Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Dan Potts joins on short term contract (and leaves p5)
Comments
-
The argument that the like of Potts and Hylton are good for the culture and environment dosent hold much water with me, isnt that is what the coaches are supposed to be there for and cost a lot less to hire?5
-
CH4RLTON said:The argument that the like of Potts and Hylton are good for the culture and environment dosent hold much water with me, isnt that is what the coaches are supposed to be there for and cost a lot less to hire?
Between the pair of them they are possibly taking 10k a week, spent better elsewhere surely?
9 -
Between the pair of them they are very possibility not! Sorry where did you get such figures from? With their appearance numbers in 2023/24 it is very likely beyond a pretty modest basic any notable remuneration will be appearance based.ElfsborgAddick said:CH4RLTON said:The argument that the like of Potts and Hylton are good for the culture and environment dosent hold much water with me, isnt that is what the coaches are supposed to be there for and cost a lot less to hire?
Between the pair of them they are possibly taking 10k a week, spent better elsewhere surely?
Any number of clubs will have likely kicked the tyres on Potts but on the basis of his injury records very few will have committed to any serious contract. Indeed both Hylton and Potts were signed after the window closed.
7 -
No chance they're on anything close to that.ElfsborgAddick said:CH4RLTON said:The argument that the like of Potts and Hylton are good for the culture and environment dosent hold much water with me, isnt that is what the coaches are supposed to be there for and cost a lot less to hire?
Between the pair of them they are possibly taking 10k a week, spent better elsewhere surely?2 -
Grapevine49 said:
Between the pair of them they are very possibility not! Sorry where did you get such figures from? With their appearance numbers in 2023/24 it is very likely beyond a pretty modest basic any notable remuneration will be appearance based.ElfsborgAddick said:CH4RLTON said:The argument that the like of Potts and Hylton are good for the culture and environment dosent hold much water with me, isnt that is what the coaches are supposed to be there for and cost a lot less to hire?
Between the pair of them they are possibly taking 10k a week, spent better elsewhere surely?
Any number of clubs will have likely kicked the tyres on Potts but on the basis of his injury records very few will have committed to any serious contract. Indeed both Hylton and Potts were signed after the window closed.Ex premier club salaries, nothing more than that.So in your humble opinion how much do you think they will be getting paid?1 -
I can't believe we are paying either of them that much.
Personally I see both as squad fillers. Neither makes the eighteen unless we have injuries or suspensions.
If it is inexpensive I would renew both because they could be useful in certain circumstances from the bench as subs and with 5 subs allowed these bit part players have their uses although neither seems to be able to start and play 90 minutes.
2 -
So there's a genuine thought process that Jones needs to splunk thousands a week on a few mates so he's happy at work?
I'm sorry but that's nonsense. Never in a million years should either of these two be getting offered contracts.
He's got a few Luton mates stuck with us, and I'm sure he's on talking terms with the team and tea lady by now, let's offer contracts to people who can actually get us 3 points. Not jobs for mates.
I'd rather us give what we're offering those 2 all to Lloyd Jones.3 -
This is the most compelling argument for letting both goBraziliance said:So there's a genuine thought process that Jones needs to splunk thousands a week on a few mates so he's happy at work?
I'm sorry but that's nonsense. Never in a million years should either of these two be getting offered contracts.
He's got a few Luton mates stuck with us, and I'm sure he's on talking terms with the team and tea lady by now, let's offer contracts to people who can actually get us 3 points. Not jobs for mates.
I'd rather us give what we're offering those 2 all to Lloyd Jones.5 -
Except if the wages were given to LJ, they count towards SCMP.Braziliance said:So there's a genuine thought process that Jones needs to splunk thousands a week on a few mates so he's happy at work?
I'm sorry but that's nonsense. Never in a million years should either of these two be getting offered contracts.
He's got a few Luton mates stuck with us, and I'm sure he's on talking terms with the team and tea lady by now, let's offer contracts to people who can actually get us 3 points. Not jobs for mates.
I'd rather us give what we're offering those 2 all to Lloyd Jones.
As coaches, they do not.0 -
Yeah, you're right that this is nonsense. Which is why no-one is actually saying that. What the argument actually says is that Jones wants people in the squad he knows will buy into the ethos and attitude he wants to instil in the squad.Braziliance said:So there's a genuine thought process that Jones needs to splunk thousands a week on a few mates so he's happy at work?
I'm sorry but that's nonsense. Never in a million years should either of these two be getting offered contracts.
He's got a few Luton mates stuck with us, and I'm sure he's on talking terms with the team and tea lady by now, let's offer contracts to people who can actually get us 3 points. Not jobs for mates.
I'd rather us give what we're offering those 2 all to Lloyd Jones.
If you want to question if he is right to do that or whether it's worth the finances that's fine by me but a strawman argument that he's just hired them so he's got a few mates about the place is disingenuous.14 -
Sponsored links:
-
Yeah I'm posting dramatically to emphasise how poor a signing those pair would be.
We can't break a wage structure for one man, it's too risky in league1, but that's how I value him.
If either sign I'll genuinely be pissed off, as it's these types of signing that have held us back for years.
Then next transfer window the club will be putting out soundbites on how we need to trim the squad again and we are struggling to move players on, rinse and repeat.
Let them both go, make Zak and Kanu part of the match day squad, same impact, money saved.
Then go and employ some actual coaches to improve our players, like proper clubs do, not jobs for mates. These are the basics.0 -
But do they on the current player/coach contracts that they're currently on? Is Potts even on a hybrid contract?SteveACS said:
Except if the wages were given to LJ, they count towards SCMP.Braziliance said:So there's a genuine thought process that Jones needs to splunk thousands a week on a few mates so he's happy at work?
I'm sorry but that's nonsense. Never in a million years should either of these two be getting offered contracts.
He's got a few Luton mates stuck with us, and I'm sure he's on talking terms with the team and tea lady by now, let's offer contracts to people who can actually get us 3 points. Not jobs for mates.
I'd rather us give what we're offering those 2 all to Lloyd Jones.
As coaches, they do not.0 -
So a fancy way of saying jobs for mates?thenewbie said:
Yeah, you're right that this is nonsense. Which is why no-one is actually saying that. What the argument actually says is that Jones wants people in the squad he knows will buy into the ethos and attitude he wants to instil in the squad.Braziliance said:So there's a genuine thought process that Jones needs to splunk thousands a week on a few mates so he's happy at work?
I'm sorry but that's nonsense. Never in a million years should either of these two be getting offered contracts.
He's got a few Luton mates stuck with us, and I'm sure he's on talking terms with the team and tea lady by now, let's offer contracts to people who can actually get us 3 points. Not jobs for mates.
I'd rather us give what we're offering those 2 all to Lloyd Jones.
If you want to question if he is right to do that or whether it's worth the finances that's fine by me but a strawman argument that he's just hired them so he's got a few mates about the place is disingenuous.
As clearly the point of signing them is for comfort reasons and players that 'understand what the manager wants'. That's just not how it should work, and why we are going backwards every year. Soft touch club with contracts.
If you're a striker who doesn't score, you shouldn't get a contract.
If you're a defender that isn't fit to play every game, you shouldn't get a contract.
Your logic works when a player comes with both accolades, of having the skill and the attitude/experience to play with a manager, it unfortunately doesn't when they only offer 1.
The club need to be stronger. Like I said, these are the signings that have held us back for years.1 -
I can see the thought process behind offering Potts another 6 months. Our defence is ok, and Jones has said that it is the attacking areas he wants to improve which I think most agree with. More pace and creativity is the priority. So, if we can get Potts to sign on as back up or to push Macca then why not and let any budget left or created by letting TE or TT leave then why not.
0 -
Doesn't matter, even if it's 5k a week between the pair it's too much.ElfsborgAddick said:Grapevine49 said:
Between the pair of them they are very possibility not! Sorry where did you get such figures from? With their appearance numbers in 2023/24 it is very likely beyond a pretty modest basic any notable remuneration will be appearance based.ElfsborgAddick said:CH4RLTON said:The argument that the like of Potts and Hylton are good for the culture and environment dosent hold much water with me, isnt that is what the coaches are supposed to be there for and cost a lot less to hire?
Between the pair of them they are possibly taking 10k a week, spent better elsewhere surely?
Any number of clubs will have likely kicked the tyres on Potts but on the basis of his injury records very few will have committed to any serious contract. Indeed both Hylton and Potts were signed after the window closed.Ex premier club salaries, nothing more than that.So in your humble opinion how much do you think they will be getting paid?
Can't believe the guessed salary fee is even being nit-picked when it's not entirely relevant.
The main issue is Charlton offering contracts to players who don't improve us on the pitch, and then the club using the excuse of needing wiggle room every fkn window because we sign said shit players.
2 -
You're arguing with yourself here as @thenewbie said "If you want to question if he is right to do that or whether it's worth the finances that's fine by me"Braziliance said:
So a fancy way of saying jobs for mates?thenewbie said:
Yeah, you're right that this is nonsense. Which is why no-one is actually saying that. What the argument actually says is that Jones wants people in the squad he knows will buy into the ethos and attitude he wants to instil in the squad.Braziliance said:So there's a genuine thought process that Jones needs to splunk thousands a week on a few mates so he's happy at work?
I'm sorry but that's nonsense. Never in a million years should either of these two be getting offered contracts.
He's got a few Luton mates stuck with us, and I'm sure he's on talking terms with the team and tea lady by now, let's offer contracts to people who can actually get us 3 points. Not jobs for mates.
I'd rather us give what we're offering those 2 all to Lloyd Jones.
If you want to question if he is right to do that or whether it's worth the finances that's fine by me but a strawman argument that he's just hired them so he's got a few mates about the place is disingenuous.
As clearly the argument is signing them for comfort reasons and players that 'understand what the manager wants'. That's just not how it should work, and why we are going backwards every year. Soft touch club with contracts.
If you're a striker who doesn't score, you shouldn't get a contract.
If you're a defender that isn't fit to play every game, you shouldn't get a contract.
Your reasoning works when a player comes with both accolades, of having the skill and the attitude/experience to play with a manager, it unfortunately doesn't when they only offer 1.
The club need to be stronger. Like I said, these are the signings that have held us back for years.0 -
Well it's not an argument so I'll change the word argument to point.Henry Irving said:
You're arguing with yourself here as @thenewbie said "If you want to question if he is right to do that or whether it's worth the finances that's fine by me"Braziliance said:
So a fancy way of saying jobs for mates?thenewbie said:
Yeah, you're right that this is nonsense. Which is why no-one is actually saying that. What the argument actually says is that Jones wants people in the squad he knows will buy into the ethos and attitude he wants to instil in the squad.Braziliance said:So there's a genuine thought process that Jones needs to splunk thousands a week on a few mates so he's happy at work?
I'm sorry but that's nonsense. Never in a million years should either of these two be getting offered contracts.
He's got a few Luton mates stuck with us, and I'm sure he's on talking terms with the team and tea lady by now, let's offer contracts to people who can actually get us 3 points. Not jobs for mates.
I'd rather us give what we're offering those 2 all to Lloyd Jones.
If you want to question if he is right to do that or whether it's worth the finances that's fine by me but a strawman argument that he's just hired them so he's got a few mates about the place is disingenuous.
As clearly the argument is signing them for comfort reasons and players that 'understand what the manager wants'. That's just not how it should work, and why we are going backwards every year. Soft touch club with contracts.
If you're a striker who doesn't score, you shouldn't get a contract.
If you're a defender that isn't fit to play every game, you shouldn't get a contract.
Your reasoning works when a player comes with both accolades, of having the skill and the attitude/experience to play with a manager, it unfortunately doesn't when they only offer 1.
The club need to be stronger. Like I said, these are the signings that have held us back for years.
Read a couple of pages back and thankfully enough people see through the bullshit that this club comes out with.0 -
The argument or point or whatever you want to call it is that Jones believes that having the likes of Potts and Hylton around does make the team better - whether because they lead by example in training etc or because the players who are first choice can learn from them and play better as a result - Miles using his physical power more effectively as an example.
Do either of them offer anything on the pitch, no they don't - no question there. But games aren't solely won 90 minutes at a time, it's about the training and the preparation and the mindset, which seems to be what Jones sees as the value of the players in question.
Again I'm not saying he's definitely right there, maybe there's other ways to do it and maybe those ways are better. But because you or I don't really see what happens on the non match days I don't think we can definitely say that they offer nothing and should be got rid of/are completely useless/"jobs for mates" hires.1 -
Well, not jobs for mates, jobs for role models to show a fairly young squad how to behave off the pitch to get the most out of their talent. There's no doubt Hylton in particular is a player who has made an awful lot of his fairly limited footballing talent through the mental side of the game. He's gone as high as the Championship without being particularly fast, a great finisher, deadly in the air, super strong or very creative. He's an absolute bastard on the pitch though and his determination against better players and outside of games to make the most of what he has.Braziliance said:
So a fancy way of saying jobs for mates?thenewbie said:
Yeah, you're right that this is nonsense. Which is why no-one is actually saying that. What the argument actually says is that Jones wants people in the squad he knows will buy into the ethos and attitude he wants to instil in the squad.Braziliance said:So there's a genuine thought process that Jones needs to splunk thousands a week on a few mates so he's happy at work?
I'm sorry but that's nonsense. Never in a million years should either of these two be getting offered contracts.
He's got a few Luton mates stuck with us, and I'm sure he's on talking terms with the team and tea lady by now, let's offer contracts to people who can actually get us 3 points. Not jobs for mates.
I'd rather us give what we're offering those 2 all to Lloyd Jones.
If you want to question if he is right to do that or whether it's worth the finances that's fine by me but a strawman argument that he's just hired them so he's got a few mates about the place is disingenuous.
As clearly the argument is signing them for comfort reasons and players that 'understand what the manager wants'. That's just not how it should work, and why we are going backwards every year. Soft touch club with contracts.
If you're a striker who doesn't score, you shouldn't get a contract.
If you're a defender that isn't fit to play every game, you shouldn't get a contract.
Your reasoning works when a player comes with both accolades, of having the skill and the attitude/experience to play with a manager, it unfortunately doesn't when they only offer 1.
The club need to be stronger. Like I said, these are the signings that have held us back for years.
Six of the players who started against Reading are under 25 and there's another 7 in that age range in the first team picture. The way Jones talks about Hylton and Potts is far more in terms of how they approach training, how they approach their recovery and their downtime and their overall attitude. I get why we have them, and if Gillesphey were a bit better we wouldn't really care that much about Potts being the backup, especially if his professionalism rubs off on the other players. I think with Berry, Hylton and ACampbell we must have enough of those sorts of players that I would rather we let Potts go and replaced him with a better LCB than Gillesphey but Hylton is coaching and showing the young players how they can make the most of what they have. You would hope though that by the end of this season at the latest they'd had enough of an impact that those sorts of players weren't needed anymore.
I did read on here that at the Reading game in August Mitchell was dropped over a lateness issue and it became a bigger thing than it needed to, I wonder if that sort of thing triggered Jones to try and professionalise the squad a bit more as we brought in Hylton and Potts after that, or if he always felt they were needed.3 -
Hes only a year older than Gillesphey and Jones and has good pedigree. If he had stayed fit he would be playing. If we think he is fit now then I wouldn't be averse to keeping him around as cover till the end of the year. But with other Jones soon out of contract if we see an opportunity to bring in someone on a long contract in that position then we should jump at that chance and not renew him.0
-
Sponsored links:
-
Any players not under contract, should be let go, unless it weakens the squad. Does letting Potts and Hylton go weaken the squad? I think WE all share the same view, that oddly isn't shared with NJ.3
-
They were at Luton, not Man City. And in any case Hylton just spent the last 2 years at Northampton, and he signed when they were in league 2 so he won't be on much at all.ElfsborgAddick said:Grapevine49 said:
Between the pair of them they are very possibility not! Sorry where did you get such figures from? With their appearance numbers in 2023/24 it is very likely beyond a pretty modest basic any notable remuneration will be appearance based.ElfsborgAddick said:CH4RLTON said:The argument that the like of Potts and Hylton are good for the culture and environment dosent hold much water with me, isnt that is what the coaches are supposed to be there for and cost a lot less to hire?
Between the pair of them they are possibly taking 10k a week, spent better elsewhere surely?
Any number of clubs will have likely kicked the tyres on Potts but on the basis of his injury records very few will have committed to any serious contract. Indeed both Hylton and Potts were signed after the window closed.Ex premier club salaries, nothing more than that.So in your humble opinion how much do you think they will be getting paid?
For arguments sake let's say they're on 5k a week (Potts 3k, Hylton 2k), i would much rather we offered Lloyd Jones an extra 3k a week and put the other 2k towards the wages of a new signing who can come in and impact the first XI. It might not sound a lot but that 2k extra on wages could be the difference between a player signing for us or going to someone like Stockport or Barnsley.
4 -
They are both said to be player/coaches, so yes, he is.Croydon said:
But do they on the current player/coach contracts that they're currently on? Is Potts even on a hybrid contract?SteveACS said:
Except if the wages were given to LJ, they count towards SCMP.Braziliance said:So there's a genuine thought process that Jones needs to splunk thousands a week on a few mates so he's happy at work?
I'm sorry but that's nonsense. Never in a million years should either of these two be getting offered contracts.
He's got a few Luton mates stuck with us, and I'm sure he's on talking terms with the team and tea lady by now, let's offer contracts to people who can actually get us 3 points. Not jobs for mates.
I'd rather us give what we're offering those 2 all to Lloyd Jones.
As coaches, they do not.
Also it was the way that some team got around have Wayne Rooney on their books a couple of years ago, as "coach" doesn't count towards SCMP.0 -
Jeez. Load of posts about not a lot7
-
Agree totally with ridding the wages and giving to Jones.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
They were at Luton, not Man City. And in any case Hylton just spent the last 2 years at Northampton, and he signed when they were in league 2 so he won't be on much at all.ElfsborgAddick said:Grapevine49 said:
Between the pair of them they are very possibility not! Sorry where did you get such figures from? With their appearance numbers in 2023/24 it is very likely beyond a pretty modest basic any notable remuneration will be appearance based.ElfsborgAddick said:CH4RLTON said:The argument that the like of Potts and Hylton are good for the culture and environment dosent hold much water with me, isnt that is what the coaches are supposed to be there for and cost a lot less to hire?
Between the pair of them they are possibly taking 10k a week, spent better elsewhere surely?
Any number of clubs will have likely kicked the tyres on Potts but on the basis of his injury records very few will have committed to any serious contract. Indeed both Hylton and Potts were signed after the window closed.Ex premier club salaries, nothing more than that.So in your humble opinion how much do you think they will be getting paid?
For arguments sake let's say they're on 5k a week (Potts 3k, Hylton 2k), i would much rather we offered Lloyd Jones an extra 3k a week and put the other 2k towards the wages of a new signing who can come in and impact the first XI. It might not sound a lot but that 2k extra on wages could be the difference between a player signing for us or going to someone like Stockport or Barnsley.
0 -
I can't imagine Potts came from Championship wages to £3k.0
-
The fella who told me is sure his source is well connected on the approximate 10k joint wage.Gisappointed said:I can't imagine Potts came from Championship wages to £3k.
Either way, whatever is being paid seems it could be used better elsewhere.0 -
He came from no wages. He was without a club and we signed him after the transfer window closed so i doubt he had tons of offers given he hadn't played for over a year.Gisappointed said:I can't imagine Potts came from Championship wages to £3k.4 -
It’s not that odd. It’s clear that their value is to the environment and on the training ground. So we obviously see none of that but Jones willThe Prince-e-Paul said:Any players not under contract, should be let go, unless it weakens the squad. Does letting Potts and Hylton go weaken the squad? I think WE all share the same view, that oddly isn't shared with NJ.
I don’t mind Hylton staying, he’s probably cheaper and has at least been fit enough to play. Plus Jones has mentioned the ways in which he has helped, and he’s at an age where a full time switch to coaching is near0 -
Is Potts here as a “coach” good around the place type guy? I know Hylton is but wasn’t aware that was the case for Potts.0
