Is James Wallace injured again?

[GrayBlade]

From memory, Wallace has never played more than 19 games in a season.

Maybe but come on, I bet that he was outstanding in the first 15 minutes of most of them.

 

[Weasel]

Couple of comical points to note.

One seemingly having a pop at the club because they have given Wallace a huge basic wage contract...(without any clue if that is true obviously), and intimating that he should be on a pay deal that means he's paid on a playing basis or a low basic wage!

Yet on the other hand, the club are slagged for not getting certain players in and being tight with the coffers!...so which is it?

Maybe all these experts should contact the club and offer their expertise in football player contract negotiations...

-

Suggest that you read the thread again then to check on the 'couple of comical points to note'.

I have seen anyone state in this thread that the club was at fault for giving Wallace a huge basic wage contract. I do know that i myself have had a pop at Clough for giving a ridiculous 3 year contract offer to a player with suspect injury record. Clough is not and was not SUFC. Also who in this thread has intimated that he should be on a pay as you play deal....? Not sure you would have got him to sign in the first place on those terms and i dont think anyone has intimated that he would ever sign on that basis. Yes you win some and lose some...but you can try to ensure you dont back a three legged horse in the derby by doing some homework beforehand and if you arent quite sure...you edge your bets and dont lump on with a costly 3 year commitment.

Luckily i dont see CW being so flippant with the clubs money as Clough was. As for the club getting slagged off fr not spending money...well perhaps they do but not sure again what thats got to do with Clough giving a 3 year deal to a player with a suspect injury record. In fact is say well done the club for backing the manager. Pity the manager made a foolish call on this one.

Maybe some of us in hindsight could have helped the club with a bit of advice in these tricky player contract negotiations. Perhaps then piss poor players like Hammond wouldnt have been offered a 1 year extension whereby if he was great he could go elsewhere for a bigger payday..if he was shit (as was the case) he could take up his option. Great negotiation that by the club experts...how.could anyone compete with those club experts.. lol!

 

[WF10BLADE]

Couple of comical points to note.

One seemingly having a pop at the club because they have given Wallace a huge basic wage contract...(without any clue if that is true obviously), and intimating that he should be on a pay deal that means he's paid on a playing basis or a low basic wage!

Yet on the other hand, the club are slagged for not getting certain players in and being tight with the coffers!...so which is it?

Maybe all these experts should contact the club and offer their expertise in football player contract negotiations.

But the facts are this.
We wanted to keep Coady...quoted silly money by Liverpool we refused to meet. If we had however decided to go for it, the fee (£1m), plus signing on fees and agents fees...£200k. Add to that the wage a player bought for that fee will expect...5k a week plus bonus's over a 3 year deal (conservative estimate £800k) so Coady for that time would have been £2million (minimum)

Wallace- prior to injury was a top talent, England youth player but had recovered from a bad injury, having played a few games on return for Tranmere. He was out of contract (a contract that would have been cheap as Tranmere were very skint) and had proven his ability and potential.
So no fee, just wages to get him in, which would have to have been competitive. Let's say £5k, as prior to injury he was a million pound player. 3 years deal...£750k
Ignore the injury, he passed a medical. Experienced manager and ex pro's decided that his problems would ultimately settle down and he will get fit. However, as he's not playing, there will be no bonus.

So in summary...at the time we signed him we were looking at 2 players for the same position, one was costing a million at least less over the term of his contract. We were in a period of requiring a fair few players, and with the club then and still not just buying their way out and having a bottomless pit any reasoned, sensible person can see why we took on Wallace. It was a risk that didn't work on this occasion.
You win some....,you lose some.

Oh well that's ok then.

 

[Esablade]

It's not looking good for the lad...

 

[Deadbat]

Wallace was at the signing session today after the open training (he did not partake in that). My lad actually had a bit of banter with him about him sharing his birthday. We were one of the first through but I expect by the end he will be out for another 3 months with writers cramp after signing all the autographs.

 

[Deadbat]

Also Calvert Lewin was there so assume he is injured too

 

[Ecco1889]

Also Calvert Lewin was there so assume he is injured too

a touch of flu m8

 

[Silent Blade]

Also Calvert Lewin was there so assume he is injured too

Scougall was jogging with a trainer round the pitch and didnt take part in the full training. A slight knock from last night's match it must have been?

 

[WF10BLADE]

Scougall was jogging with a trainer round the pitch and didnt take part in the full training. A slight knock from last night's match it must have been?

I sincerely hope fitness is worked on this season, for the last few years our team has looked fucked after 30 minutes and didn't come from behind to win once!

 

[wizadry]

I sincerely hope fitness is worked on this season, for the last few years our team has looked fucked after 30 minutes and didn't come from behind to win once!

To be fair Les, you'd be fucked after a night downtown on the lash.

 

[super_pig]

wrong thread title this..
would be better if it said.. 'is wallace fit for once?'

 

[Sothall_Blade]

It's ok blaming Clough for signing Wallace but he's not a doctor or a physio and there are people at the club who were/are very well paid to carry out a thorough medical before the player gets anywhere near a pen and a contract.

Is the suggestion here that Wallace failed his medical but Clough went ahead and signed him anyway?

If not then the finger of blame needs to be pointed more at the people who failed the club regarding Wallace's fitness and durability.

Who are they? How did they get it so wrong? Are they still working for the club now? Have any lessons been learned? These are the questions not nobody seems ito be nterested in asking in the rush to blame Clough.

 

[alcoblade]

If it were Wallace alone I'd agree, perhaps some bad luck but still an obvious gamble in the first place. But look at the totality of players signed, the value they hold for us how, how much they've been paid, and where the effluent have ended up - Clough's transfer policy was an utter disaster.

It's definitely a third division version of Bryan Robson. It's taken the two years to fully expose just how poor so major of his players were / are.

UTB

 

[Revolution]

It's ok blaming Clough for signing Wallace but he's not a doctor or a physio and there are people at the club who were/are very well paid to carry out a thorough medical before the player gets anywhere near a pen and a contract.

Is the suggestion here that Wallace failed his medical but Clough went ahead and signed him anyway?

If not then the finger of blame needs to be pointed more at the people who failed the club regarding Wallace's fitness and durability.

Who are they? How did they get it so wrong? Are they still working for the club now? Have any lessons been learned? These are the questions not nobody seems ito be nterested in asking in the rush to blame Clough.

The finger of blame goes to whoever gave a 3 year contract to someone who has never been fit enough to play 40% of his team's games.

3 years. That's negligent.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

The finger of blame goes to whoever gave a 3 year contract to someone who has never been fit enough to play 40% of his team's games.

3 years. That's negligent.

Clough, when interviewed by Radio Sheffield after he signed, said it was "2 years and a 1-year option" for Wallace. Did he say that because:

a) he made an error and knew it was a simple 3-year deal all along,

b) 2+1 was what we offered, but Wallace insisted on 3-years straight, which Clough agreed to, or

c) 2+1 was what we offered, but Wallace insisted on 3-years straight, which Brannigan went and agreed with without Clough's say on the matter?

A 2+1 deal would have made more sense, particularly given Clough in the same interview said "that's the sort of deal we seem to be offering at the minute". 2+1 is what we offered McEveley, McGahey, Higdon. We presumably had some sort of basic understanding at that time that handing out 3-year deals with no protection for us for players that were potential gambles wasn't a very good idea, which is why we insisted on the option for those deals. Basham got 3 years (wholly understandable), nobody else did other than Wallace. It was a ridiculous deal we should never have offered, and I think desperation led us to agreeing to it.

Wallace probably insisted on it because he had some doubts on his fitness – after all, everyone else did at the time other than it seems the people in charge of our signings. That's totally understandable on his part, but we should have had some better sense. I highly doubt the medical team would have given him a completely clean bill of health. More likely a case of "he has passed the medical, but bear in mind his injury history which has meant he is yet to feature in 20 league games a season so far."

 

[Revolution]

And another thing about that contract: it is very unusual, to say the least, for a player to have serious injury problems several years in a row and suddenly become someone who plays 35+ games a season. There is data showing this, and United should have known that. Such a player is only worth a 1 year deal. Same for Coutts.

 

[Barney]

And another thing about that contract: it is very unusual, to say the least, for a player to have serious injury problems several years in a row and suddenly become someone who plays 35+ games a season. There is data showing this, and United should have known that. Such a player is only worth a 1 year deal. Same for Coutts.

It really was a typical United error.

 

[Swanseablade]

But you take chances like that as a manager. It's all very good people coming in with hindsight saying "that was stupid" but at the time I don't remember anyone saying anything of the sort.

It didn't work so we should get him off the books and move along. Castigating a former manager from the comfort of your keyboard 2 years on is great, but not relevant.

Really?
I remember a few posts at the time doubting the signing cos of his fitness track record.
if a manager chooses to take a risk with a player with a dubious fitness record, you'd like to think that risk would be mitigated somewhat in the type/length of contract the player was offered ?
Clough doesn't appear to have done that, so rightly some are questioning it - fck all wrong with that.

 

[Bladesway]

If it were Wallace alone I'd agree, perhaps some bad luck but still an obvious gamble in the first place. But look at the totality of players signed, the value they hold for us how, how much they've been paid, and where the effluent have ended up - Clough's transfer policy was an utter disaster.

It's definitely a third division version of Bryan Robson. It's taken the two years to fully expose just how poor so major of his players were / are.

UTB

Clough was the only manager we have gone forward under in 8 years plus. To compare him to Robson is just plain wrong. Win ratios, success in cups and all done by breaking even on spend. Not often I say this about you Alco but we are polar opposites here.

 

[BigBed]

How can James be injured again????? Surely he is just ALWAYS INJURED isn't he?

 

[alcoblade]

Clough was the only manager we have gone forward under in 8 years plus. To compare him to Robson is just plain wrong. Win ratios, success in cups and all done by breaking even on spend. Not often I say this about you Alco but we are polar opposites here.

"Moving forward" is a classic tallest dwarf case though.

We started at almost our worst period in 130 years of existence and ended it in almost our worst period in 130 years of existence

The point about transfers is surely beyond debate. It would take a more interested statto to confirm this, but I doubt so many players have ever been signed and almost, if not to a man, gone on to fail as signings and end up lower than when they came. The facts about his long list of transfers are there to be seen. Those we can't release we are now stuck with, with no other interest. A total disaster of a transfer record.

UTB

 

[Bladesway]

"Moving forward" is a classic tallest dwarf case though.

We started at almost our worst period in 130 years of existence and ended it in almost our worst period in 130 years of existence

The point about transfers is surely beyond debate. It would take a more interested statto to confirm this, but I doubt so many players have ever been signed and almost, if not to a man, gone on to fail as signings and end up lower than when they came. The facts about his long list of transfers are there to be seen. Those we can't release we are now stuck with, with no other interest. A total disaster of a transfer record.

UTB

I can't argue with how those players have performed under Adkins but assuming Che goes up a level at least and we get £2m plus for him, Cloughs record of bringing on of youth players record isn't bad in my book.

I agree in part about the tallest dwarf bit but bearing in mind his supposed superior track record why did Adkins fail so spectacularly? Surely being a better manager he should have strolled it? After all he got Billy Sharp in as well.

You know who I blame for all this in any case, it isn't Clough and it isn't Adkins.

 

[alcoblade]

I can't argue with how those players have performed under Adkins but assuming Che goes up a level at least and we get £2m plus for him, Cloughs record of bringing on of youth players record isn't bad in my book.

I agree in part about the tallest dwarf bit but bearing in mind his supposed superior track record why did Adkins fail so spectacularly? Surely being a better manager he should have strolled it? After all he got Billy Sharp in as well.

You know who I blame for all this in any case, it isn't Clough and it isn't Adkins.

I'm not defending the job Adkins did. I'd give him a 3 out of 10, and Clough a 2. That may seem harsh, but I'd rubbish Clough given the freedom he had to build his own squad, and the ongoing damage he inflicted on us.

Adkins failed after one year, largely with someone else's players. He has a few duffers to explain himself, no doubt. Though it might be argued he failed the players, the wider footballing world has judged Clough's players as "excess to requirement".

And of course we both agree on a major ongoing issue. Not giving any manager the time to see out a job is a footballing desease that we've caught and can't cure.

UTB

 

[ShockingBadBuy]

We can have a go at Clough for some/many/the majority of the players he brought in. Can we really have a go at him for the length of contract they were given ? Are we sure this was negotiated and finalised by the manager ? He may have had a freer rein than most managers over recruitment, but will he really have been responsible for the kind of contractural detail we are hammering him for on this thread ?

 

[Revolution]

We can have a go at Clough for some/many/the majority of the players he brought in. Can we really have a go at him for the length of contract they were given ? Are we sure this was negotiated and finalised by the manager ? He may have had a freer rein than most managers over recruitment, but will he really have been responsible for the kind of contractural detail we are hammering him for on this thread ?

Who cares who did it? Somebody at the club did it. That's the issue.

 

[Rodders]

Who cares who did it? Somebody at the club did it. That's the issue.

Assuming that's why Mr Brannigan has been despatched quick sharp.

 

[DOC PACE WAS MY DAD]

I notice that, as sure as night follows day and water flows downhill, Wallace did not feature last night. Is he injured again?

Time he and United call time - I think I am right in saying an insurance claim can be made by both parties when career is over due to injury but after he leaves United he may still resurrect a career at some level ....anybody know the situation for Wallace James?

 

[DOC PACE WAS MY DAD]

Unbelievable, slagging off a player because he is injured. As a professional footballer he must be absolutely gutted at how his career is going down the pan. Does anyone seriously think he prefers sitting on the sidelines, rather than being out on the pitch playing games. He injury problems will result in him probably being unable to get a contract at another team, so his comfortable well paid career is going to end, far earlier than it should.
His career promised so much and it is disappointing for both the Blades and Wallace that he just cannot get fit. Cloughie took a gamble by signing a very promising player, who was though recovering from a serious injury. He could have been a fantastic signing if he could have remained fit, however it appears that its just not going to happen. He cannot though be criticised for signing a contract that the club offered him. Unfortunately for Wallace the time is fast approaching when he may have to call it a day and retire, which for me is sad, seeing such a promising career cut short.

Surely with all the money layout what happened with the medical report when he first signed for Chuff