Campbell?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?




The scapegoating of cambell by wider is quite poor , perhaps if you actually play him he will look fitter how mancy games has he started ?

Im sure cannon and bamford are thrulled to be benched for an injured and out of form bamford and crap so far BBD
 
Wilder says he wants the best for the club and will spend money like its his own..then gives someone with obvious fitness issues a new deal..load o bollocks Chris.
 
complete waste of a squad number we might as well have kept louis marsh here and wilder wonders why the fans are having a go at him
 
Which if you read Arsene Wenger was why he shifted away from English players to African players (i know imagine that).

He said their attitude was sign a contract then graft as they wanted the next one to be with Real Madrid/Man City...

Dare I say it, like Ndiaye did. Never stopped grafting because he wanted to progress.

Our current model is giving pension pot boosting contracts to players on the downslope...
100%

It’s madness and only leads to trouble, slowly (or quickly!) selling off young and hungry players for a club like ours needs to be done for income etc but to replace them with aging squad fillers on the wind down like we are doing is dangerous, should be looking to replace with up and coming talent that want to progress their careers.
 
I’m pretty sure Wilder said the extension was about protecting the asset, ie get him fit, and scoring, then sell him or get him to sign a new contract rather than let him leave for free

Not going too well atm but I can see the logic
 
Don't know what your getting at..its obviously his recommendation.
He signed effectively a 1 year extension (original contract was to 2027) - Wilder intimated in his press conference last week that it was a financial decision in order to retain some value (though his performances will have seen this plummet) and not lose him on a free. It would not surprise me if he's sold off in the next 6-12 months.
 



He cost us nothing and there wasn't a queue of clubs after him when we signed him. So it's not like we're losing out on a transfer fee outlay on him by waiting and seeing how he was performing come December.
But Everton showed interest due to his streak with us in 24/25
 
What my heart would like to think was that it was mind games to try and give Campbell a bit of a confidence boost going into this season, similar to the Shackleton rubbish that Wilder was putting out. Give him (Campbell) a small pay rise and a contract extension, get him in the press, on the website etc and it might just boost his ego and confidence = more goals and a motivated player. The head part of me says, why when you have him tied down until the summer of 2027, don't you say to him if you want a new contract go out and earn it. Worst case we could have a fairly (not huge wages) large earner off the books in 2027 but now have him for another season when we could have just got rid if he didn't make the cut.
Totally agree.
The purported justification of his extension was "asset-protection".
What bollox.
We paid no fee and nor would any sane club today - so it's irrelevant.
He's underperforming and he had a year left.
What's the OBVIOUS thing to do ?
Make him face up to unemployment if he doesn't start to perform.
No one's coming in for him !!
Any scout would report him unworthy of interest.
He can't run.
And even though he never runs nor jumps for a header , he's done by HT.
But dem Blades !
What do we do ?
Make him comfortable with another year !
We really have the brains of a rocking horse don't we ?
 
He signed effectively a 1 year extension (original contract was to 2027) - Wilder intimated in his press conference last week that it was a financial decision in order to retain some value (though his performances will have seen this plummet) and not lose him on a free. It would not surprise me if he's sold off in the next 6-12 months.
Who to?? Someone in league one for half a million.. i wouldn't be buying anybody that can't play 90 minutes...it's more likely he ends up another Shackleton/ Tom Davis and we end up lumbered with another wage thief.
 
Who to?? Someone in league one for half a million.. i wouldn't be buying anybody that can't play 90 minutes...it's more likely he ends up another Shackleton/ Tom Davis and we end up lumbered with another wage thief.
I agree, but I really dislike the term “wage thief”. 100% of the blame is always with the club for offering the contract.
 
Fair enough..i just see extending the contract of someone who's hardly ever managed 90 minutes as shocking decision.
Realise I might be swimming against the tide here and of course fitness levels are definitely questionable but its a different game these days .
With 5 subs , half the outfield players only need to last 60 mins , its strange we dont see more players going hell for leather before getting substituted.

Theres little point for those who cant do a full game conserving energy.
 
Realise I might be swimming against the tide here and of course fitness levels are definitely questionable but its a different game these days .
With 5 subs , half the outfield players only need to last 60 mins , its strange we dont see more players going hell for leather before getting substituted.

Theres little point for those who cant do a full game conserving energy.
The thing is we seem to have quite a few that can only do 60 minutes...looking at our midfield it only seems peck can manage 90 minutes...we really need a big improvement in fitness and conditioning.
 
The thing is we seem to have quite a few that can only do 60 minutes...looking at our midfield it only seems peck can manage 90 minutes...we really need a big improvement in fitness and conditioning.
We've been saying it for ages regarding fitness & condition, least season and behond nothing ever changes why?
 



The thing is we seem to have quite a few that can only do 60 minutes...looking at our midfield it only seems peck can manage 90 minutes...we really need a big improvement in fitness and conditioning.
Wouldn't disagree but lots of teams are making 60 to 75 minute subs, mostly not tactical just fresh legs .

Maybe its a thing , the 60 to 75 minute player , or starters and finishers as they have in rugby .

Don't know how they'd have coped with 1 sub who only came on for injuries , but the games quicker and more intense these days, players didnt do th a distances and press as now .

Its just a thought that we may be a bit obsessed with the 90min player .
 

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom