Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Wellens interview in the Grauniad  (Read 14209 times)
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia

Offline Offline

Posts: 34913





Ignore
« Reply #15 on: Wednesday, September 11, 2019, 13:34:05 »

Is that your prediction?

No, my prediction is if Wellens gets us up he may well be hunted by bigger fish, it could happen before he manages it like Flitcroft.... I'll get back to you on that if you disagree.
Logged
Paolo69

Offline Offline

Posts: 2790





Ignore
« Reply #16 on: Wednesday, September 11, 2019, 13:44:56 »

Hahaha. I knew Reg wouldn't be able to handle the recent positivity.
Logged
The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey

Offline Offline

Posts: 19290


?Absolute Calamity!?




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: Wednesday, September 11, 2019, 13:48:27 »

It was in another article.... mixed up the 2, but doesn't alter the substantive point.

That’s what I don’t understand about Wellens sometimes. According to him we were in for Maynard, Mayor, Devitt etc. Obviously they would have been perm signings - with associated wages. I’d imagine Yates would not have been on their sort of money and seeing as Bradford were desperate to get shot of Doyle and Rovrum seem disinterested in Yates I can’t see why they both can’t sign in January - especially with their promotion bonus looming!

They’re not out of our price range at all.
Logged
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia

Offline Offline

Posts: 34913





Ignore
« Reply #18 on: Wednesday, September 11, 2019, 13:55:43 »

Hahaha. I knew Reg wouldn't be able to handle the recent positivity.

I'm all foir it, as long as it is grounded in some sort of reality, you can find posters who more or less exactly a year ago were getting excited about Brown's side, who were 2 points different to the present outfit..... when pointing out it might be a bit early to tell, and that the recruitment of young loans wasn't particularly a good indicator, in comes the usual abuse about negativity.

I still don't think taking Embers' side to the cleaners given what we know about his skills should be used as too much of an indicator, we'll have a better idea after the next 2 home games, where 6 points are necessary.
« Last Edit: Wednesday, September 11, 2019, 13:59:18 by Reg Smeeton » Logged
Exiled Bob

Offline Offline

Posts: 1514


Likes a moan




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: Wednesday, September 11, 2019, 14:09:07 »

That’s what I don’t understand about Wellens sometimes. According to him we were in for Maynard, Mayor, Devitt etc. Obviously they would have been perm signings - with associated wages. I’d imagine Yates would not have been on their sort of money and seeing as Bradford were desperate to get shot of Doyle and Rovrum seem disinterested in Yates I can’t see why they both can’t sign in January - especially with their promotion bonus looming!

They’re not out of our price range at all.
As usual, Reg has taken something that was said "“Sometimes, you can’t compete with strikers’ money, so you have to move to the loan market. You get better quality players for a cheaper price" and twisted it to fit his narrative. Wellens never said we couldn't afford these players at all. 
Logged
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia

Offline Offline

Posts: 34913





Ignore
« Reply #20 on: Wednesday, September 11, 2019, 14:35:23 »

As usual, Reg has taken something that was said "“Sometimes, you can’t compete with strikers’ money, so you have to move to the loan market. You get better quality players for a cheaper price" and twisted it to fit his narrative. Wellens never said we couldn't afford these players at all. 

Can we put to bed the idea I have some sort of narrative... I don't.  It's really pretty simple I observe and then interepret, presuambly you do the same.

My observation is that over the last 2 seasons, is that we haven't signed a striker on a permanent 5 in on loan, now my interpretation of that is the gaffers have been trying to sweat te budget, to get value.... a perfectly fair strategy but it does raise issues.

However as you never really say what you think I can only hazard a guess that you think both Brown and Wellens had the funds to buy strikers but just chose not to, for whatever reason. If you'd explained why there might be some logic in this view, then great I'm all for debate.
Logged
pauld
Aaron Aardvark

Offline Offline

Posts: 25436


Absolute Calamity!




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: Wednesday, September 11, 2019, 14:38:27 »

As usual, Reg has taken something that was said "“Sometimes, you can’t compete with strikers’ money, so you have to move to the loan market. You get better quality players for a cheaper price" and twisted it to fit his narrative. Wellens never said we couldn't afford these players at all.  
tbf, I don't think it's an unreasonable interpretation, either of what was said or the context in which Doyle and Yates came in to the club. Equally, Wellens isn't shy about being a bit cute about what we can/cannot afford or about our targets, so still wouldn't rule out Doyle becoming a perm deal in Jan. Yates might be less likely purely because Rotherham apparently rate him
Logged
Exiled Bob

Offline Offline

Posts: 1514


Likes a moan




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: Wednesday, September 11, 2019, 14:43:15 »

I don't agree. If he had managed to shift Toums he would have had a larger budget and would have been able to pay for a permanent striker. I think it's common knowledge that he wanted to do that. It has nothing to do with "not being able to afford" a permanent signing.....it's just how he chose to spend the budget that he had.
Logged
Exiled Bob

Offline Offline

Posts: 1514


Likes a moan




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: Wednesday, September 11, 2019, 14:47:50 »

However as you never really say what you think I can only hazard a guess that you think both Brown and Wellens had the funds to buy strikers but just chose not to, for whatever reason. If you'd explained why there might be some logic in this view, then great I'm all for debate.
Taking Wellens statement, I interpret it as that he got the 2 strikers in on loan because they were better quality than what he could have got on permanent signings. Both are out of contract at the end of the season and, I guess, his intention would be to try to sign them permanently then. By which time we should, hopefully, be in a higher division and have a higher budget.
Logged
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia

Offline Offline

Posts: 34913





Ignore
« Reply #24 on: Wednesday, September 11, 2019, 14:55:26 »

Taking Wellens statement, I interpret it as that he got the 2 strikers in on loan because they were better quality than what he could have got on permanent signings. Both are out of contract at the end of the season and, I guess, his intention would be to try to sign them permanently then. By which time we should, hopefully, be in a higher division and have a higher budget.

It's a possible interpretation, but an awful lot of ifs.  For me, te short term view of we've these lads for perhaps a season with Doyle and perhaps not with Yates, lets see if we can get up with them and then think again, is more likely.
Logged
The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey

Offline Offline

Posts: 19290


?Absolute Calamity!?




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: Wednesday, September 11, 2019, 14:56:36 »

tbf, I don't think it's an unreasonable interpretation, either of what was said or the context in which Doyle and Yates came in to the club. Equally, Wellens isn't shy about being a bit cute about what we can/cannot afford or about our targets, so still wouldn't rule out Doyle becoming a perm deal in Jan. Yates might be less likely purely because Rotherham apparently rate him
See, I don’t think Rovrum rate him at all. Loaned out to Carlisle last season and us this. And he’s OOC at the end of this season and would go for nowt. It’s a strange scenario why they would loan a player for a season when they’ll get nothing for him. I suspect there may be a ‘buy’ clause in January.
Logged
pauld
Aaron Aardvark

Offline Offline

Posts: 25436


Absolute Calamity!




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: Wednesday, September 11, 2019, 14:57:56 »

See, I don’t think Rovrum rate him at all. Loaned out to Carlisle last season and us this. And he’s OOC at the end of this season and would go for nowt. It’s a strange scenario why they would loan a player for a season when they’ll get nothing for him. I suspect there may be a ‘buy’ clause in January.
Ah, fair do's hadn't realised all that. In which case I concur, so may well get both in Jan/end of season.
Logged
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia

Offline Offline

Posts: 34913





Ignore
« Reply #27 on: Wednesday, September 11, 2019, 14:59:27 »

See, I don’t think Rovrum rate him at all. Loaned out to Carlisle last season and us this. And he’s OOC at the end of this season and would go for nowt. It’s a strange scenario why they would loan a player for a season when they’ll get nothing for him. I suspect there may be a ‘buy’ clause in January.

He wouldn't go for nowt as he'll be under 24, so some sort of compensation must be agreed.
Logged
pauld
Aaron Aardvark

Offline Offline

Posts: 25436


Absolute Calamity!




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: Wednesday, September 11, 2019, 14:59:52 »

I don't agree. If he had managed to shift Toums he would have had a larger budget and would have been able to pay for a permanent striker. I think it's common knowledge that he wanted to do that. It has nothing to do with "not being able to afford" a permanent signing.....it's just how he chose to spend the budget that he had.
Sorry, but I'm struggling to see the difference - if we'd shifted DT he'd have had a larger budget but we couldn't so he didn't? So he stretched the budget a bit further with loans. Also probably an element of "Try before you buy" I suspect
Logged
The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey

Offline Offline

Posts: 19290


?Absolute Calamity!?




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: Wednesday, September 11, 2019, 15:01:19 »

That may be a reasonable explanation. Although I’d imagine any compo would be less than his worth if he wasn’t OOC.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
Print
Jump to: