Jump to content
cambridgeshire canary

Can we get a refund for Sargent?

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, chicken said:

Sorry, this is rubbish.

Normann was brought in to replace Skipp. Are we expecting a possible £10million player to be better than a player that is starting regularly for a consistently top 6 side? No, don't be daft.

As for improve the side, yes, we did.

Gibson and Giannoulis both improvements on the squad last season and made permanent this season. £15m for the pair. Presumably you didn't mind that as you said you'd rather go with the players from last season?

Gunn - £5m for a premier league experienced goal keeper who was 25, now 26, and knew the club well and performed well with us during a previous spell? Bit of a no brainer. Better than McGovern? Yes. Strengthened the squad? Yes. 

Kabak - 21, has shown glimpses that given more time in the English game and the right coaching, he could be quite an asset. On loan, so if it doesn't work out, and he's not for us, nothing lost. Deal already agreed should we want to keep him if we stay up. £10m is the rumour, and that is cheap for a PL level defender. Without him we would have had to play games without a recognised CB.

Williams - you'd struggle to find any reasonable argument to suggest he hasn't improved our squad, let alone strengthened it.

Normann - injuries aside, many feel he has been a class above. A quality signing. Improved the squad? Certainly.

PLM - For Lees-Melou you need to look at who we were losing, Tettey, Trybull, Vrancic. None of them were really premier league quality anymore. Tettey has since retired. Trybull went to a Bundesliga 2 side. Vrancic has continued to do well at Championship level but was never going to be a regular started for us. So whether you agree or not, PLM is an improvement and has strengthened the side. Perhaps we are seeing more consistency from him now he is adapting to the English game? Debatable, so that's 1 out of 4 so far.

Gilmore - tough one. Has he got the quality in there? Yes. Consistency? Not yet. He's 20, and like Tzolis, you have to expect that unless that are already at a fantastic level, consistency is something you expect from more established players, more experienced players. He has played well at times, again, glimpses, but is the squad stronger with him added to it? Arguably at this point he's not done anything that Vrancic couldn't do, for example.

Rashica - now here's the thing, if you are considering him like for like with Buendia, then no, not as good. However, for the money, I think we brought in a very good player. Clearly gifted and much faster than Buendia. Arguably spends less time on the floor complaining that he didn't manage to dribble past 3 players either. Again, seems to be hitting his stride after a period of adapting to the English game etc. So a yes/no - better than Dowell/Hernandes/Placheta - yes. Better than Cantwell this season - yes. Better than Buendia - no. Currently our best wide player.

Tzolis - we were told one for the future. The only really questionable signing in many ways. Can we afford to pay out £10m for a player that will be good in a couple of years when what we need is a player that can help us stay up now? He really is one that we'll have to judge with time, though he has shown glimpses of the quality he has.

Sargent - £8m. Better than Hugill? For me, yes. More mobile, more adaptable. Hugill scored 5 goals in 34 league and cup appearances last season and cost us £5m. At 21, Sargent has 4 goals in 21 league and cup appearances this season - at a higher level. A certain improvement on Hugill and along with Idah, means we have essentially a two horse race to be the successor to Pukki... though, as things are at the moment, all of them on the pitch together appears to be working pretty well.

So overall, I think there are genuinely two players you could genuinely suggest haven't improved the squad. Have they performed consistently enough? Not yet.

The only way you can spend more money on fewer players though, is to not make some signings and to keep some of the players we released from their contracts. Skipp was never ours too keep, so holding onto him isn't part of the question. Nor was keeping hold of Buendia - something we now know we did last summer because of an agreement to move him on this summer. A deal largely in place from early last year by all accounts.

So at that point you have:
- Skipp, returning to Spurs.
- Buendia, sold to Aston Villa.
- Nyland, released.
- Heise, released.
- Tettey, released.
- Leitner, released.
- Trybull, released.
- Vrancic, released.
- Klose, released.
- Thompson, released.
- Stiepermann, released at his request.
- Drmic, loaned out.
- Soto, loaned out.
- Hernandez, loaned out.
- Hugill, loaned out.
- J.Martin, loaned out.

Those are the main players considered to be in and around the first team squad or at least have been in the past. Out of those who would you argue to have kept? Out of those, do you genuinely believe any of them are better than what we have now?

Then which of our signings would you have not spent on? We can't consider Gibson and Giannoulis as the deals that brought them to us last season meant we were locked into signing them, and wouldn't have gained promotion without them. That leaves:
- Sargent, £8m.
- Rashica, £9.5m.
- Tzolis, £10m.
- Gunn, £5m.
- PLM, £3.75m.
- Normann, loan.
- Kabak, loan.
- Gilmore, loan.
- Williams, loan.

You could argue to keep Nyland and not bother with Gunn, that's a bit of a gift but doesn't help anything long term, purely a short term stop gap, IF Nyland is happy to play backup again. Though, £5m would then presumably be added to the pot for a striker, so no Sargent? Isn't enough to have landed Armstrong... Tzolis perhaps?

For me, that's really what it comes down to. Tzolis. Not that he is a bad player, it's clear he has quality, but that are we able to afford to spend that kind of chunk of our budget on a player who will be good but isn't there just yet. Honestly, that's the only real criticism I can see. You could arguably make the same point about Sargent, Kabak, Gilmore and Williams. Gambling on the consistency of youth, investing in their promise rather than their current levels, to keep us up?

Excellent post.

Yes, Tzolis and Gunn are the main ones, but I'd really prefer to have kept Vrancic over signing PLM. The big one for me is Gilmour. I think trying to fit him in caused a large portion of our problems.

I would have gone all out and signed a £15-20m CDM. But maybe a better striker would have been a good priority.

I can't predict the future. I'm fearful that the players we now have will struggle next season. But I'm quietly hopeful that I'm being overly pessimistic. You've reassured me somewhat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, chicken said:

Sorry, this is rubbish.

Normann was brought in to replace Skipp. Are we expecting a possible £10million player to be better than a player that is starting regularly for a consistently top 6 side? No, don't be daft.

As for improve the side, yes, we did.

Gibson and Giannoulis both improvements on the squad last season and made permanent this season. £15m for the pair. Presumably you didn't mind that as you said you'd rather go with the players from last season?

Gunn - £5m for a premier league experienced goal keeper who was 25, now 26, and knew the club well and performed well with us during a previous spell? Bit of a no brainer. Better than McGovern? Yes. Strengthened the squad? Yes. 

Kabak - 21, has shown glimpses that given more time in the English game and the right coaching, he could be quite an asset. On loan, so if it doesn't work out, and he's not for us, nothing lost. Deal already agreed should we want to keep him if we stay up. £10m is the rumour, and that is cheap for a PL level defender. Without him we would have had to play games without a recognised CB.

Williams - you'd struggle to find any reasonable argument to suggest he hasn't improved our squad, let alone strengthened it.

Normann - injuries aside, many feel he has been a class above. A quality signing. Improved the squad? Certainly.

PLM - For Lees-Melou you need to look at who we were losing, Tettey, Trybull, Vrancic. None of them were really premier league quality anymore. Tettey has since retired. Trybull went to a Bundesliga 2 side. Vrancic has continued to do well at Championship level but was never going to be a regular started for us. So whether you agree or not, PLM is an improvement and has strengthened the side. Perhaps we are seeing more consistency from him now he is adapting to the English game? Debatable, so that's 1 out of 4 so far.

Gilmore - tough one. Has he got the quality in there? Yes. Consistency? Not yet. He's 20, and like Tzolis, you have to expect that unless that are already at a fantastic level, consistency is something you expect from more established players, more experienced players. He has played well at times, again, glimpses, but is the squad stronger with him added to it? Arguably at this point he's not done anything that Vrancic couldn't do, for example.

Rashica - now here's the thing, if you are considering him like for like with Buendia, then no, not as good. However, for the money, I think we brought in a very good player. Clearly gifted and much faster than Buendia. Arguably spends less time on the floor complaining that he didn't manage to dribble past 3 players either. Again, seems to be hitting his stride after a period of adapting to the English game etc. So a yes/no - better than Dowell/Hernandes/Placheta - yes. Better than Cantwell this season - yes. Better than Buendia - no. Currently our best wide player.

Tzolis - we were told one for the future. The only really questionable signing in many ways. Can we afford to pay out £10m for a player that will be good in a couple of years when what we need is a player that can help us stay up now? He really is one that we'll have to judge with time, though he has shown glimpses of the quality he has.

Sargent - £8m. Better than Hugill? For me, yes. More mobile, more adaptable. Hugill scored 5 goals in 34 league and cup appearances last season and cost us £5m. At 21, Sargent has 4 goals in 21 league and cup appearances this season - at a higher level. A certain improvement on Hugill and along with Idah, means we have essentially a two horse race to be the successor to Pukki... though, as things are at the moment, all of them on the pitch together appears to be working pretty well.

So overall, I think there are genuinely two players you could genuinely suggest haven't improved the squad. Have they performed consistently enough? Not yet.

The only way you can spend more money on fewer players though, is to not make some signings and to keep some of the players we released from their contracts. Skipp was never ours too keep, so holding onto him isn't part of the question. Nor was keeping hold of Buendia - something we now know we did last summer because of an agreement to move him on this summer. A deal largely in place from early last year by all accounts.

So at that point you have:
- Skipp, returning to Spurs.
- Buendia, sold to Aston Villa.
- Nyland, released.
- Heise, released.
- Tettey, released.
- Leitner, released.
- Trybull, released.
- Vrancic, released.
- Klose, released.
- Thompson, released.
- Stiepermann, released at his request.
- Drmic, loaned out.
- Soto, loaned out.
- Hernandez, loaned out.
- Hugill, loaned out.
- J.Martin, loaned out.

Those are the main players considered to be in and around the first team squad or at least have been in the past. Out of those who would you argue to have kept? Out of those, do you genuinely believe any of them are better than what we have now?

Then which of our signings would you have not spent on? We can't consider Gibson and Giannoulis as the deals that brought them to us last season meant we were locked into signing them, and wouldn't have gained promotion without them. That leaves:
- Sargent, £8m.
- Rashica, £9.5m.
- Tzolis, £10m.
- Gunn, £5m.
- PLM, £3.75m.
- Normann, loan.
- Kabak, loan.
- Gilmore, loan.
- Williams, loan.

You could argue to keep Nyland and not bother with Gunn, that's a bit of a gift but doesn't help anything long term, purely a short term stop gap, IF Nyland is happy to play backup again. Though, £5m would then presumably be added to the pot for a striker, so no Sargent? Isn't enough to have landed Armstrong... Tzolis perhaps?

For me, that's really what it comes down to. Tzolis. Not that he is a bad player, it's clear he has quality, but that are we able to afford to spend that kind of chunk of our budget on a player who will be good but isn't there just yet. Honestly, that's the only real criticism I can see. You could arguably make the same point about Sargent, Kabak, Gilmore and Williams. Gambling on the consistency of youth, investing in their promise rather than their current levels, to keep us up?

Well put together.   It’s a reasonable assessment.   I believe all of these players would have been more productive and better offensively had we sorted the CDM position with proper power and athleticism  and no reason they won’t prosper over time provided we do sort that position out once and for all!   The players we had and the ones we’ve now got can’t do that CDM job, although Lungi might come good.   
 

Tzolis needs to be playing, we should send him to PAOK for the rest of the season to develop and regain confidence….

Edited by ged in the onion bag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Petriix said:

Excellent post.

Yes, Tzolis and Gunn are the main ones, but I'd really prefer to have kept Vrancic over signing PLM. The big one for me is Gilmour. I think trying to fit him in caused a large portion of our problems.

I would have gone all out and signed a £15-20m CDM. But maybe a better striker would have been a good priority.

I can't predict the future. I'm fearful that the players we now have will struggle next season. But I'm quietly hopeful that I'm being overly pessimistic. You've reassured me somewhat.

I keep hearing this 20m on a player mantra and it’s devoid of reality. It’s not really the fee that is the issue it’s the wages, the likelihood of relegation and the relegation wage drop clause that stops us getting a top player in.

If Nice in France can offer same wages, without fear of relegation, possible European football and won’t ask for a relegation drop clause, you’ll pick them all day long. Other clubs in Uk won’t have clause either as they have owners who can stomach subsidising for a bit.

The criticism of signing Tzolis is very harsh too. The only way to bring in a top talent to the current structure is either a loan or get them young and try and make them reach their potential. It’s been our biggest success. Maddison, Godfrey, Buendia have been obvious examples. It’s what we have to do. Tzolis is 19, same age as Maddison when we bought him. People were patient with him for over a year before he broke into the side but are already writing off Tzolis as a waste of money.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Petriix said:

Excellent post.

Yes, Tzolis and Gunn are the main ones, but I'd really prefer to have kept Vrancic over signing PLM. The big one for me is Gilmour. I think trying to fit him in caused a large portion of our problems.

I would have gone all out and signed a £15-20m CDM. But maybe a better striker would have been a good priority.

I can't predict the future. I'm fearful that the players we now have will struggle next season. But I'm quietly hopeful that I'm being overly pessimistic. You've reassured me somewhat.

PLM is starting to show his quality at this point, I think he offers more than Vrancic could at this point.

I agree on Gunn and Tzolis. Spending £15m odd on players 'for the future' (and I remain unconvinced Gunn is actually good) is all well and good if you've got right now sorted which we didn't.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hertfordyellow said:

The criticism of signing Tzolis is very harsh too. The only way to bring in a top talent to the current structure is either a loan or get them young and try and make them reach their potential. It’s been our biggest success. Maddison, Godfrey, Buendia have been obvious examples. It’s what we have to do. Tzolis is 19, same age as Maddison when we bought him. People were patient with him for over a year before he broke into the side but are already writing off Tzolis as a waste of money.

I don't think its a harsh criticism at all, in respect of the examples you made:

Buendia came in and was one of our best players within weeks / months, so hardly 'one for the future' and not an example that justifies the Tzolis signing. 

And for the likes of Maddison and Godfrey, the key difference is that these transfers represented very small outlays in comparison to the rest of our spend. Both players were brought in for / during the 15/16 season.

Maddison was reported as £2mil and Godfrey £150k, and during that campaign we also brought in (approx) Naismith for £8m, Tim Klose for £7-8m Dorrans for £3m, Brady for £7m, Matt Jarvis for £2.5m, Ivo Pinto for £2m amongst transfers for s.

That's ~7% of the above spend on 2 players for the future. 

Tzolis on the other hand at just shy of £10 mil represents roughly 20% of our overall spend, on someone who doesn't look close to capable of contributing in the PL this season.

Throw in Gunn as another 'future' option that we didn't necessarily need to make, and we're close to 30% of our overall spend on players who aren't tangibly affecting our season's efforts (I'd argue we could've kept Nyland as a cheaper number 2 option and utilised the money better elsewhere). 

Considering the importance in getting players to hit the ground running, in the face of losing two outstanding players from the prior year (and they have shown to have been freakishly important in Daniel Farke's system), then I think its clearly a questionable use of a significant portion of our budget. 

That's not to say either player won't come good, we may even profit significantly from Tzolis in the next 2-4 seasons, but more a question of whether or not the signing was the right player for what was needed at the time. Given we are still in a position where we look more likely than not to go down, then I think its a valid question to ask. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say PLM's last two games were probably better than anything Vrancic came up with in the Premier and if he's showing signs of getting to grips with affairs, he's going to look like a very canny signing at the price paid. Don't get me wrong, PLM can't pick a pass like Vrancic, but is a more balanced midfielder than Mario ever was. That said, we do lose a major threat on set pieces with Vrancic gone.

The concern I would have with PLM is who does he link well with? Certainly not McLean or Gilmour. Not sure it would work with Rupp as for all Rupp's ground-covering diligence and awareness out of possession, he's still weaker in the defensive side of the game and if anything, is a bit too similar to PLM in that they're at their best driving forward, linking up play. The combination with Sörensen looks really promising and I'd like to see more of that. 

If we're going to have a midfield three then Sörensen, PLM and Normann is what I would like to see for a few.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I'd say PLM's last two games were probably better than anything Vrancic came up with in the Premier and if he's showing signs of getting to grips with affairs, he's going to look like a very canny signing at the price paid. Don't get me wrong, PLM can't pick a pass like Vrancic, but is a more balanced midfielder than Mario ever was. That said, we do lose a major threat on set pieces with Vrancic gone.

The concern I would have with PLM is who does he link well with? Certainly not McLean or Gilmour. Not sure it would work with Rupp as for all Rupp's ground-covering diligence and awareness out of possession, he's still weaker in the defensive side of the game and if anything, is a bit too similar to PLM in that they're at their best driving forward, linking up play. The combination with Sörensen looks really promising and I'd like to see more of that. 

If we're going to have a midfield three then Sörensen, PLM and Normann is what I would like to see for a few.

In my view PLM is the better option than McLean out of those two and did seem to dovetail well with Sorenson. Normann is the wildcard as he seems to be more of a physical, box to box type but if he can more disciplined then he might be able to work well with PLM.

Gilmour feels like the one 'out in the cold' somewhat. He seems to need a proper on defensive destroyer next to him and we just don't have one apart from possibly Sorenson, and a Smith team seems less focused the type of short passing Gilmour does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

I don't think its a harsh criticism at all, in respect of the examples you made:

Buendia came in and was one of our best players within weeks / months, so hardly 'one for the future' and not an example that justifies the Tzolis signing. 

And for the likes of Maddison and Godfrey, the key difference is that these transfers represented very small outlays in comparison to the rest of our spend. Both players were brought in for / during the 15/16 season.

Maddison was reported as £2mil and Godfrey £150k, and during that campaign we also brought in (approx) Naismith for £8m, Tim Klose for £7-8m Dorrans for £3m, Brady for £7m, Matt Jarvis for £2.5m, Ivo Pinto for £2m amongst transfers for s.

That's ~7% of the above spend on 2 players for the future. 

Tzolis on the other hand at just shy of £10 mil represents roughly 20% of our overall spend, on someone who doesn't look close to capable of contributing in the PL this season.

Throw in Gunn as another 'future' option that we didn't necessarily need to make, and we're close to 30% of our overall spend on players who aren't tangibly affecting our season's efforts (I'd argue we could've kept Nyland as a cheaper number 2 option and utilised the money better elsewhere). 

Considering the importance in getting players to hit the ground running, in the face of losing two outstanding players from the prior year (and they have shown to have been freakishly important in Daniel Farke's system), then I think its clearly a questionable use of a significant portion of our budget. 

That's not to say either player won't come good, we may even profit significantly from Tzolis in the next 2-4 seasons, but more a question of whether or not the signing was the right player for what was needed at the time. Given we are still in a position where we look more likely than not to go down, then I think its a valid question to ask. 

Buendia wasn’t a regular within weeks. And when you compare Maddison or Buendia to Tzolis, you are comparing Championship to Premiership which we know isn’t remotely equivalent. Maddison was more like 3 over six years ago. We can guess from his demolition of Bournemouth in the cup that Tzolis won’t be out of place in the Championship. As for players needing time to get going in the Premiership, there are many high profile signings that took a while. 70 million Chelsea players with years of top level experience needed it. Blaming a 19 for not hitting the ground running in the hardest league in the world in very harsh.

I said the reasons why it’s very difficult to buy a complete Premiership player in our current structure, which you didn’t address. You just repeated we should have signed a senior player. On what wages? Willing to halve their wage when relegated? The fee doesn’t matter we can afford the fees.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, hertfordyellow said:

Buendia wasn’t a regular within weeks. And when you compare Maddison or Buendia to Tzolis, you are comparing Championship to Premiership which we know isn’t remotely equivalent. Maddison was more like 3 over six years ago. We can guess from his demolition of Bournemouth in the cup that Tzolis won’t be out of place in the Championship. As for players needing time to get going in the Premiership, there are many high profile signings that took a while. 70 million Chelsea players with years of top level experience needed it. Blaming a 19 for not hitting the ground running in the hardest league in the world in very harsh.

I said the reasons why it’s very difficult to buy a complete Premiership player in our current structure, which you didn’t address. You just repeated we should have signed a senior player. On what wages? Willing to halve their wage when relegated? The fee doesn’t matter we can afford the fees.

I'm not sure you've read my post very well.

Regarding Buendia, I actually said he was a regular within 'weeks / months' as I wasn't 100%, but on checking he actually only missed the first 3 games of the season before playing basically non-stop:

image.png.b843a3da975f91d199ca7a90bcbbc29c.png

 

We also purchased Maddison and Godfrey when we were in the prem not the champs, so not a difference in leagues, only for Buendia. But TBH I don't know why that matters, that doesn't justify spending 30% of our budget on players for the future this year when we desperately needed signings to hit the ground running.

If anything the change to the higher league should mean that we less on players for the future and more for the here and now, not the other way round which you appear to be suggesting? 

Also where on earth have I blamed Tzolis for not hitting the ground running? I'm questioning the club's transfer policy in buying someone this raw, with that much of our budget. I'm not asking him to suddenly become a better player right now! Yes it would be harsh to blame him personally, but that's not at all what I'm doing at all! I even said he could easily still come good in the future?

And in response to your final question, I think we are perfectly capable of making permanent signings at this level, don't do the club a disservice. We signed Rashica and Sargent did we not? If we had someone at Rashica's level as a CDM instead of Tzolis / Gunn that would've been fantastic - and not at all unrealistic. 

I don't know why people always try to make out that we have it so bad trying to buy players. Our wage structure is at the same level of clubs in and around the bottom of the prem, and all clubs will have to write in similar relegation wage clauses (except Newcastle). Those clubs are all capable of making permanent signings aren't they, so why aren't we?

Edited by Hank shoots Skyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, hertfordyellow said:

Buendia wasn’t a regular within weeks. And when you compare Maddison or Buendia to Tzolis, you are comparing Championship to Premiership which we know isn’t remotely equivalent. Maddison was more like 3 over six years ago. We can guess from his demolition of Bournemouth in the cup that Tzolis won’t be out of place in the Championship. As for players needing time to get going in the Premiership, there are many high profile signings that took a while. 70 million Chelsea players with years of top level experience needed it. Blaming a 19 for not hitting the ground running in the hardest league in the world in very harsh.

I said the reasons why it’s very difficult to buy a complete Premiership player in our current structure, which you didn’t address. You just repeated we should have signed a senior player. On what wages? Willing to halve their wage when relegated? The fee doesn’t matter we can afford the fees.

Spot on.

And that is exactly why I tried to balance that against it not being something to do with him, but to do with a decision the club made. Buendia was 21 when we signed him as well, so had a few more years of regular pro football behind him, as well as arguably coming from a background with better coaches through at least some level of his youth development.

In many ways, now is the right time to get him. He's not good enough to demand a move away, and is unlikely to, upon relegation - at which point he is more likely to get regular game time and develop. If we stay up, he is also one that could benefit with a season behind him before attacking a regular starting position.

I suspect that was somewhat the plan. We knew this season that Rashica, Cantwell, Dowell and possibly others would be ahead of him for a regular starting position. I suspect we also knew that come next summer, Cantwell would likely want to leave, Hernandez and Placheta may not be up to the level and so we could lose one or both of those. Which would give Tzolis a season to acclimatize and then push on to fill a spot vacated by other players.

Again though, the question really is was it the right decision/gamble to make. Not based on Tzolis now, per se, but knowing that he could be a good player later,  when perhaps we needed more.

I think you can tell from my response that I am in support of us having him, and that the finger really aught to be pointed at the more senior players who haven't performed as well - Dowell and Cantwell especially IMHO, considering their previous form, that have left us probably throwing Tzolis in before he has gained enough minutes from the bench, or even in training etc. Though I am equally surprised that they haven't looked at playing Giannoulis and Williams down the left together at times when we have been a bit stretched. Both can get forward well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Petriix said:

Excellent post.

Yes, Tzolis and Gunn are the main ones, but I'd really prefer to have kept Vrancic over signing PLM. The big one for me is Gilmour. I think trying to fit him in caused a large portion of our problems.

I would have gone all out and signed a £15-20m CDM. But maybe a better striker would have been a good priority.

I can't predict the future. I'm fearful that the players we now have will struggle next season. But I'm quietly hopeful that I'm being overly pessimistic. You've reassured me somewhat.

The problem with Vrancic is two fold, he'll be 33 in May and his legs have gone. We would have been handing him a 1yr extension, which means right now, we would either be in discussions about extending it AND/or he would be talking to other interested parties. In the middle of a Premier League season we knew would be touch. Then there is the other bit, would he have wanted to stay on for another season likely being back up to Normann/McLean/Gilmore and maybe even Sorensen? Would he prefer picking up a similar wage and playing more regularly and becoming a hero again at Stoke?

And if you look at PLM's on various youtube vids, as well as commentaries from earlier in this season, he can pick a pass. He has that in his locker. He was known for his attacking play in France.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

I'd say PLM's last two games were probably better than anything Vrancic came up with in the Premier and if he's showing signs of getting to grips with affairs, he's going to look like a very canny signing at the price paid. Don't get me wrong, PLM can't pick a pass like Vrancic, but is a more balanced midfielder than Mario ever was. That said, we do lose a major threat on set pieces with Vrancic gone.

Absolutely this.

For most of the season, we've been criticised for being overrun in midfield by much better athletes - Vrancic isn't the answer to that, at all.

Vrancic is more comparable to Gilmour, and while we've not seen much from Gilmour, there's already a decent argument that he's better now than Vrancic has ever been.

To add, I've seen it mentioned that Normann was the "Skipp replacement" - I don't think that's true. They're really quite different players and Webber recruited primarily for a 4-3-3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it all ultimately depends on if we go down or stay up. 

If we stay up, then the money invested in a future prospect (assuming he can develop here) looks like a reasonably allocation of the most recent transfer budget to the future. 

If we go down, its hard to argue it was exactly the right signing to make, even if he does eventually come good and turn a profit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, chicken said:

I think you can tell from my response that I am in support of us having him, and that the finger really aught to be pointed at the more senior players who haven't performed as well - Dowell and Cantwell especially IMHO

But if we were expecting more from Cantwell and Dowell then that makes the importance of Tzolis' signing even less so though doesn't it? We already had Sargent and Rashica too so that's plenty of good wide options.

I'm surprised we went down this route with Tzolis when there was clearly still a glaring hole left by Skipp, and it was obvious after 1 game of watching Normann that he was not going to plug that gap and is better suited further forwards in the box-to-box type role. 

Whichever way you want to cut it, spending close to £10 million on a future prospect, for a club with a transfer history such as ours, was always going to be a controversial move - particularly with other areas in the current first team in need of addressing.

It is a strategy that I think can justifiably be questioned at this stage in the season given our position, and will represent one of several factors which contributed towards our ultimate failing this year should we go down (hope not but most probably). 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

I'm not sure you've read my post very well.

Regarding Buendia, I actually said he was a regular within 'weeks / months' as I wasn't 100%, but on checking he actually only missed the first 3 games of the season before playing basically non-stop:

image.png.b843a3da975f91d199ca7a90bcbbc29c.png

 

We also purchased Maddison and Godfrey when we were in the prem not the champs, so not a difference in leagues, only for Buendia. But TBH I don't know why that matters, that doesn't justify spending 30% of our budget on players for the future this year when we desperately needed signings to hit the ground running.

If anything the change to the higher league should mean that we less on players for the future and more for the here and now, not the other way round which you appear to be suggesting? 

Also where on earth have I blamed Tzolis for not hitting the ground running? I'm questioning the club's transfer policy in buying someone this raw, with that much of our budget. I'm not asking him to suddenly become a better player right now! Yes it would be harsh to blame him personally, but that's not at all what I'm doing at all! I even said he could easily still come good in the future?

And in response to your final question, I think we are perfectly capable of making permanent signings at this level, don't do the club a disservice. We signed Rashica and Sargent did we not? If we had someone at Rashica's level as a CDM instead of Tzolis / Gunn that would've been fantastic - and not at all unrealistic. 

I don't know why people always try to make out that we have it so bad trying to buy players. Our wage structure is at the same level of clubs in and around the bottom of the prem, and all clubs will have to write in similar relegation wage clauses (except Newcastle). Those clubs are all capable of making permanent signings aren't they, so why aren't we?

Fair enough, he made starts earlier than I thought. I don’t recall him being the player we remember until halfway into the season.

Maddison at least was signed and automatically loaned back to Coventry. He wasn’t available until the Championship season and was deemed not good enough yet on arrival. If anything it weakens your point because we spent money on a future signing instead of a loan player to help in a relegation fight. Literally the same scenario.

I am of the opinion that Webber thought Tzolis had a good chance of contributing this season (and he still can), but knew his best will be in the future.

You said we needed some one to hit the ground running then asked where you criticised him for not hitting the ground running. Very few of our signings hit the ground running, that’s the nature of signing from othe leagues, it takes time. Buying a 25 year old doesn’t guarantee that. As I pointed out very expensive players have needed time.

Then you end with a strange rant about other teams making permanent signings. Tzolis is a permanent signing. Any club can make permanent signings, whether they are good enough is the question. Some teams don’t have rigid relegation clauses actually, they just sell them at a loss  (or loan to Udinese). This was pointed out by mr Bailey in the Athletic interview he did recently. We can’t just write off expensive assets like others can. We have similar wages to two other clubs but then there is a jump to the next level of wages, not to mention competing with teams from other leagues. Wages have been covered in other threads we are in the bottom three for wage budget. If a Southampton or a Brighton want a player we want then we lose out. It’s no way as easy as you make out. I love how Sargent has now been your example of a mature player that is Prem quality for 9 million. He was deemed the worst player ever and a waste of money two weeks ago. Strange times.
 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Whichever way you want to cut it, spending close to £10 million on a future prospect, for a club with a transfer history such as ours, was always going to be a controversial move - particularly with other areas in the current first team in need of addressing.

This, and the generally poor choice of loan signings, are the main topics of contention. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

I think it all ultimately depends on if we go down or stay up. 

If we stay up, then the money invested in a future prospect (assuming he can develop here) looks like a reasonably allocation of the most recent transfer budget to the future. 

If we go down, its hard to argue it was exactly the right signing to make, even if he does eventually come good and turn a profit. 

Exactly this I'd say.

Tzolis clearly has some talent even if he's struggled to show it. Adding more talent is always good, especially when they are young with the potential to grow. In a vacuum it makes sense.

However, knowing we had a relatively limited budget by Premier League standards, you have to step out of that vacuum and look at the wider picture, which showed us being well stocked in that position, having a sizable hole in central midfield and a budget that means we can't afford both the flashy and exciting young winger AND the defensive midfielder. So you need to make a call on what is likely to help more in the short term, which is a bit of a no brainer in my opinion.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, king canary said:

Exactly this I'd say.

Tzolis clearly has some talent even if he's struggled to show it. Adding more talent is always good, especially when they are young with the potential to grow. In a vacuum it makes sense.

However, knowing we had a relatively limited budget by Premier League standards, you have to step out of that vacuum and look at the wider picture, which showed us being well stocked in that position, having a sizable hole in central midfield and a budget that means we can't afford both the flashy and exciting young winger AND the defensive midfielder. So you need to make a call on what is likely to help more in the short term, which is a bit of a no brainer in my opinion.

I suppose the clubs argument is they're never looking at 'short-term', rightly or wrongly, which is why we wouldn't sign a 'Naismith' under Webber. Wrongly, in this case as Tzolis hasn't been able to positively impact this season whatsoever - although you could argue that could happen with an older player with proven experience (i.e Naismith) with no chance of recovering from that.

Again, it comes down to the fact that we can't take these risks, or choose not to due to our financial constraints i.e ownership. So I'm sure Webber would argue he made the best decision for the club in signing Tzolis over A.Nother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, hertfordyellow said:

Fair enough, he made starts earlier than I thought. I don’t recall him being the player we remember until halfway into the season.

No probs, it was earlier than I even thought as well. And yes he definitely got better as the season went on!

33 minutes ago, hertfordyellow said:

Maddison at least was signed and automatically loaned back to Coventry. He wasn’t available until the Championship season and was deemed not good enough yet on arrival. If anything it weakens your point because we spent money on a future signing instead of a loan player to help in a relegation fight. Literally the same scenario.

I don't think it weakens my point to be honest. 

Maddison represented £2 million out of £30 million spent (i.e. less than 7% of the budget)

Tzolis represents £10 million out of £52 million spent (ish) (i.e. 19% of the budget)

That's a substantial difference.

The point is that we got relegated in 15/16, but I don't think spending the £2 mil we spent on Maddison / Godfrey elsewhere on the current team would've changed that whatsoever. 

Whereas if we do go this season, the19% of our budget on Tzolis and another 10% of it on Gunn, could've undoubtedly been spent elsewhere to improve the current squad. That's a significant chunk on players 'for the future'

33 minutes ago, hertfordyellow said:

I am of the opinion that Webber thought Tzolis had a good chance of contributing this season (and he still can), but knew his best will be in the future.

Potentially, but then it would just have to go down as a bad purchase if that's the case. 

33 minutes ago, hertfordyellow said:

You said we needed some one to hit the ground running then asked where you criticised him for not hitting the ground running. Very few of our signings hit the ground running, that’s the nature of signing from othe leagues, it takes time. Buying a 25 year old doesn’t guarantee that. As I pointed out very expensive players have needed time.

Sorry but where did I criticise Tzolis specifically, my debate has only been about the transfer decisions by Webber and the recruitment team? If it came across wrong then apologies - but I thought it would be quite obvious that I was aiming the question at the club and not Tzolis himself. 

33 minutes ago, hertfordyellow said:

Then you end with a strange rant about other teams making permanent signings. Tzolis is a permanent signing. Any club can make permanent signings, whether they are good enough is the question. Some teams don’t have rigid relegation clauses actually, they just sell them at a loss  (or loan to Udinese). This was pointed out by mr Bailey in the Athletic interview he did recently. We can’t just write off expensive assets like others can. We have similar wages to two other clubs but then there is a jump to the next level of wages, not to mention competing with teams from other leagues. Wages have been covered in other threads we are in the bottom three for wage budget. If a Southampton or a Brighton want a player we want then we lose out. It’s no way as easy as you make out. 

Well you were the one who suggested how difficult it is to sign permanent players and factor in wages and relegation clauses? My only point is that we should be able to make more signings to the level of Rashica and Sargent, i.e. able to contribute to the first team, this season.

33 minutes ago, hertfordyellow said:

I love how Sargent has now been your example of a mature player that is Prem quality for 9 million. He was deemed the worst player ever and a waste of money two weeks ago. Strange times.

Again you are cherry picking my post to exaggerate it, I used both Sargent and Rashica as examples of the level of player, not just Sargent. In any case, here are my thoughts on Sargent from earlier in the season, but thanks for trying to tarnish me with a totally irrelevant brush - you keep knocking down those strawmen, ey!

image.png.58bcce31cf24960c3d55ddb4736e6a96.png

 

Yes overall Sargent has struggled, but he's also been able to put in performances which have impacted our season for the better. Much much more than we can say of Tzolis. 

We currently don't have a CDM, we signed lots of midfielders - none of those midfielders look capable of playing that role totally naturally (except maybe Sorensen but he's always been way out of favour). 

If we signed a player, instead of Tzolis, who was a natural in that anchor-man / Skipp / Tettey role, then they could've still had mixed performances as Rashica / Sargent have, but I would wage we'd be much better off right now as the whole balance of the team would've been consistently better throughout the season. 

Edited by Hank shoots Skyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not convinced that Gilmour can thrive under Smith and think it's better if he's sent back, but could possibly see an argument where Sörensen is alongside him and it encourages Gilmour to get forward a little more and hit some raking balls out wide. Can definitely see why Farke would have wanted to work with him, not to mention in Farke we're talking about probably the best manager of promising youngsters we've had in decades.

As for Sargent, let's hope he tanks up on confidence to go with his undoubted commitment. He's not started well, but shown a lot of spirit and focus. Having got the monkey off his back, let's see how he develops as ultimately one swallow doesn't make a summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, Tzolis could still come good from now and the end of the season and help keep us up, in which case it would prove to be a good bit of business. But I think its a legitimate question of our transfer policy at this stage, given where we are in the league right now, and what Tzolis has offered up to this point (which is very little). Plus the word from Farke which was to totally play down our expectations on him, surely another indicator for the level which Farke felt Tzolis currently was (or wasn't) playing at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chicken said:

The problem with Vrancic is two fold, he'll be 33 in May and his legs have gone. We would have been handing him a 1yr extension, which means right now, we would either be in discussions about extending it AND/or he would be talking to other interested parties. In the middle of a Premier League season we knew would be touch. Then there is the other bit, would he have wanted to stay on for another season likely being back up to Normann/McLean/Gilmore and maybe even Sorensen? Would he prefer picking up a similar wage and playing more regularly and becoming a hero again at Stoke?

And if you look at PLM's on various youtube vids, as well as commentaries from earlier in this season, he can pick a pass. He has that in his locker. He was known for his attacking play in France.

I think the bit in bold looks very squarely aimed at my earlier comment that PLM isn't in Vrancic's league for picking a pass. I didn't say PLM can't pick a pass, just that Vrancic was extremely good at picking one and I'd put Mario ahead of Pierre in just that attribute.

Wouldn't say Vrancic's legs have gone, his game was never about athleticism and he was never quick at the best of times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I suppose the clubs argument is they're never looking at 'short-term', rightly or wrongly, which is why we wouldn't sign a 'Naismith' under Webber. Wrongly, in this case as Tzolis hasn't been able to positively impact this season whatsoever - although you could argue that could happen with an older player with proven experience (i.e Naismith) with no chance of recovering from that.

Again, it comes down to the fact that we can't take these risks, or choose not to due to our financial constraints i.e ownership. So I'm sure Webber would argue he made the best decision for the club in signing Tzolis over A.Nother.

Yeah it is of course impossible to say with a hypothetical 'other.' 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Yes overall Sargent has struggled, but he's also been able to put in performances which have impacted our season for the better. Much much more than we can say of Tzolis. 

Sargent is two years older, the age Maddison contributed to the first team. Tzolis is 19, the age we bought Maddison as a future star but not ready yet. Thats the whole point.

1 hour ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

We currently don't have a CDM, we signed lots of midfielders - none of those midfielders look capable of playing that role totally naturally (except maybe Sorensen but he's always been way out of favour). 

I don't think Skipp was that. He was part of a midfield two and acted as a deep playmaker, which is what Normann is. I genuinely think they looked at Normann to replace Skipp like for like. Sorensen will only sit and mop up, which in a fragile team is needed but rightly or wrongly we haven't really played that way before and not sort that kind of player.

 

1 hour ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

The point is that we got relegated in 15/16, but I don't think spending the £2 mil we spent on Maddison / Godfrey elsewhere on the current team would've changed that whatsoever. 

It was three million plus and that could have been spent on a player or an expensive loan even. That Maddison purchase saved this club ultimately, Tzolis maybe will do the same.

The truth is, if we go down, there will be a host of reasons why and collectively we haven't been good enough. 9 million honestly doesn't get you much. It certainly doesn't get you a guaranteed performer by any means. Rashica looks fine but has been nearly ever present in a team that doesn't make chances and had only scored 8 up until two games ago. Sargent has been guilty of real head in hands misses and not looked technically good enough. It has only been the last few games where they have been accepted as worthy of the shirt. What hasn't been addressed is wages, which still is the biggest problem. We can spend 9 million, but the player willing to take the wages will be coming from a lower league for our wages to be comparatively good or ....... at the start of their career like Tzolis. This one signing is not the reason we are struggling, the whole team have not been good enough. We can't afford £30 million players, if Tzolis realises his potential then we will have one, someone capable of turning 0-0 into 1-0 and the difference between relegation or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I accept the argument that Tzolis wasn't quite a purchase for the here and now, BUT...

...if you have a player who is potentially a world-class prospect who's torn it up in a weaker league and looked an intriguing prospect when putting on an international shirt in UEFA matches, and you've got an excellent manager of youth in there, why not speculate? And if he does develop quickly or all of a sudden (which Aarons and Cantwell certainly did), you've suddenly got a golden player for the team right there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

I accept the argument that Tzolis wasn't quite a purchase for the here and now, BUT...

...if you have a player who is potentially a world-class prospect who's torn it up in a weaker league and looked an intriguing prospect when putting on an international shirt in UEFA matches, and you've got an excellent manager of youth in there, why not speculate? And if he does develop quickly or all of a sudden (which Aarons and Cantwell certainly did), you've suddenly got a golden player for the team right there.

Exactly my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, kirku said:

This, and the generally poor choice of loan signings, are the main topics of contention. 

This is from a position of hindsight. Gilmour was a great signing, I heard no one say otherwise. Normann was great and then got a nasty injury, is back in a week and will be much needed in the run in. Williams has been mostly good and currently in the team. Kabak isn’t great, was playing for Liverpool last season and knew the league. Again made sense as a signing.

They weren’t bad choices, they have collectively disappointed which isn’t the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, hertfordyellow said:

This is from a position of hindsight. Gilmour was a great signing, I heard no one say otherwise.

I don't think anyone denies he's a very talented player and an impressive signing, but there were definitely doubts over whether he was what we needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Fr. Chewy Louie said:

I don't think anyone denies he's a very talented player and an impressive signing, but there were definitely doubts over whether he was what we needed.

That must have passed me by. I don’t recall a single fan or pundit say that when he was announced 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hertfordyellow said:

This is from a position of hindsight. Gilmour was a great signing, I heard no one say otherwise. Normann was great and then got a nasty injury, is back in a week and will be much needed in the run in. Williams has been mostly good and currently in the team. Kabak isn’t great, was playing for Liverpool last season and knew the league. Again made sense as a signing.

They weren’t bad choices, they have collectively disappointed which isn’t the same thing.

Not a dig but I hate this argument.

Just because we were excited about them at the time doesn't mean they weren't bad signings- it isn't our job to scout players and make sure they're a fit for what we need, that is what the scouts and Webber are paid to do. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...