2023/24 ins & outs discussion

[MJC]

I wouldn’t be completely against Steven Hammell coming back in some sort of role in the future, but as a club we really, REALLY need to move away from this culture of re-signing or re-hiring ex players or staff members. It just screams out a lack of vision and forward looking and instead just makes us look like mugs for sentiment.
 

We’ve seen it in the past with Faddy in the several times he re-signed for us. It gets suggested on here and Twitter etc and it ends up happening. You get the impression that we could end up seeing Louis Moult re-join again this summer inspite of his injury issues and failed loan earlier last season. 

It must be the easiest job advert for scouts.

”The successful candidate will ideally have a sound knowledge of football and scouting operations as well as previous experience of sourcing and identifying potential signing targets, but this is not required as full training will be given.

An ability to read social media platforms and identify which popular former player or employee would be most desirable to the support is essential.“

[weeyin]

Considering the vast number of players we've signed in recent years - especially given the size of our club - the number of ex-players in that number must be a pretty minuscule percentage.

[MJC]

5 minutes ago, weeyin said:

Considering the vast number of players we've signed in recent years - especially given the size of our club - the number of ex-players in that number must be a pretty minuscule percentage.

Maybe it is, but it surely can’t be denied that we have re-signed a fair amount of ex players over the last 10/15/20 years, with the last decade and a bit being particularly notorious for it?

[texanwellfan]

AlL quiet on the western front. I thought we might have seen some early activity but perhaps the lack of activity is a good sign for us that we might have a chance of  keeping some players we want

[weeyin]

5 hours ago, MJC said:

Maybe it is, but it surely can’t be denied that we have re-signed a fair amount of ex players over the last 10/15/20 years, with the last decade and a bit being particularly notorious for it?

Unless someone can show me the stats, and how those stats stack up against other teams, I can and will deny it and put it down as another one of the tropes that football fans love to repeat but don't always stand up to scrutiny - (back to haunt us, anyone needing a win, never do well on televised games, never win crunch games etc.).

This season we signed 11 players, none were ex.

We brought in 7 loans, 2 were ex (one who left has a youngster before he played for us)

I'm open to the argument it's easier to persuade ex-players to come back on loan, but I don't think we're unique in that regard.

[wellsince75]

32 minutes ago, weeyin said:

Unless someone can show me the stats, and how those states stack up against other teams, I can and will deny it and put it down as another one of the tropes that football fans love to repeat but don't always stand up to scrutiny - (back to haunt us, anyone needing a win, never do well on televised games, never win crunch games etc.).

This season we signed 11 players, none were ex.

We brought in 7 loans, 2 were ex (one who left has a youngster before he played for us)

I'm open to the argument it's easier to persuade ex-players to come back on loan, but I don't think we're unique in that regard.

I'm with you @weeyin.  I don't know the stats but many clubs have previous players return.

It's reasonable for players to have an affiliation with a club and return for a 2nd period of their career.  For as long as I can remember we have a reputation of being a friendly club that looks after and cares about players.

Personal view this is something to celebrate , I struggle to see why some are keen to villanise the approach, particularly when many of those returning have been of excellent quality.

[David]

On 6/3/2023 at 9:03 AM, wellsince75 said:

I like Cornelius , has a good attitude, local lad and works his socks off.  Adds a bit of energy. 

Primary concern is he's now 22, has been around the first team for 5 years and hasn't held down a regular first team place.  Although a different type of player it's similar to Maguire. Good local lad who perhaps won't quite make it in the SPL. 

Well, he's played quite a few games for us, so he's clearly not out of his depth. 

I don't get this viewpoint that if someone isn't playing every game for us we should get shot of them. It's a squad game, and we need to have a selection of players for the manager to pick from.

Guys like Cornelius and even Maguire are solid enough to be squad players for us. Especially if they're happy to fight for their spot in the team and won't throw a hissy fit about being left out. We're not going to have two starting elevens in our squad, we don't have the finances and appeal to do that.

[MJC]

13 hours ago, weeyin said:

This season we signed 11 players, none were ex.

We brought in 7 loans, 2 were ex (one who left has a youngster before he played for us)

Right so, we DID sign some ex players last season then? Loans count as signings surely? It was actually three if you include Rolando Aarons second ill fated stint with us.

If you go back to 2013, in that time we have re-signed (off the top of my head) James McFadden three times, Stephen Pearson twice, Scott McDonald, David Clarkson, Henrik Ojamaa, John Sutton, Ross McCormack, Louis Moult, Rolando Aarons, Liam Grimshaw and Jake Hastie. We also brought back Mark McGhee for a second stint as manager.

I don’t know how that compares against other clubs re-signing ex players or employees but that’s quite a list imo.

[MJC]

13 hours ago, wellsince75 said:

I'm with you @weeyin.  I don't know the stats but many clubs have previous players return.

It's reasonable for players to have an affiliation with a club and return for a 2nd period of their career.  For as long as I can remember we have a reputation of being a friendly club that looks after and cares about players.

Personal view this is something to celebrate , I struggle to see why some are keen to villanise the approach, particularly when many of those returning have been of excellent quality.

There’s nothing wrong with having a reputation of being a club that looks after it’s players, but at the same time we are a professional football club, not a charity, so when we have players on the books we need to be getting something in return for us taking care of them. And yes it has worked well for us in the past but over the past decade it has gotten to a ridiculous level of simply signing ex players in the hope that they can somehow recapture their form with us years before and also no doubt with an aim to getting the fans on side.

Of the list I mentioned above, the obvious success stories were Scott McDonald, who was still a quality player at our level when he came back, and Stephen Pearson especially during the playoff season. Faddy was excellent in his initial return in 2013 but offered next to nothing afterwards and was clearly done. John Sutton being the other plus point. The rest of them with perhaps the exception of Grimshaw, did nothing for us in their return and three of them (McCormack, Moult & Aarons) barely kicked a ball and were never fit and wouldn’t even have been considered had they not been with us previously. 
 

I’ve no issue with us bringing back an ex player if he genuinely still has something to offer us, but I’d like to see us show a bit more vision in our transfer dealings. Instead of bringing back a clearly crocked and finished Louis Moult why not try and find another player who would potentially offer us the same as Moult did when he was younger and fitter? Easier said than done, I am fully aware of that, but surely more productive than our re-signing of Moult last year?

[Yorkyred]

1 hour ago, MJC said:

There’s nothing wrong with having a reputation of being a club that looks after it’s players, but at the same time we are a professional football club, not a charity, so when we have players on the books we need to be getting something in return for us taking care of them. And yes it has worked well for us in the past but over the past decade it has gotten to a ridiculous level of simply signing ex players in the hope that they can somehow recapture their form with us years before and also no doubt with an aim to getting the fans on side.

Of the list I mentioned above, the obvious success stories were Scott McDonald, who was still a quality player at our level when he came back, and Stephen Pearson especially during the playoff season. Faddy was excellent in his initial return in 2013 but offered next to nothing afterwards and was clearly done. John Sutton being the other plus point. The rest of them with perhaps the exception of Grimshaw, did nothing for us in their return and three of them (McCormack, Moult & Aarons) barely kicked a ball and were never fit and wouldn’t even have been considered had they not been with us previously. 
 

I’ve no issue with us bringing back an ex player if he genuinely still has something to offer us, but I’d like to see us show a bit more vision in our transfer dealings. Instead of bringing back a clearly crocked and finished Louis Moult why not try and find another player who would potentially offer us the same as Moult did when he was younger and fitter? Easier said than done, I am fully aware of that, but surely more productive than our re-signing of Moult last year?

I think for many Moult was seen a risk with taking, plenty including myself felt he was probably done but it could have been a great deal I guess.

[MJC]

38 minutes ago, Yorkyred said:

I think for many Moult was seen a risk with taking, plenty including myself felt he was probably done but it could have been a great deal I guess.

As did I at the time, I was pleased to see him back and glad we gave him the chance, kind of heart ruling head. But unfortunately it quickly became clear that he just wasn’t anywhere near fit enough to make an impact and we rightly cut short his loan. 

[wellsince75]

6 hours ago, MJC said:

As did I at the time, I was pleased to see him back and glad we gave him the chance, kind of heart ruling head. But unfortunately it quickly became clear that he just wasn’t anywhere near fit enough to make an impact and we rightly cut short his loan. 

Moult and Aarons was in large part due to the amount of players available late on in the transfer window. 

The poor recruitment of GA during pre season didn't leave much on the table for Hammell to deal with.

FWIW although I'm supportive of brining players back, it needs to be those who were decent first time around. Im all for Phil, McDonald, McFadden coming back.  Aarons, Lawless, Toastie etc not so much. 
 

[Spit_It_Out]

Moult was a shocking decision tbh and whoever gave that good to go should have been sacked on the spot let's not kid ourselves here we would have been have been picking up a chunk of the wage Burton must have been pishing  themselves with laughter when we came calling.

I refuse to believe in one month we couldn't come up with someone better like someone actually fit so the excuse that Hammell didn't have long to find someone is just an excuse to have a go at Alexander when really the problem lays at Hammell,Burrows and Daws door.

Yep looked good business cause we were not told the truth about how serious the injury was to Moult and for me screamed lazy,get the fans back on board with a fan favourite signing after the Alexander Sligo fallout.

Christ folk still saying should sign him now is the reason why we shall never make money or progress with players like Lennon Miller shall only make training fees when we could be making bank!

Namaste peeps!

[Kmcalpin]

1 hour ago, wellsince75 said:

The poor recruitment of GA during pre season didn't leave much on the table for Hammell to deal with.

Not quite my take. I take the view that the Board, for reasons unknown, neither "backed nor sacked" GA at the start of the season. Money was held back and given to SH in January. Questions should be asked about that indecision. 

[weeyin]

GA manage to get KVV to extend his contract. That probably used up 80% of the summer window budget. It certainly only left Hammell enough to sign Aston Oxborough in August.
 

 

 

[fizoxy]

1 hour ago, Spit_It_Out said:

Moult was a shocking decision tbh and whoever gave that good to go should have been sacked on the spot let's not kid ourselves here we would have been have been picking up a chunk of the wage Burton must have been pishing  themselves with laughter when we came calling.

I refuse to believe in one month we couldn't come up with someone better like someone actually fit so the excuse that Hammell didn't have long to find someone is just an excuse to have a go at Alexander when really the problem lays at Hammell,Burrows and Daws door.

Yep looked good business cause we were not told the truth about how serious the injury was to Moult and for me screamed lazy,get the fans back on board with a fan favourite signing after the Alexander Sligo fallout.

Christ folk still saying should sign him now is the reason why we shall never make money or progress with players like Lennon Miller shall only make training fees when we could be making bank!

Namaste peeps!

No one knows how much we paid for moult, so that's just speculation.

Signing Moult and Aaron's was plain wrong, and was a result of our indecision over GA in the summer and not either committing and letting him sign folk, or sacking him after the poor, but jammy, run in. I can sympathize a little with hammell over the timing, but I have to imagine the recruitment team presented other signing options, but he went with three players that he knew and Penney.

Most of us were happy to see what moult could offer at the time, but it was clear very early on that we signed him with known injury issues, more than just a case of him lacking sharpness.

[steelboy]

14 hours ago, weeyin said:

GA manage to get KVV to extend his contract. That probably used up 80% of the summer window budget. It certainly only left Hammell enough to sign Aston Oxborough in August.
 

 

 

KVV extending for one year cost 4 times what Josh Morris and Oxborough combined cost for two years each?

That's some good budgeting.

[Spiderpig]

44 minutes ago, steelboy said:

KVV extending for one year cost 4 times what Josh Morris and Oxborough combined cost for two years each?

That's some good budgeting.

Aye it is good budgeting considering it meant his goals this season earned the club another 300k in prize money, and probably another 1 or 2 million by keeping us in the premiership so cash well spent if you ask me.

[steelboy]

Just now, Spiderpig said:

Aye it is good budgeting considering it meant his goals this season earned the club another 300k in prize money, and probably another 1 or 2 million by keeping us in the premiership so cash well spent if you ask me.

I just mean Weeyin is talking nonsense.

How can we possibly have spent our summer 22 budget on extending Van Veen's contract into 23/24 when the likelihood is he won't be here for much longer?

What really happened is the club got complacent and wasted money on daft things like flattening the park and resigning Nathan McGinley and were hoping to get through a couple of rounds in Europe to boost the squad. However because Alexander is a tit we didn't prepare properly for the Sligo game and got humiliated across the UK and Ireland.

[David]

Just now, steelboy said:

I just mean Weeyin is talking nonsense.

How can we possibly have spent our summer 22 budget on extending Van Veen's contract into 23/24 when the likelihood is he won't be here for much longer?

What really happened is the club got complacent and wasted money on daft things like flattening the park and resigning Nathan McGinley and were hoping to get through a couple of rounds in Europe to boost the squad. However because Alexander is a tit we didn't prepare properly for the Sligo game and got humiliated across the UK and Ireland.

 I could be mistaken, but I reckon the money used for the pitch would likely come from funds specifically set aside for that sort of thing. I don't imagine we'd have taken money to "flatten the pitch" from the transfer budget.

[steelboy]

16 minutes ago, David said:

 I could be mistaken, but I reckon the money used for the pitch would likely come from funds specifically set aside for that sort of thing. I don't imagine we'd have taken money to "flatten the pitch" from the transfer budget.

Maybe we should check Burrows driveway for a camper van.

[santheman]

1 hour ago, David said:

 I could be mistaken, but I reckon the money used for the pitch would likely come from funds specifically set aside for that sort of thing. I don't imagine we'd have taken money to "flatten the pitch" from the transfer budget.

It was the interest free Covid recovery loan that paid for the pitch.

The cost to relay the old pitch every year was close to 100k, the new one is closer to 30k so will pay for itself over 10 years or so.

[David]

Just now, santheman said:

It was the interest free Covid recovery loan that paid for the pitch.

The cost to relay the old pitch every year was close to 100k, the new one is closer to 30k so will pay for itself over 10 years or so.

Exactly. I doubt the powers that be said to the manager "right, we're going to sort out the pitch and we're taking that money from your transfer funds."

[steelboy]

Just now, David said:

Exactly. I doubt the powers that be said to the manager "right, we're going to sort out the pitch and we're taking that money from your transfer funds."

All the club's money is pooled. We don't have 'transfer funds'.

[santheman]

15 minutes ago, steelboy said:

All the club's money is pooled. We don't have 'transfer funds'.

The loan technically wasn't.

Part of the lending criteria was that it had to be ringfenced and not to be used to cover transfer fees or players wages.

There is a playing budget that covers transfer fees and wages but as with every budget it is subjective and reviewed as circumstances change throughout the season.