Loan deals - Goalie and Gallagher

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

Sothall_Blade

Sothall_Blade

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
6,703
Reaction score
8,515
The implication seems to be that now we need to replace Howard for three months, we can't afford to renew Gallagher's loan deal without a transfer embargo being imposed due to the FFP limits on wages.

How is that possible when Gallagher is essentially a replacement for Williamson who we offered a full contract to? When Williamson didn't sign that should have freed up enough room in the budget for another permanent signing. Now we apparently can't even fund a short-term replacement.

Also, I would question the wisdom of having SIX strikers in the squad. Five of whom were signed this Summer. Surely the club need to be trying to send either Miller or Porter out on loan to free up some cash for the positions where we're looking very threadbare?
 

Good stuff Sothy. Don't fall for the FFP rule line that will be trotted out by his loyalists.

I reckon McCabe is skint (relatively) - just check the February 2012 Scarborough International Holdings accounts. He injected over £100m as share capital as far as I can see (via family trust I believe).

Huge retained losses over last few years circa £200m. The bottom line of the balance sheet shows to me that he really isn't a big hitter anymore (net worth of group circa £20m)- I reckon all his Valad wedge has gone keeping Scarborough afloat.
 
While Williamson's offer was on the table, maybe we thought we could get rid of other members of the squad? Cresswell apparantly had offers from other clubs.

And we signed Kitson after Williamson's offer was withdrawn I think?


Couple of absentees and we're desperate for more loans... :rolleyes:
 
No sorry - I have access to a database which is basically figures taken from Companies House but I can't copy and paste the link I am afraid. You'd need to go on Companies House and pay for a set of accounts.
 
Balham Blade said:
And the circle is complete: our younger players don't have the experience to come into the first team set-up so we get loanees in to play instead, thus blocking the route to experience...
Click to expand...


..............or we get the youngsters in, they aren't ready (as Wilson clearly suspects), and a huge proportion of the support is up in arms because we're doing it on the cheap and getting beat by the likes of Oldham*.


:)

UTB

*what was that match we got stuffed in with Long in the net, perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't remember everyone leaving delighted because we were developing the youth
 
alcoblade said:
..............or we get the youngsters in, they aren't ready (as Wilson clearly suspects), and a huge proportion of the support is up in arms because we're doing it on the cheap and getting beat by the likes of Oldham*.


:)

UTB

*what was that match we got stuffed in with Long in the net, perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't remember everyone leaving delighted because we were developing the youth
Click to expand...

Quite. Can't win no matter what route they go down.

It would be the same no matter the nature of our predicament, some people just like a good old moan. If United were winning the Champions League every other year there would be people on here moaning about the times we didn't win it and dwelling on the reasons why.
 
Micalijo said:
No sorry - I have access to a database which is basically figures taken from Companies House but I can't copy and paste the link I am afraid. You'd need to go on Companies House and pay for a set of accounts.
Click to expand...

There not at CH, theyre scribbled on the back of a packet of B&H in McCabes office, and it's not a king size pack either.
 
Bergen Blade said:
Couple of absentees and we're desperate for more loans... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That's because we're desperate for promotion isn't it?
You can't seriously be wanting United to rely solely on Long and Willis for the next 3 months (18 matches)?
McAllister has been tried on the right wing and I'm afraid to say he wasn't good enough.
Wilson has seen a lot more of Tonne, McFadzean and Chappell than you or I and he clearly doesn't think they're up to it. The most likely replacement for Gallagher is therefore Williams, who may well be required to cover left back instead at some point in the next two months.

We're not talking about plugging short-term gaps until senior first team players return.
If we were I would be in favour of utilising the infamous "Development Squad" members.
In both cases, the loan players would go straight into the first team and play every match.
I don't think having 3 loan players is excessive, especially if 2 are for positions where we have no other senior players.
 
Sothall_Blade let's face it: we've three player in the reserves who can play on the wing: Chappell, Tonne and Westlake. All three are 21 years old so if they're not up to it in the opinion of the manager, why are we continuing to pay them?

I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be. I know Wilson has seen more of the three of them than any of us but my view is that he is risk-adverse and doesn't want it to go wrong.

I thought Gallagher was poor at Orient for the most part so is it really that much of a loss? Granted, his set pieces are good - particularly corners - but his open play wasn't up to scratch. Put McAllister in and promote one of the young lads to the bench.
 
Im sorry to say that Wilson has got us into this predicament by going all Warnock on us with Strikers. Is there really any need for 7 (not including Tonne or Philliskirk) 5 of which were signed or re-signed over the summer (not including Cresswell).

I'm also struggling to understand the Miller signing. We paid a fee, Ill say again, a fee for Miller (ok only £60,000 but a fee nonetheless) and Wilson says he's one for the Future. We dont have the financial headroom to be buying players for the future, particularly when there are current issue's that need addressing, Williamson and Quinn leaving for example.

I appreciate he doesnt want to get caught like last year with strikers but surely not by neglecting other areas of the team. If he believes the youth players aren't good enough this would have been a view he already had before the season started, which makes neglecting the other areas in the team even more criminal.
 
Balham Blade said:
Sothall_Blade let's face it: we've three player in the reserves who can play on the wing: Chappell, Tonne and Westlake. All three are 21 years old so if they're not up to it in the opinion of the manager, why are we continuing to pay them?

I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be. I know Wilson has seen more of the three of them than any of us but my view is that he is risk-adverse and doesn't want it to go wrong.

I thought Gallagher was poor at Orient for the most part so is it really that much of a loss? Granted, his set pieces are good - particularly corners - but his open play wasn't up to scratch. Put McAllister in and promote one of the young lads to the bench.
Click to expand...

McAllister is a central midfielder, Westlake is a right back. Tonne and Chappell have never played at this level.
Wilson would rather play an experienced Championship player for the next 2 months and who can blame him for that?
So what if he doesn’t want to make risky decisions with a fair chance of it going wrong? Good!
Why on earth would he? Why would you want him to?
It's crucial for the future of the club that we get back up this season. No time to be gambling.
At the end of the day, you either back the manager’s judgement or you don’t.

It does all seem simple enough to me. It’s clear that he’s very keen to sign Gallagher and the board won’t let him..

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11719/8158093/Wilson-keen-to-keep-Gallagher
 
Sothall_Blade said:
McAllister is a central midfielder, Westlake is a right back. Tonne and Chappell have never played at this level.
Click to expand...
True, although Westlake has played on the wing and we're talking about one change out of 11. Even Lionel Messi had to make his debut once.

The strange one for me was Westlake in CM against Bury. Why?!

Wilson would rather play an experienced Championship player for the next 2 months and who can blame him for that?
Click to expand...
Not me - but I do worry about the long term impact. We are where we are because we didn't plan well two seasons ago.

So what if he doesn’t want to make risky decisions with a fair chance of it going wrong? Good!
Why on earth would he? Why would you want him to?
Click to expand...
Because there's a better than even chance that it won't go wrong; and the benefits if it goes right far outweigh the costs of it going wrong.

It's crucial for the future of the club that we get back up this season. No time to be gambling.
At the end of the day, you either back the manager’s judgement or you don’t.
Click to expand...
What is crucial for the club is that it has to stand on its own two feet financially. The best way of doing that is to be in a higher league and producing home grown players.

If we relied on loanees and got promoted at the end of the season surely it's detrimental to the long term viability of the club if we then don't have those loanees in the Championship?

I have repeated stated my views on Wilson: I think he's keen to play the game in what I consider the right way but I have serious reservations on his ability to change the course of a game. It all links in to a view that I have of DW: namely that he is afraid of making the wrong decision.

It does all seem simple enough to me. It’s clear that he’s very keen to sign Gallagher and the board won’t let him..

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11719/8158093/Wilson-keen-to-keep-Gallagher
Click to expand...

I quite agree, it is clear that Wilson wants Gallagher - who is a good player at this level. Where I think you and I will have to agree to disagree is that it's a bad thing if we don't sign him.
 

Micalijo said:
Good stuff Sothy. Don't fall for the FFP rule line that will be trotted out by his loyalists.

I reckon McCabe is skint (relatively) - just check the February 2012 Scarborough International Holdings accounts. He injected over £100m as share capital as far as I can see (via family trust I believe).

Huge retained losses over last few years circa £200m. The bottom line of the balance sheet shows to me that he really isn't a big hitter anymore (net worth of group circa £20m)- I reckon all his Valad wedge has gone keeping Scarborough afloat.
Click to expand...

Honestly, couldn't you have come up with something a bit better than this. Didn't you notice that Swindon have currently got a transfer embargo because they've overstepped the FFP mark by some piddling little percentage.
I have no loyalty to McCabe either way, the club is in the mess it is because of decisions he's made (plus obviously those of our friends at the FA), but if this transfer would land us in the same bother what can the board do about it? Really?
It doesn't matter how much money McCabe has got any more, we have to live within our means, and if that means we can't sign Gallagher because we need a keeper then so be it. It's Wilson's descision to make at the end of the day, does he sign an experienced keeper on a reasonable wage, or does he trust in Long and a slice of luck that he doesn't get injured or suspended and sign Gallagher? Don't you ever get bored of trotting out the same old rubbish Mic?
 
Anyone know when Lecs will be back? I originally heard September ages ago but not heard anything since.
 
Balham Blade said:
Sothall_Blade let's face it: we've three player in the reserves who can play on the wing: Chappell, Tonne and Westlake. All three are 21 years old so if they're not up to it in the opinion of the manager, why are we continuing to pay them?

I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be. I know Wilson has seen more of the three of them than any of us but my view is that he is risk-adverse and doesn't want it to go wrong.
Click to expand...

All managers see more of the players than fans. Adrian Heath did, Bryan Robson did and Micky Adams did. If fans are going to have a reasoned debate about team selection and tactics we have to agree to assume that managers are not always 100% correct all the time. This includes those who've done - and do - well.

Danny Wilson persuaded the likes of Chappell and Tønne to extend their contracts here a few months ago. We have to start questioning why they're not playing when we're out of cash and in desperate need of their type of player. Are they continuously out drinking? Has the football fame gone to their heads? Is Chris Morgan completely failing to help them develop? Or is the pressure on Wilson to get us promoted THIS season so intense that he doesn't dare playing youngsters, even though he knows deep down it would be in the club's best long term interest to do so?
 
Bergen Blade said:
Are they continuously out drinking? Has the football fame gone to their heads? Is Chris Morgan completely failing to help them develop? Or is the pressure on Wilson to get us promoted THIS season so intense that he doesn't dare playing youngsters, even though he knows deep down it would be in the club's best long term interest to do so?
Click to expand...

..........are they not good enough yet, but it is hoped that they will be later

It's clear to you that it's in the club's best long term interests to play players who've definitely not shone out, but who might in future. It's not clear to me, at all.

The only thing that's clear to me is that getting promoted this season is in the club's best long term interest.

UTB
 
Balham Blade said:
Sothall_Blade let's face it: we've three player in the reserves who can play on the wing: Chappell, Tonne and Westlake. All three are 21 years old so if they're not up to it in the opinion of the manager, why are we continuing to pay them?

I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be. I know Wilson has seen more of the three of them than any of us but my view is that he is risk-adverse and doesn't want it to go wrong.

I thought Gallagher was poor at Orient for the most part so is it really that much of a loss? Granted, his set pieces are good - particularly corners - but his open play wasn't up to scratch. Put McAllister in and promote one of the young lads to the bench.
Click to expand...
Gallagher was poor at the Orient.Fact.
UTB
 
Balham Blade said:
Sothall_Blade let's face it: we've three player in the reserves who can play on the wing: Chappell, Tonne and Westlake. All three are 21 years old so if they're not up to it in the opinion of the manager, why are we continuing to pay them?

I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be. I know Wilson has seen more of the three of them than any of us but my view is that he is risk-adverse and doesn't want it to go wrong.

I thought Gallagher was poor at Orient for the most part so is it really that much of a loss? Granted, his set pieces are good - particularly corners - but his open play wasn't up to scratch. Put McAllister in and promote one of the young lads to the bench.
Click to expand...

Gallagher was disappointing but he was still an improvement on what we had. McAllister isn't the answer - he has had plenty of opportunities and contributes very little. We are still crying out for a pacey winger.
 
it does seem weird how were going about things. loads of youngsters who never get a game whatever the situation. then we cant afford to keep gallagher. either the youngsters are good enough, or they may as well be released. the whole "one for the future" line is cobblers. if a player isn't good enough to play for us in this division by the time he's 20, he never will be. 90% of these so-called promising youngsters end up being shipped out to non-league and nobody ever hears about them again. almost all the ones that make it, show their class at a young age. If any of them look good enough they should be given a go, the rest we should get rid of to free up wages.

The whole idea of building a team from youngsters is only any good if you're man utd and can cherry-pick the best. A club in our position is lucky to maybe get 1 youth player break in to the first team every year.
 
B.Lade said:
Honestly, couldn't you have come up with something a bit better than this. Didn't you notice that Swindon have currently got a transfer embargo because they've overstepped the FFP mark by some piddling little percentage.
I have no loyalty to McCabe either way, the club is in the mess it is because of decisions he's made (plus obviously those of our friends at the FA), but if this transfer would land us in the same bother what can the board do about it? Really?
Click to expand...

You and Mic would appear to have something in common. Blame McCabe! its all his fault!

Those friends of ours at the FA being responsible? yes they are! awarding 3 points to teams like wigan that beat us!
 
Bergen Blade said:
This has been the club's only objective every season since 2007.
Click to expand...

It should be the clubs objective every season since 1889, if it wasn't in the top fight. Players are a means to an end, not the end itself.

We've done OK on the youth front. Our mistakes have been inflated player contracts on ageing players, not blooding youth. The complete lack of youth that have gone on to prove us wrong is proof that we've got it about right. All IMHO obviously.

UTB
 
KenMcnaughtsNuts said:
it does seem weird how were going about things. loads of youngsters who never get a game whatever the situation. then we cant afford to keep gallagher. either the youngsters are good enough, or they may as well be released. the whole "one for the future" line is cobblers. if a player isn't good enough to play for us in this division by the time he's 20, he never will be. 90% of these so-called promising youngsters end up being shipped out to non-league and nobody ever hears about them again. almost all the ones that make it, show their class at a young age. If any of them look good enough they should be given a go, the rest we should get rid of to free up wages.

The whole idea of building a team from youngsters is only any good if you're man utd and can cherry-pick the best. A club in our position is lucky to maybe get 1 youth player break in to the first team every year.
Click to expand...


I completely agree with your lst paragraph, so then I don't understand the first bit. You need to acccount for uncertainty in abilities at the time a contract was offered, length of contracts etc. I doubt we dish our many contracts to over 20's who don't have a chance of the first team. Once they've got a contract, you can't "just get rid of them", but it's no reason to play them if you don't believe they're up to it yet.

UTB
 
alcoblade said:
It should be the clubs objective every season since 1889, if it wasn't in the top fight. Players are a means to an end, not the end itself.

We've done OK on the youth front. Our mistakes have been inflated player contracts on ageing players, not blooding youth. The complete lack of youth that have gone on to prove us wrong is proof that we've got it about right. All IMHO obviously.

UTB
Click to expand...

Ok pal, let's hope we get our policy spot on in the future as well ;).

Very excited about the match today! We're live on national tv in Norway, which doesn't happen every season. UTB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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