[SIGNED perm] William Troost-ekong

I think that's my point. Is this Udinese reserve really an upgrade or are we just getting over-excited that we might be about to sign a defender ?

 

Amazing what a year under a good coach can do for a player.

 

They never ever learn from their mistakes. Cathcart here till 34, Capoue here till 35. Unable to shift declining immobile Deeney. And all these contacts dished out after the Prodl fiasco. No wonder we are in financial dire straits. Incompetence.

 

Especially a defender. System and discipline is probably more important than talent.

 

"This post was brought to you courtesy of Nescafe Gold. All the flavour, none of the cost "

 

Genuinely think this is because players can play in Serie A well into their 30's, they haven't realised that English football is more physically demanding.

 

Yep. I think its also why they only give coaches a year and don't hesitate to re-hire coaches they've previously sacked. It's the done thing in Italy and is common practice.

 

A par will do as Cathcart does get injured.

 

They haven’t learned in 8 seasons?

 

Surprised that you seem surprised tbh

 

Doesn't look like he's coming imminently. Udinese posted this just an hour ago.

 

Wasn’t it said they were keeping him for their game this weekend due to injuries?

 

Christ, I'd even have magic Marvin Zeegelaar in our squad at the moment.

 

Pretty sure that is an older photo.

Masked Marv was great.

We just need to break his nose before every game.

 

Get Perica and his leading elbow on the case

 

Don't forget Janmaat, signed on a brand new long contract to lock him in, whilst he was injured, having been injured for much of his career.

 

One of the things I can't get my head round is why you think you'd need to do this, when your whole model is based on bringing in talent from your scouting network. Surely they can afford to play hardball on older players contracts because they know they can bring in a replacement for good value.

I've said this on another thread but my biggest criticism of the Pozzos in the last few years has been them not staying true to the model, rather than believing we're in a worse place because of it. Just as we should have cashed in on a number of players whilst at peak value, we should also have taken the opportunity to de-risk ourselves with the likes of Janmaat, Cathcart, Capoue in terms of the contracts we offered them. Valuable as these players have been for us in the past, you cant be believing they will be needed at 32+.

 

I think 'the model' is not clearly defined. For me the model includes staffing the playing side with players who are deemed 'good enough' as the priority is in the trading aspect which often involves players who never play for us or Udinese.

As long as there are Estupinians, Suarezes and Cuchos in the stock room, the owners don't care too much if the first team is full of Cathcarts and Dawsons.

Obviously they didn't want to get relegated but they miscalculated.

 

To offer a new contract to Janmaat does seem strange when he's been injury prone and now in advancing years it seems unlikely that this will improve. Very strange especially as he was already injured when it was offered to him! Capoue I can understand as the way he plays he could easily carry on in to the second half of his thirties.
My guess is that they look at it as if they're under contract we might get some money from another club if they were to leave. I'm sure somebody will point out that nobody will pay anything for Cathcart but football is a funny old game and clubs still pay for players that leave you scratching your head.

 

The risk/reward is ridiculous though. Risk 3 years of wages for a bunch of players in their declining years, with injuries, for the potential reward of the odd fee for one of them if someone is desperate for a piece of crap.

Makes no sense however you spin it.

 

They've still invested heavily in Richarlison, Sarr, Capoue (for us at the time), Delufeou, Pereyra, Pedro, so I'm not sure it's as clear cut as 'just good enough' will do and we'll concentrate on our loanees. I still see the network as a means to an end rather than an end in itself.

I think their motives are to develop the club and the first team, but they take a longer term view than most football fans and owners and development on the pitch takes place much more slowly as a result. The scouting network only takes priority as, alongside obtaining and keeping Premier League status (which I agree, they started to take for granted), it is the best way of getting money into the club that can be used to deliver that long term progress.

I also think their preferred style of play contributes to where they choose to spend their money. With the exception of QSF (whose role in the Pozzo history is simply 'keep us in the league, nothing else') the managers they've appointed have been progressive, attacking types. The bias this betrays is also what leads them to invest disproportionately at the top end of the pitch whilst, as you say, making do with the defence - they're less important anyway, in the Pozzo eyes, as we're progressing quickly up the field.

Consequently, the development of quality we see in the first team, whilst slow overall, happens quicker in the forward areas of the pitch than at the back. As some have pointed out, the defence we have now is better than we went up with, but the progress made is nowhere near as stark as when you compare the sort of players we have (or had) at our disposal in the attacking areas. The pace of change, and the cutting corners at times, can be frustrating but I would like to think there is a bigger picture involved.

NB. All hypothetical and wishful thinking maybe.

 

I'd argue that the only attacking coach we appointed in the PL was Silva. QSF, Mazzari, Gracia and Pearson were all known for pretty defensive football.

For all the profit we have made on the likes of Lukebakio, Richarlsion, Estupinan - How much have we spent on sacking coaches who were either poor appointments or were not adequately backed? How much have we spunked on total and utter dross like Penaranda, Success, Pussetto, Obbi Oulare, Jerome Sinclair? How much have we spent paying the long term deals of 39 year old centre backs who we renewed so as to not lose them on a free? How much has relegation cost us?

I don't doubt that Gino means well and the model sounds great it principle, but after 5 years it has had absolutely no positive impact on our ability to compete on the pitch.

 

I believe this is probably the most crucial time for the Pozzo's since they took over the club. They've owned us for 8 years, and we've pretty much progressed constantly, but then one bad year and now they are facing a huge risk of undoing 8 years of work in just a few months. If they get this transfer window wrong, by that I mean selling too many players and leaving us with a feeble squad with no realistic chance of promotion (as has been the case in the first few games), then they would have taken us back to almost the same level we were before they arrived, certainly on the playing field and in terms of financially. We may even be in a worst position financially in fact.

So, they have to get it right. Sell the bare minimum to keep the wolf from the door, and go for promotion. If they fail to do this successfully, then their previous 8 years will be for nothing......and their only legacy would be the stadium improvements. Sure, some nice memories thrown in for good measure, but memories are just that. With football, it's always about the here and now that counts.

It's surprising how quickly we can fall into the illusion that we are a Premier League club who didn't need to worry about EFL stuff anymore. You can now see how quickly things get reversed. Where we were probably a little smug, giving the likes of Swansea Ben Wilmot on loan and helping the small club, we are now this type of club ourselves. It's incredible how quickly it all gets stripped away. Now we're on the verge of playing a side who were non-league not that long ago in a league match. How times change when you mess up.

 

yes I agree that it is the logic but the balance seems off. I think they have an over sensitive fear of losing players on free transfers so give our long contracts accordingly. However they lose the flexibility to be able to trim or refresh squads when in reality 80% of the players will just end up declining on relatively high wages with zero other interested clubs.

 

I think it should be player specific but 5 years to anybody over the age of 28 seems a little silly to be fair. Offering anything to Janmaat seemed very odd

 

Agreed. Some 31 year olds could well have 5 years of value left (a rare occurrence, sure, but it's possible).

We seem to do it when its blatantly obvious the player is either on the decline and/or has little/no resale value and little/no risk of being headhunted by rivals and little/no difficulty in being replaced.

Which is just bonkers.

 

We also do it to players who frankly are worth ‘peanuts’ - let’s be honest, Deeney/Capoue/Cathcart/Prodl etc...not many clubs would be queuing up to give us much over £3m for the first names there and even less for Prodl.

I can understand protecting an ageing ‘class act’ that a ton of clubs would still take off your hands given a chance - but what we do makes no sense.

 

Selling the minimum is one approach, but given players' attitudes is part of what got us relegated, and some now want to leave, it's not that simple.

My own wish is we keep some quality, sell a few, and reinvest some of our sales proceeds in above average Champ level players with potential.

So try and address the need to bring money in, and the need for a new squad mentality, while giving a good chance of promotion.

 

The thing is, people say the player's attitude is what helped get us relegated. It doesn't equate to only the quality players having a bad attitude. Personally, I don't think there are a lot of "bad eggs" at the club. Sometimes when things go wrong players don't want to fight tooth and nail. The way a season is going tends to dictate their attitude.

I think if we start well, it gains momentum. All players want to be part of a successful team. It reflects well on them and it's enjoyable to be part of. I think players can easily be enticed to play for us if we want them to.

Deeney is clearly up for playing Luton. He wants that and it's no coincidence he's suddenly back for that game. Ok, most players want to play at the highest level, but this season is going to be entirely behind closed doors. Playing in the ELF or the EPL will seem very similar. No atmosphere, no fans. It's easier to justify playing a "one off" season at a lower level than you would ordinarily wish, so long as you get the same money, I don't see there being a major issue.

 

He will probably swagger on, giving it the billy big spuds about being the premiership hard man, and end up getting himself sent off within 30 minutes.

 

As long as he scores in that 30 mins and takes some scum with him in getting sent off, I’m perfectly okay with this.

 

Sounds like the Barry Endean approach during the Battle of Kennel Road.

 

https://www.udinese.it/news/squadra/kevin-bonifazi-e-bianconero

Bonifazi confirmed by Udinese.

"He can play in a three-man defense both on the center right and on the left"

I think we have signed the wrong bloke.

 

We haven't signed anyone yet....