to confirm this.
We have also seen the emergence of potentially one of the best crops of youth players we've seen in a while. I don't think many of us expected Leaburn to look as comfortable as he has or Clayden to be able to fill in at LB with no real issues or the potential of Henry.
That said it hasn't been a perfect window, clearly the number of signings Garner/TS wanted was 9. I don't buy that Bonne was a target from the start, look at a number of "wanted" strikers who haven't moved for whatever reason but was more of a backup that fell through in the end, and judging by some of the reactions on here many of you will be pleased he hasn't joined. The lack of CB is the bigger issue imo as it would be a huge surprise to see Inniss get through a whole season.
However, some of the responses this morning are laughable. "Season over", "worried about the future of the club", "thrown away our best chance of promotion". just to point out the obvious, it's 2nd of September we are currently just outside the playoff places with arguably one of the toughest starts to the season compared to others. We are seeing a very attractive style of play versus what we have been used to and there is still time to add to the squad with some decent freebies. Genuinely if anyone does think that now is the right time to write off a season then do us all a favour and don't go to games and don't post on here. It really is pathetic.1 -
It’s only shown as a profit because he transferred the club’s leasehold assets to Roland in exchange for debt liability.Weegie Addick said:Am I misreading the figures Airman posted or does that show a profit of £4M+ in 2021?
Mungo Bridge has to be worth a punt.
The stands were previously assets on the club’s balance sheet. It won’t have involved cash coming in.
1 -
Yes, thanks for that I can't see where this £(8)M loss that keeps being mentioned comes from though. If you ignore that exceptional item and the player sales, I make it £(9.2)M. Do you think it's taken from the, as yet unpublished, 2022 results, or simply an inaccurate statement?Airman Brown said:
It’s only shown as a profit because he transferred the club’s leasehold assets to Roland in exchange for debt liability.Weegie Addick said:Am I misreading the figures Airman posted or does that show a profit of £4M+ in 2021?
Mungo Bridge has to be worth a punt.
The stands were previously assets on the club’s balance sheet. It won’t have involved cash coming in.
After all, we know a decade or two is neither here nor there, so what's a million and a bit in the grand scheme of things?0 -
And a friend of my nephew’s.Richard J said:
I suspect this is because she likes his name but he is a left footed centre back.Weegie Addick said:Am I misreading the figures Airman posted or does that show a profit of £4M+ in 2021?
Mungo Bridge has to be worth a punt.0 -
Working assumption would be 2021/22 figures.swordfish said:
Yes, thanks for that I can't see where this £(8)M loss that keeps being mentioned comes from though. If you ignore that and the player sales, I make it £(9.2)M. Do you think it's taken from the, as yet unpublished, 2022 results, or simply an inaccurate statement?Airman Brown said:
It’s only shown as a profit because he transferred the club’s leasehold assets to Roland in exchange for debt liability.Weegie Addick said:Am I misreading the figures Airman posted or does that show a profit of £4M+ in 2021?
Mungo Bridge has to be worth a punt.
The stands were previously assets on the club’s balance sheet. It won’t have involved cash coming in.
After all, we know a decade or two is neither here nor there, so what's a million and a bit in the grand scheme of things?1 -
I think we gave back what we got tbh.. his head turned like the exorcist when he got a better offer. Pretty much his words. We gave it back when it looked like he could return, and then he gave it right back when it didn't happen. No harm no fowl as far as I'm concerned.Clarky said:The criticism Bonne got on this site was pretty disgusting, particularly as when he was with us I thought he tried his best, so if he read this forum and he had a dig fair play to him.
Yes, we all wanted a forward and yes we thought we deserved better than Bonne but it wasn't our decision to make. Everybody seems to expect TS to buy this and that but he has decided, wrongly in my view to stick to a budget, which is no different from those not wishing to pay his ticket prices, which he has also got wrong. Very easy to say he should spend more and get even more in debt when quite rightly you shouldn't do so yourself.0 -
Really? Where would they get these great players from? In March every other team still has something to play for.BR7_addick said:
That’ll just benefit the big boys even more so surely. Teams will sign players as and when they like and then come March the Rich clubs will load up on short term deals to get trophies and promotions over the line.jimmymelrose said:
No. It used to be that you couldn't sign new players after about mid-March.BR7_addick said:
So the championship play off is two days away, you can sign a player who’s way too good for that league and give him 50m win bonus even though he’s not played a single game for you. Hell, you could even sell him back the next day? Cos that’s where no window leads too.jimmymelrose said:What do you mean? Just don't have a window. It is after all, a relatively new idea.
It worked fine before 2002.
Besides, it can be argued that the transfer window benefits the bigger clubs. They have squads with no weak links - if they get an injury then they just bring on another of equal quality. The lesser teams have to struggle with what they have rather than waiting to see in what position they get an injury and then sign someone.
Are those who argue in favour of a transfer window too young to have witnessed that things works fine without it?0 -
Why would there be disruption? Things without a transfer window are far calmer. If you want to buy, you make an offer without having other clubs scrambling around at the same time and agents inflating the price because of the desperation that the window installs.cafcfan1990 said:
So there’s disruption for clubs all year round? Personally I think it’s a terrible idea. Things have changed so much over the years with regards to spending power and amount of substitutions. Just because it worked before doesn’t mean it would again.jimmymelrose said:What do you mean? Just don't have a window. It is after all, a relatively new idea.
It worked before and I don't see that you give any real argument as to why it wouldn't work again. Oh, and I'd decrease the number of substitutes too. That also benefits the bigger clubs.1 - Sponsored links:
-
Yes apparently he doesn’t like anyone who owns Charlton. Unless they have the best interests of the club at heart and know what they’re doing.charltonbob said:
I've never spoken to Rick apart from to buy the Voice so I'm not in his group of friends. So could you tell me what his agenda is ?Todds_right_hook said:
I think he would attack any owner regardless to aid his agenda.MuttleyCAFC said:I doubt Airman enjoys any of this. He is a supporter like the rest of us. He just calls things for what they are and that makes him unpopular with some.Crazy.26 -
Or perhaps we just think it wasn’t fine before? It would also be a lot worse now due to the massive gulf in spending power.jimmymelrose said:
Really? Where would they get these great players from? In March every other team still has something to play for.BR7_addick said:
That’ll just benefit the big boys even more so surely. Teams will sign players as and when they like and then come March the Rich clubs will load up on short term deals to get trophies and promotions over the line.jimmymelrose said:
No. It used to be that you couldn't sign new players after about mid-March.BR7_addick said:
So the championship play off is two days away, you can sign a player who’s way too good for that league and give him 50m win bonus even though he’s not played a single game for you. Hell, you could even sell him back the next day? Cos that’s where no window leads too.jimmymelrose said:What do you mean? Just don't have a window. It is after all, a relatively new idea.
It worked fine before 2002.
Besides, it can be argued that the transfer window benefits the bigger clubs. They have squads with no weak links - if they get an injury then they just bring on another of equal quality. The lesser teams have to struggle with what they have rather than waiting to see in what position they get an injury and then sign someone.
Are those who argue in favour of a transfer window too young to have witnessed that things works fine without it?0 -
I think the biggest problem with our recruitment team is too many people involved. 4 involved , 2 of which have limited football knowledge and spend too much time on CL. It wouldn't surprise me if the club cooled their interest after seeing the reaction on this site. The best recruitment in recent years was when Bowyer and Gallen were given a budget and allowed to get on with it.9
-
Hadn't thought about it but that does make sense re agents. Suppose it may help selling clubs inflate valuations as well?Manic_mania said:
I kinda get Jimmy's point - things worked perfectly well for years before the "transfer window" became a thing - funnily enough I don't remember a big day in mid march where every team desperately ran around til nearly midnight trying to get players - transfer windows were never brought in for fairness it was always about a bit of US sport-style spectacle.cafcfan1990 said:
So there’s disruption for clubs all year round? Personally I think it’s a terrible idea. Things have changed so much over the years with regards to spending power and amount of substitutions. Just because it worked before doesn’t mean it would again.jimmymelrose said:What do you mean? Just don't have a window. It is after all, a relatively new idea.
It doesn't benefit the clubs, get an injury crisis in November? Tough shit - where you could have got a 3 or 6 month loan or two, now you just have to play the kids, who may or may not be ready - knock on effect to the fans who pay to see a competitive team each week. We know as much as most do that the January window can disrupt an entire season anyway.
It doesn't benefit the players - get left high and dry last minute because the chain collapses and you are stuck in obscurity for months on end, not wanted by your club, and unable to move.
The time pressure only benefits one group - the agents.1 -
overall i think his agenda is the wellbeing of cafc - more specifically i think that would involve re employing him and ideally peter varney to run things with a rich backer funding it and initially spending money to get out of league 1 asap because we lose more money in league 1 than the championship - i think that's about it but i might be wrong???charltonbob said:
I've never spoken to Rick apart from to buy the Voice so I'm not in his group of friends. So could you tell me what his agenda is ?Todds_right_hook said:
I think he would attack any owner regardless to aid his agenda.MuttleyCAFC said:I doubt Airman enjoys any of this. He is a supporter like the rest of us. He just calls things for what they are and that makes him unpopular with some.1 -
The setup isn’t that different from 18/19 as Driesen and RD had to sign off any potential signings just as TS does.charltonnick said:I think the biggest problem with our recruitment team is too many people involved. 4 involved , 2 of which have limited football knowledge and spend too much time on CL. It wouldn't surprise me if the club cooled their interest after seeing the reaction on this site. The best recruitment in recent years was when Bowyer and Gallen were given a budget and allowed to get on with it.
Players with the quality of Taylor, Bielik and Cullen aren’t available every window. Without them the other three signings that summer in Pratley, Steer and Ward wouldn’t have appeared to be good enough to take us up.0 -
Heard was training with JackoSantaClaus said:Don't give up hope, Josh Parker's still a free agent.0 -
I do appreciate your taking the time to respond on this and I won't push it any more on match day, but I honestly still fail to see your alternative proposal to cutting ones cloth to what one has. Promotion is no solution.Airman Brown said:
It is a fact that in the last nine seasons for which we have figures, Charlton's operating losses have consistently been much higher in League One than in the Championship - with the exception of 2015/16. I am not excluding 2020/21 because the announced number is distorted by an £8.1m asset transfer to Roland. Not sure why that is so had Roland/ESI could have spent another £5m on players' wages in 2019/20 and the operating loss would still have been lower than the preceding three seasons in L1 by some margin.
Even if your figures are right, you are only saying that, if we spent to get promoted, we would only then be adding to the club's debt massively - rather than very massively - each year.
And of course in the past nine years we have done better financially in the Championship because, over that period, we have had squads that were either nearly or actually relegated, or else essentially put together in League One. We have never had to build a competitive squad in the Championship.
Then when we got relegated we were paying Championship contracts in League One. That is a very different situation to now, where we do not have the legacy contracts.2 -
Our recruitment this summer has been really good? Maybe not quite enough of it, but I don't see many flaws otherwise12
-
He declined a new contract from Tranmere, so not really scrap heaped.The Prince-e-Paul said:God knows what the free agent market holds, but wasn't CBT a free agent. He came on a 3 month trial deal and earned a contract off the back of it. Now his stock value has increased significantly, as probably did his wages. Maybe other players will note that.1 - Sponsored links:
-
You could make the argument that our recruitment was really good last year (no laughing at the back). More than half the starting 11 today were, probably, signed last year. That's not including CBT either.Leuth said:Our recruitment this summer has been really good? Maybe not quite enough of it, but I don't see many flaws otherwise
I am not making it, but I could see how someone could.1 -
No argument about the loans though.Cafc43v3r said:
You could make the argument that our recruitment was really good last year (no laughing at the back). More than half the starting 11 today were, probably, signed last year. That's not including CBT either.Leuth said:Our recruitment this summer has been really good? Maybe not quite enough of it, but I don't see many flaws otherwise
I am not making it, but I could see how someone could.0 -
I agree with your concluding paragraph. I know a lot of deals get done on the final day before the window and sometimes you might be able to negotiate a lower price from a club desperate to sell. Although of course the opposite may happen if the selling club play hardball and you will have to pay more if you are either desperate enough, or simply have deep enough pockets. Of course, other clubs often won't make a decision on releasing players for loan outs until they are comfortable their squad is adequate.cafc_harry said:Having reflected on that deadline through the day I still can’t quite get my head around the failure to sign anyone. It has to be one of:Naivety- Martin still being inexperienced and sharing way more than he should’ve at the game, when in reality it was going to be far more difficult to get deals done.
Out priced/competed- if it is indeed true that we were after Scully, it’s hard for anyone to compete with the league above, can scratch that one off. Though several suitable alternatives should have been ready.
Cutting costs- Thomas/Martin/ Raelynn have clearly been cutting costs off the field so perhaps that’s now spread to the playing staff. Whether this is in preparation for a sale or just a lack of funds is just speculation. I personally don’t think this is the case, tempting Garner and getting some good signings over the line earlier in the window doesn’t make sense if this was indeed true.All in all, regardless of the deadline day failure the real indictment is that through a several month window we didn’t manage to fill the glaring holes in our squad, as soon as Washington was let go we were light up top and especially once Stockley clearly wasn’t suited to Garnerball an addition should have been top priority. Same goes for the extra defender we clearly needed, virtually inexplicable that we didn’t get one, and that there wasn’t a peep about it in the statement. I still think we’re capable of playoffs, possibly more this season. But now we’re relying on injuries etc going our way when that didn’t need to be the case.
However, once you end up in that position of having vacant key gaps in your squad on the very last day of the window you have less element of control over the situation, compared to doing your business earlier in the window. Time is simply not on your side. There is a fair chance that any one of the selling club/player/player's agent will raise an issue that you cannot resolve in the time available. Or any deal for your target may be dependent upon a chain of other moves all occurring on that day and an issue with any one of which could scupper the whole chain.
Charlton went in to the last day knowing full well of the potential risks and in the end they paid the price (or I guess didn't seeing no one came in)! The question is do they learn from it.
2 -
If you read Thomas’s interview with me in December 2020 he argued that he could put together a promotion team in the Championship without spending big because players are overpaid and he wouldn’t meet the wages. More magical thinking - it can happen because he says so, regardless of everyone else’s view.SteveKielyCambridge said:
I do appreciate your taking the time to respond on this and I won't push it any more on match day, but I honestly still fail to see your alternative proposal to cutting ones cloth to what one has. Promotion is no solution.Airman Brown said:
It is a fact that in the last nine seasons for which we have figures, Charlton's operating losses have consistently been much higher in League One than in the Championship - with the exception of 2015/16. I am not excluding 2020/21 because the announced number is distorted by an £8.1m asset transfer to Roland. Not sure why that is so had Roland/ESI could have spent another £5m on players' wages in 2019/20 and the operating loss would still have been lower than the preceding three seasons in L1 by some margin.
Even if your figures are right, you are only saying that, if we spent to get promoted, we would only then be adding to the club's debt massively - rather than very massively - each year.
And of course in the past nine years we have done better financially in the Championship because, over that period, we have had squads that were either nearly or actually relegated, or else essentially put together in League One. We have never had to build a competitive squad in the Championship.
Then when we got relegated we were paying Championship contracts in League One. That is a very different situation to now, where we do not have the legacy contracts.
This is all delusional - as is the latest idea that he is going to break even in L1. It’s his claim that the gap in 21/22 was £8m. The only way you make a significant dent is by reducing football wages but inevitably if you do that it will have consequences. I’m not saying it’s impossible to get better value but you will never get to break even because you are losing an amount as big as the whole football budget.
Staff cutbacks are trivial in this picture. The club is also inept at handling them which is resulting in unexpectedly large payouts. This is not the hallmark of an organisation behaving professionally or being managed competently.The commercial revenue is poor - and will remain so, which is why he can’t retain senior appointees around it - and ticket revenue is going backwards because of his own pricing policy.
It isn’t the principle of sustainability which is wrong, it’s that he cannot get there but pretends he can, taking a section of fans with him because they want to believe it. As with much else he has said, it doesn’t make it true.
You will only close the gap substantially by 1) selling your best players every year at a higher rate than ever before and/or 2) getting promoted, which gives you the higher central income and a product people are more willing to buy.
Any other way forward than promotion needs to come from the restructuring of the game - which TS cannot deliver.33 -
An agent will tell his player not to sign anything until they know what is the best terms available. Why sign for Charlton in July when a Championship club may come in?robinofottershaw said:
I agree with your concluding paragraph. I know a lot of deals get done on the final day before the window and sometimes you might be able to negotiate a lower price from a club desperate to sell. Although of course the opposite may happen if the selling club play hardball and you will have to pay more if you are either desperate enough, or simply have deep enough pockets. Of course, other clubs often won't make a decision on releasing players for loan outs until they are comfortable their squad is adequate.cafc_harry said:Having reflected on that deadline through the day I still can’t quite get my head around the failure to sign anyone. It has to be one of:Naivety- Martin still being inexperienced and sharing way more than he should’ve at the game, when in reality it was going to be far more difficult to get deals done.
Out priced/competed- if it is indeed true that we were after Scully, it’s hard for anyone to compete with the league above, can scratch that one off. Though several suitable alternatives should have been ready.
Cutting costs- Thomas/Martin/ Raelynn have clearly been cutting costs off the field so perhaps that’s now spread to the playing staff. Whether this is in preparation for a sale or just a lack of funds is just speculation. I personally don’t think this is the case, tempting Garner and getting some good signings over the line earlier in the window doesn’t make sense if this was indeed true.All in all, regardless of the deadline day failure the real indictment is that through a several month window we didn’t manage to fill the glaring holes in our squad, as soon as Washington was let go we were light up top and especially once Stockley clearly wasn’t suited to Garnerball an addition should have been top priority. Same goes for the extra defender we clearly needed, virtually inexplicable that we didn’t get one, and that there wasn’t a peep about it in the statement. I still think we’re capable of playoffs, possibly more this season. But now we’re relying on injuries etc going our way when that didn’t need to be the case.
However, once you end up in that position of having vacant key gaps in your squad on the very last day of the window you have less element of control over the situation, compared to doing your business earlier in the window. Time is simply not on your side. There is a fair chance that any one of the selling club/player/player's agent will raise an issue that you cannot resolve in the time available. Or any deal for your target may be dependent upon a chain of other moves all occurring on that day and an issue with any one of which could scupper the whole chain.
Charlton went in to the last day knowing full well of the potential risks and in the end they paid the price (or I guess didn't seeing no one came in)! The question is do they learn from it.If you want the best your money can buy you have to play the game or settle for mediocrity.
In this league where every penny counts there is everything wrong in spending money to bring in a squad player. If we spend money it has to be to get better than we have.
No lesson to learn for me.0 -
Haven't a problem with the players we've brought in, it's the ones we haven't that is troubling me.Leuth said:Our recruitment this summer has been really good? Maybe not quite enough of it, but I don't see many flaws otherwise25 -
agreed - we were taking the championship money but not spending it to stay there - case closedSteveKielyCambridge said:
I do appreciate your taking the time to respond on this and I won't push it any more on match day, but I honestly still fail to see your alternative proposal to cutting ones cloth to what one has. Promotion is no solution.Airman Brown said:
It is a fact that in the last nine seasons for which we have figures, Charlton's operating losses have consistently been much higher in League One than in the Championship - with the exception of 2015/16. I am not excluding 2020/21 because the announced number is distorted by an £8.1m asset transfer to Roland. Not sure why that is so had Roland/ESI could have spent another £5m on players' wages in 2019/20 and the operating loss would still have been lower than the preceding three seasons in L1 by some margin.
Even if your figures are right, you are only saying that, if we spent to get promoted, we would only then be adding to the club's debt massively - rather than very massively - each year.
And of course in the past nine years we have done better financially in the Championship because, over that period, we have had squads that were either nearly or actually relegated, or else essentially put together in League One. We have never had to build a competitive squad in the Championship.
Then when we got relegated we were paying Championship contracts in League One. That is a very different situation to now, where we do not have the legacy contracts.1 -
There is one huge floor in the recruitment in that for garnerball we do not have regular goalscorer and that is why we are a mid table L1 teamLeuth said:Our recruitment this summer has been really good? Maybe not quite enough of it, but I don't see many flaws otherwise5 -
That really isn't true of the four seasons 2012-16 and despite that the operating loss for the first three remained well below our subsequent losses in League One. In 2015/16 Duchatelet overspent trying to stay up, but spent the money so badly he failed. We were not relegated in 2016 because we didn't spend enough to stay up - far from it.DOUCHER said:
agreed - we were taking the championship money but not spending it to stay there - case closedSteveKielyCambridge said:
I do appreciate your taking the time to respond on this and I won't push it any more on match day, but I honestly still fail to see your alternative proposal to cutting ones cloth to what one has. Promotion is no solution.Airman Brown said:
It is a fact that in the last nine seasons for which we have figures, Charlton's operating losses have consistently been much higher in League One than in the Championship - with the exception of 2015/16. I am not excluding 2020/21 because the announced number is distorted by an £8.1m asset transfer to Roland. Not sure why that is so had Roland/ESI could have spent another £5m on players' wages in 2019/20 and the operating loss would still have been lower than the preceding three seasons in L1 by some margin.
Even if your figures are right, you are only saying that, if we spent to get promoted, we would only then be adding to the club's debt massively - rather than very massively - each year.
And of course in the past nine years we have done better financially in the Championship because, over that period, we have had squads that were either nearly or actually relegated, or else essentially put together in League One. We have never had to build a competitive squad in the Championship.
Then when we got relegated we were paying Championship contracts in League One. That is a very different situation to now, where we do not have the legacy contracts.
It is fair to say that Duchatelet lost more money in L1 than was necessary, in part off the back of the bad decisions he'd made earlier.3 -
Cafc43v3r said:
You could make the argument that our recruitment was really good last year (no laughing at the back). More than half the starting 11 today were, probably, signed last year. That's not including CBT either.Leuth said:Our recruitment this summer has been really good? Maybe not quite enough of it, but I don't see many flaws otherwise
I am not making it, but I could see how someone could.There were good aspects but it wasn't good as a whole. We're feeling some benefits now, though it's taken time for things to come through and some of that has been a bit of luck. Dobson was always a good signing. Adkins didn't want to use him properly and he did start shakily but he always had the feel of a player who needed a fresh start and he's been great. Clare was a player doing well at RB who didn't want to play there anymore. It's taken him a while but he's been forced to accept (I hope) that he's a good right back and not a brilliant midfielder. Mac was a sensible signing that didn't work at as well as hoped but he definitely wasn't a disaster. Stockley is a good player and Kirk is too, but both were the wrong players for what Adkins put out at the start of the season. Stockley is the wrong player again now but Kirk has found a place. Akin was a good signing who hid that fact very, very well, Lavelle was a decent squad signing and Arter was a panic disaster. Lee was a good signing for Adkins but then Adkins got sacked and there was no place for Lee in Jackson's silly line-up.Everything was backwards really. If we'd signed Lee early and made him the 10 instead of bringing in Clare and relying on Morgan there, then signed CBT to play wide left instead of Kirk we would have put together an 11 more in line with what Adkins was trying to achieve. CBT the quick inverted winger to replace Millar, a proper 10 for Adkins' style. You even wonder if Arter with a full pe-season and Leko in early to go on the opposite wing might have got a lot more out of the pair of them. The midfield still wouldn't have been quite right but it would have set Adkins up with more of what he wanted. It's helpful that the players we've been left with can almost all comfortably adapt to what Garner wants to do, and that makes them look a lot better as a result.0
