Todd Kane (17 Viewers)

Forums New posts
K

KenilworthSkyBlue

Well-Known Member
mark82 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
skybluegod

skybluegod

Well-Known Member
KenilworthSkyBlue said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
K

KenilworthSkyBlue

Well-Known Member
skybluegod said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
skybluegod

skybluegod

Well-Known Member
KenilworthSkyBlue said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
skybluegod said:
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.
Click to expand...

It was curious how many wingers we had on the books when there was no intention of using a system with them
 
K

KenilworthSkyBlue

Well-Known Member
skybluegod said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
skybluegod

skybluegod

Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue said:
It was curious how many wingers we had on the books when there was no intention of using a system with them
Click to expand...

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!
 
skybluegod

skybluegod

Well-Known Member
mark82 said:
When Jobello, Kastaneer, etc joined we were playing with wingers. Was essentially Jobello's injury that moved us away from wingers.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the strange thing tho? To have a system that relies on 1 players fitness? And then have no intention to go back it it? I get that wing backs worked but it seemed odd that losing 1 player caused such a dramatic change. Given the amount of hype on jobello and kastaneer. Also signalled the end of Hiwula. Not complaining as it all worked out, it's just odd.
 
skybluegod

skybluegod

Well-Known Member
KenilworthSkyBlue said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
fatso said:
I'll be your daddy 😉
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
K

KenilworthSkyBlue

Well-Known Member
skybluegod said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
skybluegod said:
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.
Click to expand...

The club as a Championship club is in a very strong bargaining position with a player of Hilssner's ilk.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
skybluegod said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
skybluegod

skybluegod

Well-Known Member
KenilworthSkyBlue said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think I agree. I think it's always sounded better on paper than in reality. If you are playing as a winger/wide-forward (very few teams play traditional wingers) it's a very different attacking game to that of a WB. How many decent attacking LB's have we had over the years have you seen have fans say 'we should play them as a winger' only for it to not work out.

Whilst they may be able to get a decent cross in, the movement the decisions, the skills of an out and out forward are totally different. Not to mention they are vital to providing far more goals/goal contributions than they do currently.

i do agree there is certainly more flexibility in wingbacks simply because they can play as you Lb or LWB and we also have the added benefit of not having to buy out and out wingers budget wise. Just not sure I agree that you could play both options at once, as history suggests it very rarely works!
 
TomRad85

TomRad85

Well-Known Member
SlowerThanPlatt said:
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
Click to expand...
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.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 
TomRad85

TomRad85

Well-Known Member
SlowerThanPlatt said:
After a bit of digging the 3.Liga is professional, the fourth tier and below is semi pro/amateur
Click to expand...
I see they have reserve/2nd teams playing in it. Gross.
If that ever happened over here I'd give up on football altogether and find something else to amuse myself with.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 
K

KenilworthSkyBlue

Well-Known Member
SlowerThanPlatt said:
After a bit of digging the 3.Liga is professional, the fourth tier and below is semi pro/amateur
Click to expand...

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.
 
KG7

KG7

Well-Known Member
KenilworthSkyBlue said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
mark82 said:
When Jobello, Kastaneer, etc joined we were playing with wingers. Was essentially Jobello's injury that moved us away from wingers.
Click to expand...

Then we signed Hilssner
KenilworthSkyBlue said:
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.
Click to expand...

The average L2 player is on nearly 100 grand a year? Really?
 
K

KenilworthSkyBlue

Well-Known Member
KG7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

In fairness to Robins/Badlan, I perhaps understand more why 3 year deals were offered to Kastaneer and Jobello. League One isn't an overly attractive league for a foreign player to join and the money probably isn't much better therefore the club had to incentivise them.

The fact they didn't learn from putting Kastaneer in particular on a three year contract however is the more concerning issue. Foreign signings don't come with a 'three year deal only' sign around their neck.
 
SlowerThanPlatt

SlowerThanPlatt

Well-Known Member
KG7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That was fair because we were in League 1 and even though they didn’t work out they came from and had played at comparable levels

The 3.Liga is in no way comparable to the Championship
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top