Think you could just be on to something Doom and gloom merchants won't agree. We didn't sign a left back (despite having smith, Nyatanga and Templeton) so LJ must be sacked. Even though he may well have a very good left back lined up but couldn't sign him this window, but thinks Smith and Nyatanga are better than paying over the odds and over the wages to bring in some stop gap.
I think this could be a better way of doing things - there's not going to be any wastage on wages for players not getting into the team. In terms of depth, we're not even that short now if we assume that the likes of Cowgill, Digby and Maris are going to be trusted when we have a few injuries.
Nah he can't have a plan. He doesn't know what he's doing...or summat. Reading that he doesn't know what he's doing on here was a surefire confirmation in my head that he does know what he's doing.
Didn't we try to sign at least half a dozen strikers before Smith? Sure I've read we've had bids accepted but the player couldn't agree terms, or chose elsewhere, or our bid was refused. Unless you're saying all that was us just ******* about and we didn't really want those, we just wanted to wait until an hour before the transfer window shut to get someone in on loan.
Agree with this. We couldn't agree a deal a month ago so come back & panic sign him on probably better wages / larger fee or whatever was holding it up before after we've tried signing several other strikers. I'd say it's very much a panic buy. Although I'm glad we've got him, rate him
A bit confused on this - Smith was the first striker I heard us linked with signing after we signed Wilkinson. Off the top of my head he's the only striker I've actually heard Johnson admit that we'd made approaches for. For whatever reason, it didn't work out. Led to believe Swindon said we didn't meet the valuation. Swindon then signed Wes Thomas on loan today and I would presume then decided they were willing to let Smith go. Johnson himself said that Smith hasn't started this season well but he believes that's down to how Swindon have played so far this year and that we can get the best out of him. Which other strikers have we openly courted/bid for? I'm probably forgetting them but it seemed clear to me that he was very high on Johnson's wish list - not a panic. He is in fact the striker that Johnson talked about quite openly at meetings with supporters. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It feels like we've been signing Michael Smith for months. I'm sure he was one of the first names I remember being linked - maybe the pieces just fell into place a bit later than anticipated.
Every single thread I've opened this evening, every single one of them, is a dig at other users of this forum. Either thinly veiled or absolutely explicit. And it's done with such a superior tone it started to make sick. Personally, I'm not surprised people were worried by our summer recruitment, but apparently to be so makes you a lovely person. I'm happy we've signed Michael Smith. To be honest, I know little about him, but a quick read on Wiki shows him to be a 6'4 target man who scores about 1 in 3 and at 23, he's young but not a kid. He sounds ideal. I thought others would be happy too, but unless all those threads are hiding, people just seem to be using the signing to have a go. That's an explanation of the tone of my post. The content: I don't believe Johnson wanted to wait until the last minute before signing a striker. I don't think that was part of the plan. I believe he wanted a striker in weeks if not months ago. Smith may have been a target early on, but I find it difficult, if not impossible, to believe he hasn't been looking elsewhere when that seemingly fell through. Ian Henderson from Rochdale was mentioned in the national press. Others were too, although I'm struggling to recall their names, because, well, I'd struggle to recall the name of 11 football league players who don't play for Barnsley. I probably should apologise for the tone of my above post, and some others, but I don't feel like it because I don't believe my behaviour has been as bad as the majority of stuff I've read. I'm reacting to provocation not picking a fight.
The last thing I was doing was picking a fight & I didn't get that tone out of your post to be clear - I was genuinely unsure who else we'd been openly linked with. I'd completely forgotten about Henderson. From being one of the few that have our owner on Facebook, he hinted that we wouldn't be doing anything other than a few small transactions which I believe were the kid from Gloucester & Townsend. I genuinely think we'd exhausted all avenues on getting one of the strikers that Johnson had on his list and were probably going to have to wait. Then Swindon got a striker in on loan which I presume then re-opened dialogue with them and led to Smith arriving. I just genuinely don't believe he was a panic - I think he's been the main striker target throughout the window & we caught a break that led to him becoming available at the last minute. I don't post on here much at all mainly for the reasons you highlight above. I have to admit one particular thread this week had irritated me a lot 3 days after the Everton performance questioning whether our gaffer had a clue how to manage a football team. I probably saw the post above as a chance to make a sarcastic post in response to that which I shouldn't have. Certainly didn't think anything untoward of the post you made & wasn't trying to be antagonistic in my response either - apologies if that tone came across. Back under my rock I go! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I didn't think your reply to me was antagonistic. Far from it, it appeared genuine, but I believe both our previous posts were, so I wanted to explain myself. I don't think Smith was a panic buy either. Your explanation makes perfect sense. But I don't think it was part of the plan either. Like you say, the opportunity arose, some what out of the blue after it looked dead, and we took it. You've got to credit the club for acting fast on that. I'm still confused why we have had such a difficult time recruiting permanent players. Johnson has stated he does a lot of time consuming research before signing a player, but even taking that in to account, we seem to have really struggled. Everything I've read suggests it is the SCMP rules and we're struggling to get players to sign a contract which will keep us under budget. With so few professionals on our books over the age of 20, that suggests to me we're paying those we've got an awful lot of money. Considering where we've signed them from, I find that strange. Dunno. The permanent signings Johnson has made look good, but I'm less convinced about some of the loan signings and think we would have been better off waiting until September to judge exactly what we needed. That may mean we would have missed out on some players Johnson rated, but it also could have resulted in us signing more appropriate players for the areas in which we are weak and it's not until you've played a few games that you can judge where that is.
I don't understand the Fair Play rules, but I presume that if we have to sign permenant and not paid from Patrick's generous pocket then it will affect these rules. LJ stated the loan of Smith was done this way because we wanted it this way. I am assuming (rightly or wrongly) that buys us time and space in our cost / revenue position until the next window as well as seeing how he settles, although he is nearer to his hometown here. We know Smith was a target high on our list, we knew it wasn't going to be an easy deal, yet we have done it. It might not be our current finances we are thinking about but where we expect to be end of season, which I believe is how the rules work. We don't have an insight into what the expectations by Christmas are cost wise but the club do. In addition I think we have a higher number of players who seem to fit well compared to the past where I think we said more than 50% failed. So far jury's out on Rothwell and especially Wilkinson, but they need to be given a chance.
My understanding of the fair play rules is that clubs are limited to a certain wage budget and this limit is dictated by the clubs' projected turnover. I believe that even if there is a risk that wages will outweigh turnover in the the not too distant future, sanctions can be put in place. Presumably this is to reduce the risk of clubs gambling with their financial future for short term gain. Included in the turnover calculation are season ticket sales (amongst the highest in the division) gate receipts (healthy) transfer fees received (I presume Holgate bolstered this considerably) and sponsorship/merchandising etc. I also understand (though I'm sure I'll be corrected on this) that benefactor loans/donations etc are also included. Clearly, as we've been propped up by these in previous years they are also a significant figure. Add into the mix the fact that we've dropped Lita, Treacy, Cranie, Jennings, Bailey etc from the wage bill to be replaced by lower division players or younger loanees and I'm struggling to understand why the FFP rules have been such a hindrance. By the way, this isn't meant as a negative post. I've been impressed by a lot of the recruitment this season and even back the clubs policy on bringing in loanees (a necessary evil) However, I'm absolutely certain we don't have a squad capable of challenging for success this season, not through lack of quality but purely on lack of numbers. No doubt this will all come out in the wash and when the accounts are posted, it will show our wage bill is considerably higher than I've assumed. I totally accept the argument that recruiting quality at our level is difficult, it must be close to impossible! But I don't buy the excuse that FFP has stopped us building a big enough first team squad.
Swindon signed another striker onddeadline day, then let Smith go. Maybe that had something to do with it
