Super Joshy Sargent

[canarydan23 4,060]

10 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

You're claiming that the club failed on their target of bringing in a PL ready striker to replace Pukki? 

That's called a strawman. At least you included a question mark at the end of it. They failed to spend adequately to achieve their goal of Premier League survival and Josh Sargent was a big part of that failure. That doesn't mean I'm hating on the guy, that doesn't mean I think he's cr@p, that doesn't mean that he won't turn into a club legend. It means exactly what I've said. The money we spent on him was wasted money in the goal of immediate EPL survival.

The idea that Webber and the club sanctioned over £8 million on Sargent thinking, "Oh, he'll suck this season, but then he'll have an ok-ish season in the Championship before looking like a great player for the level below the one we're currently at" is lunacy.

I'm not entirely sure why saying this is a reason for people to get their pants all twisted, but then we are on the PinkUn.

[C.I.D 302]

6 hours ago, Petriix said:

He really didn't. He was no better than Onel. Sure, he dribbled past a few players but had zero end product and, on numerous occasions, didn't see the simple ball to play Pukki in. 

In my opinion Rashica was the single worst signing in the club's history. Not the worst player but such an incredible waste of money and completely the wrong type of player for our team. His presence made it impossible to return to the previously successful system. 

Tbh there's dozens to choose from but Hamilton's and Roeder's times here produced a wealth of dross the like of which most of us had never seen before or since.............with respect,don't think Rashica could ever be put in the 'worst signing in the club's history' category .........imho 

Plus of course there's Andy Hughes .........bless him 

[hogesar 9,676]

12 minutes ago, C.I.D said:

Tbh there's dozens to choose from but Hamilton's and Roeder's times here produced a wealth of dross the like of which most of us had never seen before or since.............with respect,don't think Rashica could ever be put in the 'worst signing in the club's history' category .........imho 

Plus of course there's Andy Hughes .........bless him 

Whenever you mention Roeder I always think of Dejan Stefanovic. I don't know why, he wasn't the worst but didn't he get some serious injury after a handful of games and never play for us again? Also remember him getting sent off. 

[king canary 7,608]

12 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Whenever you mention Roeder I always think of Dejan Stefanovic. I don't know why, he wasn't the worst but didn't he get some serious injury after a handful of games and never play for us again? Also remember him getting sent off. 

Yeah he was unfortunate and I don't think was Roeder's worst. I think you can probably give Sibierski or similar that honour. 

I still think you won't find worse overall than Naismith though. 

 

[Google Bot 3,278]

11 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

The idea that Webber and the club sanctioned over £8 million on Sargent thinking, "Oh, he'll suck this season, but then he'll have an ok-ish season in the Championship before looking like a great player for the level below the one we're currently at" is lunacy.

The simple truth, as explained several times now, we had Pukki as our number one, and historically played one up top... Sarge was bought in as cover and future successor.

I haven't a clue how you extend that out to the story you've written above.  It's just being extreme for arguments sake.

[canarydan23 4,060]

Just now, Google Bot said:

Sarge was bought in as cover and future successor.

Ah, so you believe we spent a huge sum by our standards on a backup and the fact he regularly started with Pukki in the same XI was never part of the plan?

[hogesar 9,676]

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yeah he was unfortunate and I don't think was Roeder's worst. I think you can probably give Sibierski or similar that honour. 

I still think you won't find worse overall than Naismith though. 

 

Oh for cost vs reward you're probably right.

But I did just remember we had Adrian Leijer on loan from Fulham that 09/09 season. We really did have some shocking players and for anyone who wants a comparison for where the club is to where it was, our youth prospects that season (who were blocked by 8 loan signings, no less) were Korey Smith, Kris Renton, Tom Adeyemi, Damon Lathrope and Luke Daley.

Memories...

 

[Google Bot 3,278]

38 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Ah, so you believe we spent a huge sum by our standards on a backup and the fact he regularly started with Pukki in the same XI was never part of the plan?

There's many players that we failed to bring in, such as Cahill, Billing and Ajer, so not sure we'll ever know what the plan was.  We were also waiting on Spurs in regards to Skipp during the window too. 

In regards to Sarge (and Tzolis), I think Webber saw these both as potential £25-30m players, and along with Farke's help, that they could build that price tag regardless of being in the prem or championship within a few seasons.  I don't think Sarge was ever seen as an immediate replacement for Pukki but more for someone to come in an use their energy and gain experience.

Todd being AWOL also had a massive effect on plans as he was the shoe-in replacement for Emi on the right side, the role which Sarge took up due to his willingness to work and drop back and defend.

Edited January 22 by Google Bot

[Indy 3,300]

He’s a very clever and as said hard working player, I wonder if he has the same hard working attitude to his development which shows how he’s coming along quickly.

We’ve been lucky to have Holt/Wes, Buendia/Pukki and now I’d like to see is use a genuine number 10 to feed him, I’m sure with that creative midfield we could be very much a threat to anyone!

[king canary 7,608]

Sargent was bought in because Webber (not incorrectly) saw a lack of physicality and energy higher up the pitch, especially with Emi gone. There was never any suggestion that Cantwell was shifting over to take Buendia's place- it seemed very clear from the off that Rashica was the player expected to fill the Emi gap but was a very different type of player.

I don't think Sargent was signed with a view to starting week in week out but I think he was signed to offer something different, either from the start with Pukki or off the bench as a much better plan B than Hugill. Tzolis was a different story (and just dreadful decision making from Webber) but Sargent wasn't 'one for the future' although I'm sure we had an eye on him improving and his value going up over time. 

 

[paddycanary 539]

3 hours ago, BigFish said:

I would expect he is very unlikely to be playing

Sarge or van Dijk?

Or both?

[shefcanary 2,409]

1 minute ago, paddycanary said:

Sarge or van Dijk?

Or both?

Good question - hopefully Klopp does rest VVD. A game of chicken by both managers in the lead up to this one then. Both saying "we will be fielding our strongest sides, with only one or two being rested."

[BigFish 1,988]

4 hours ago, shefcanary said:

I hear that being said, but his agent and himself will note that when it comes to the first decent offer comes in. The best players want to play against the best, it will do the club more harm than good not to play him IMHO, as it will totally **** him off!

True, the same could be said of Sara and Rowe

[BigFish 1,988]

1 hour ago, paddycanary said:

Sarge or van Dijk?

Or both?

Good point, I was thinking the former but it applies to both.

[hogesar 9,676]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

Sargent was bought in because Webber (not incorrectly) saw a lack of physicality and energy higher up the pitch, especially with Emi gone. There was never any suggestion that Cantwell was shifting over to take Buendia's place- it seemed very clear from the off that Rashica was the player expected to fill the Emi gap but was a very different type of player.

I don't think Sargent was signed with a view to starting week in week out but I think he was signed to offer something different, either from the start with Pukki or off the bench as a much better plan B than Hugill. Tzolis was a different story (and just dreadful decision making from Webber) but Sargent wasn't 'one for the future' although I'm sure we had an eye on him improving and his value going up over time. 

 

I think for clarity no one can deny any of our signings delivered on their primary aim that season of making us competitive at Premier League level.

But I think its also fair to say that this was the first time we had spent "proper" money by our standard and clearly Webber put thought towards the permanent signings retaining value even if things went wrong at Prem level.

And to his credit he may well have protected us. Despite failing we didn't lose much on Rashica - Tzolis could yet recoup a decent amount we paid for him and be a minimal loss and Sargent would command more than we paid for him.

I think a number of the signings including loans have also succeeded elsewhere since us, some at comparatively high levels of football. We didn't complete the puzzle and that's on Webber but with similar budgets to others I think he could have built a competitive side.

[Robert N. LiM 4,368]

7 minutes ago, hogesar said:

clearly Webber put thought towards the permanent signings retaining value even if things went wrong at Prem level.

Pretty much in the SD's job description, this. Whether they can say this publicly or not, they should always be planning years ahead, and for the highest and lowest possible division their club might be in.

Edited January 22 by Robert N. LiM

[king canary 7,608]

27 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I think for clarity no one can deny any of our signings delivered on their primary aim that season of making us competitive at Premier League level.

But I think its also fair to say that this was the first time we had spent "proper" money by our standard and clearly Webber put thought towards the permanent signings retaining value even if things went wrong at Prem level.

And to his credit he may well have protected us. Despite failing we didn't lose much on Rashica - Tzolis could yet recoup a decent amount we paid for him and be a minimal loss and Sargent would command more than we paid for him.

I think a number of the signings including loans have also succeeded elsewhere since us, some at comparatively high levels of football. We didn't complete the puzzle and that's on Webber but with similar budgets to others I think he could have built a competitive side.

I think the idea we got most of our money back on Rashica is exaggerated. According to the latest reports around the accounts the total fees received for Omobamidele, Aarons, Mumba and Rashica totaled £21.4m. That suggests (based on reports we got £11m for Omobamidele, £6m up front for Aaron's and £1.5m for Mumba) that we got about £3m at most for Rashica.

Equally I would be suspicious of any reporting that the permanent fee we agreed with Fortuna being close to what we paid for Tzolis. It's the kind of media briefing done to save face behind 'undisclosed' fees.

[Ulfotto 635]

10 minutes ago, king canary said:

I think the idea we got most of our money back on Rashica is exaggerated. According to the latest reports around the accounts the total fees received for Omobamidele, Aarons, Mumba and Rashica totaled £21.4m. That suggests (based on reports we got £11m for Omobamidele, £6m up front for Aaron's and £1.5m for Mumba) that we got about £3m at most for Rashica.

Equally I would be suspicious of any reporting that the permanent fee we agreed with Fortuna being close to what we paid for Tzolis. It's the kind of media briefing done to save face behind 'undisclosed' fees.

But I suppose it depends how much we paid upfront for the likes of Rashica and Tzolis and how much we’re future payments we never made or are still to pay . It seems to me neither where the financial disaster that say Naismith was.

[hogesar 9,676]

14 minutes ago, king canary said:

I think the idea we got most of our money back on Rashica is exaggerated. According to the latest reports around the accounts the total fees received for Omobamidele, Aarons, Mumba and Rashica totaled £21.4m. That suggests (based on reports we got £11m for Omobamidele, £6m up front for Aaron's and £1.5m for Mumba) that we got about £3m at most for Rashica.

Equally I would be suspicious of any reporting that the permanent fee we agreed with Fortuna being close to what we paid for Tzolis. It's the kind of media briefing done to save face behind 'undisclosed' fees.

I believe including loan fees etc we may have lost nearly 2m on Rashica but that is a drop in the ocean in terms of gambles at Prem level.

[ron obvious 1,503]

8 hours ago, shefcanary said:

An FPA in joke; technically when he was sold the cost of him was fully written down, so if we received any fee, it was a profit in the accounts. Apologies. 

This sounds like The Producers style of accountancy to me ...

[Fen Canary 828]

21 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

He had a terrible first touch when he arrived and made some real clangers- but I always liked him and felt he could become a cult hero. But I didn’t expect him to progress as he has - a very clever and hard working player. I fear the paucity of decent number 9s may lead to a lot of interest from elsewhere in the summer - but hope he stays to lead our line for years to come. 

I always had him down as a Cody McDonald type signing. A hard working player I loved and always hoped would come good, without ever really believing he would. Thankfully it looks like I’ve been proved wrong this time 

[BroadstairsR 2,173]

Can Josh be compared with Dirk Kuyt once of Liverpool, or is my memory letting me down?

[Hardhouse44 261]

Sarge has gone from being a player I thought was a waste of money (when in the Prem) 

To my favourite player by far. His work rate is exceptional, he is an intelligent player (the complete opposite to Idah who I always think is one step behind) and he scores goals. Good goals. He’s the real deal at this level.

well done Sarge. Top man.