Tea & Busquets
Well-Known Member
i often forget that half the blokes on this forum could be my father
i often forget that half the blokes on this forum could be my fatherRoad slang “this don” basically this guy
Im 23 LOLi often forget that half the blokes on this forum could be my father
Possibly mate, say hello to your mum for me!i often forget that half the blokes on this forum could be my father
i often forget that half the blokes on this forum could be my father
Or grandfather!i often forget that half the blokes on this forum could be my father
I'll be your daddyi often forget that half the blokes on this forum could be my father
Seems unnecessarily risky if it doesn’t work out
On the other hand, if Hamer had been on a 2 year contract then we'd already be in a position where we're having to sell now to avoid losing him for nothing.
Hamer was a proven emerging talent with clubs throughout Europe showing interest in him. So his contract length makes sense. Hillsner and Dacosta weren't and likely received little interest. The same applies to Jobello and Kastaneer.
Just not sure why the club couldn't have just put them on 2 year contracts with the option of a further year in the clubs favour. Unless there was a reason that the club were unable to do so.
Foreign signings are taking a bigger risk moving everything over to England, very few are going to engage on shorter term contracts. Hence the club is probably 'forced' into a situation where they need to offer 3 years.
Obviously the club can walk away but you are likely then just reducing your talent pool back to UK based and it's whether players are available for the same cost (foreign signings wage per week will likely be lower) and are viewed as having the same potential. Obviously the plan was to develop players and make a profit, and most English talent is hoovered up by premier League teams, and that which isn't is unlikely to be free and so transfer fees for young British talent lower down the league's is going to be pricey.
I'm afraid I don't agree at all.
If the club are being forced into giving 3-year contracts to the aforementioned players bar Hamer then there's a fundamental flaw in their foreign recruitment policy. Especially when the players in question aren't particularly sought after.
The Championship is an extremely attractive league to join, even more so to players who have been plying their trade in Europe's lower divisions. Therefore, it begs the question why were players such as Hillsner in the driving seat in negotiations when their career was going absolutely nowhere. A two year contract with an option of a further year is hardly an unreasonable deal.
What don't you agree with?
'Forced' was in inverted commas as it's not forced, but the reality is when you are shopping in homebargains you don't get the luxury of choice. That's why they are in the driving seat. Yes the championship is attractive but thats largely down the amount of money on offer. Something we don't have. And as I have said in the rest of my post the reason the players are in the driving seat in that situation are because the club can say no. But we aren't a big club and so we likely don't have extensive European knowledge. And at that point you are back at domestic talent. Which you can just read my previous post about why we likely didn't have huge options there.
To me the European signings are completely done on risk. Get them cheaper than you would domestic talent, with the hope they are just as good and can then be sold on at huge profit. I think that has largely been disproven given our limited scouting resources abroad.
I think Hilsner is the exception to the other foreign signings. Just in terms of where he came from and his age, he just seems odd, at least with the others you can kind of see the thinking. I don't know why we were in for him at all.
It was curious how many wingers we had on the books when there was no intention of using a system with them
What don't you agree with?
'Forced' was in inverted commas as it's not forced, but the reality is when you are shopping in homebargains you don't get the luxury of choice. That's why they are in the driving seat. Yes the championship is attractive but thats largely down the amount of money on offer. Something we don't have. And as I have said in the rest of my post the reason the players are in the driving seat in that situation are because the club can say no. But we aren't a big club and so we likely don't have extensive European knowledge. And at that point you are back at domestic talent. Which you can just read my previous post about why we likely didn't have huge options there.
To me the European signings are completely done on risk. Get them cheaper than you would domestic talent, with the hope they are just as good and can then be sold on at huge profit. I think that has largely been disproven given our limited scouting resources abroad.
I think Hilsner is the exception to the other foreign signings. Just in terms of where he came from and his age, he just seems odd, at least with the others you can kind of see the thinking. I don't know why we were in for him at all.
It was curious how many wingers we had on the books when there was no intention of using a system with them
When Jobello, Kastaneer, etc joined we were playing with wingers. Was essentially Jobello's injury that moved us away from wingers.
You're explaining things that don't need explaining.
I simply don't agree with your view that the club were forced into giving players with very little prospects a 3-year deal when we're offering them a chance to play in a very sought after league.
Delving into the theory of why we dipped into the European market or the reasoning behind why European players come to England is largely irrelevant to the issue I have with the arguement in question as personally I don't see how offering a two year deal with the option of another year to players that are either a work-in-progress or a calculated risk as a deal breaker. And if it is, why the club seemed to think that it wasn't sensible to move on is beyond me.
Understandably we're not in the market for the finished article therefore more calculated risks are going to have to be taken than not. However, if you think it's logical for the club to not mitigate that calculated risk by structuring the deal in their favour to ensure that any financial outlay is minimised if the move doesn't work out, then I just can't agree with you.
I'll be your daddy
Alright snappy
Where did I say it was logical? Or that I even disagree that we should structure them differently? I'm simply stating potential reasons why they were offered. Not that I agree with it. In fact I agree with you the club has been absolutely fleeced.
You brought up England being attractive. I simply explained why it's hardly attractive to a foreign signing if they only get 2 years and then might have to pack their bags and go back.
I do agree that the deals should work better in the club's favour. But I'm also able to look at it from the other side, and consider why it may not have worked out like that. Considering it happened in consecutive seasons, it doesn't seem flash in the pan or like it wasn't the general policy for 3 year deals perhaps because of some of the reasons I have mentioned. Or maybe it was flash in the pan and we just repeated the same mistakes even after their abject failure, if so then the club seriously needs to look into that don't they.
What don't you agree with?
'Forced' was in inverted commas as it's not forced, but the reality is when you are shopping in homebargains you don't get the luxury of choice. That's why they are in the driving seat. Yes the championship is attractive but thats largely down the amount of money on offer. Something we don't have. And as I have said in the rest of my post the reason the players are in the driving seat in that situation are because the club can say no. But we aren't a big club and so we likely don't have extensive European knowledge. And at that point you are back at domestic talent. Which you can just read my previous post about why we likely didn't have huge options there.
To me the European signings are completely done on risk. Get them cheaper than you would domestic talent, with the hope they are just as good and can then be sold on at huge profit. I think that has largely been disproven given our limited scouting resources abroad.
I think Hilsner is the exception to the other foreign signings. Just in terms of where he came from and his age, he just seems odd, at least with the others you can kind of see the thinking. I don't know why we were in for him at all.
Agreed, it was very odd. I understand the switch due to injuries in the promotion season. As the intention was clearly to play with wingers at first.
We are now in a situation where we are kind of commited to wing backs no matter what, so hopefully it continues to work for us!
It's not for two years though. It'd be 3 if they actually perform well and become a credit to the squad. It's beyond entitlement if the likes of Hillsner believe they deserve more than that with their prior career and record, and it's horribly naive by the club if they're roped into meeting ridiculous demands of quite obviously poor players who they admit aren't near the finished article.
It is still attractive. If it's wasn't by your logic every foreign signing who comes to the UK has to be on a three year deal or more. Your tone infers that you think players don't take calculated risks just as clubs do?
Plenty of foreign signings come in on less than 3 year deals as the money is likely better than their previous club, and if not the opportunity to come to England to try and climb up the ladder is still far more appealing and potentially overall far better for their career/financial prospects than if they were to go elsewhere.
Well the general policy is frankly idiotic as it's cost the club hundreds of thousands in revenue, which we simply don't have to freely burn.
Thing with wing backs is that you can then use then at both LB and LM/LW if you need to revert to using full backs. We've seen with Mason and Jobello players that are full-backs/wingers that they struggle to adapt.
If yoyu've got to wing backs you could play one at full-back and one on the wing and between they they will be able to do both the attacking and defending adequately. You could even make the opposition think a bit by having them switch occassionally. It could help you test the opposition, esp if one likes to go down the outside and corss while the other likes to cut inside and shoot. When we had Giles and McCallum I felt that if we had needed to go to a back-four you could have had McCallum at LB and Giles LW and the two could have worked well together.
I think there's more flexibility in a wing back than in full-backs and wingers.
The club as a Championship club is in a very strong bargaining position with a player of Hilssner's ilk.
Mother bit of a slag is it?i often forget that half the blokes on this forum could be my father
Yes I've always had a problem with the over hype of the Premier League (which I despise more and more as a league every year.) But our lower leagues absolutely blow foreign lower leagues out the water, for quality and for support.He’s played most of his football in the 3.Liga Germany’s third tier, generally the foreign lower leagues are nowhere as strong as ours
I see they have reserve/2nd teams playing in it. Gross.After a bit of digging the 3.Liga is professional, the fourth tier and below is semi pro/amateur
After a bit of digging the 3.Liga is professional, the fourth tier and below is semi pro/amateur
I have a recollection that someone on the staff (Robins / Badlan) did say when Jobello / Kasta signed that we were offering them three year deals because they were moving here from abroad.You're explaining things that don't need explaining.
I simply don't agree with your view that the club were forced into giving players with very little prospects a 3-year deal when we're offering them a chance to play in a very sought after league.
Delving into the theory of why we dipped into the European market or the reasoning behind why European players come to England is largely irrelevant to the issue I have with the arguement in question as personally I don't see how offering a two year deal with the option of another year to players that are either a work-in-progress or a calculated risk as a deal breaker. And if it is, why the club seemed to think that it wasn't sensible to move on is beyond me.
Understandably we're not in the market for the finished article therefore more calculated risks are going to have to be taken than not. However, if you think it's logical for the club to not mitigate that calculated risk by structuring the deal in their favour to ensure that any financial outlay is minimised if the move doesn't work out, then I just can't agree with you.
When Jobello, Kastaneer, etc joined we were playing with wingers. Was essentially Jobello's injury that moved us away from wingers.
The average wage in 3.Liga is also reportedly around 8000 euros a month on average which equates to roughly 1700 pw - which actually works out to be worse than the average wage in League Two.
To think that players from such leagues wouldn't snap a hand off for a move to the Championship even if the deal on the table wasn't in their favour is frankly ludicrous.
Someone on the staff (Robins / Badlan) did say when Jobello / Kasta signed that we were offering them three year deals because they were moving here from abroad.
Someone on the staff (Robins / Badlan) did say when Jobello / Kasta signed that we were offering them three year deals because they were moving here from abroad.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?