I thought the big thing about loaning Pearson was that we had the option to buy, maybe not... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We're only looking for league one standard players and were supposed to have one of the larger budgets, better crowds etc etc. I think compared to 80% of the division we have got a bit of money. I'd love to know if we're paying a percentage of these loan wages. I'd rather him bring in a decent league one player than a loanee.
I don't think Simeon Jackson had a fair run in the team for me to criticise him. But as the other two, it been a waste of a wage (if we paid their wages that is)
I remain sceptical but hopefully they will have learnt from the summer and have permanent signings ready to go on 2nd January, particularly up front. It would be criminal not to as getting it right before the JPT game would probably pay for itself with the prospective trip to Wembley. All three of the departures are failures of Johnson, remember it was only the length of his Bolton contract that prevented LJ wasting £75k and three years wages on Wilkinson and LJ's turned a regular goalscorer at this level, Smith, into someone who looks lost. This from the self-proclaimed infinitely detailed researcher of players. Not fussed if we keep any of the loan/temp players but White seems to be fitting reasonably well:- Isgrove - apart from one game where Blackpool gave him the freedom of Oakwell to carry the ball in space has been woeful and will continue to be ineffective and give the ball away if other teams mark him. Williams is much better and in the rare time against Blackpool looked far more incisive with actual end product, better crossing and a threat to the opposition goal (should've had a penalty). Get rid, indicatively sad that LJ froths over Isgrove. Pearson - probably the most difficult one. I'd keep the Pearson of the Blackpool and some of the early games but not the one who so often has underperformed and given away goals this season. White - looks good going forward and seems to work well with Hammill but could it just be that Matty Templeton is the future? A White/Templeton rotation might work well for the rest of this season. Wabara - can't really see what Bree has done wrong by comparison and James should be given a run, in which case do we really need this guy who falls over half the time and seems to only ever cross the ball way over the other side of the penalty area (again first goal against Blackpool excepted). In future, loans should be used to cover injuries or if you can get, eg a David Beckham a la Preston, not as the spine of the team, end of.
Some bizarre comments in this thread. Jackson and Smith being regular goalscorers? Jackson scored two goals for Coventry last season (or something really low), and Smith has had one good season as a striker playing in a team that scored bags of goals and had the best winger in the league. You could argue that with Hamill in the team and is looking to play two direct wingers each week, that Smith might flourish, but I was never convinced by his signing anyway. Two ways to look at it. We've done well in that we had a fee agreed for Smith but loaned him first to be sure, and as a result have avoided wasting money on a player who didn't fit in. Or our scouting wasn't up to scratch in the first place or we haven't utilised him properly. Think I'm leaning towards the former.
This try before you buy is nonsense. We should have some proper scouting in place & know about the player beforehand. It's not as if we've recruited Smith from Eastern Europe or South America he's come from our division.
Wilkinson: Money motivated. Not willing to take a paycut and drop a division for regular first team football. Didn't have the passion for us and we bring him in anyway. Thankfully he's gone now and we didn't get to sign him. Jackson: Proven goal scorer, talked up way too much for someone we've got shut of. LJ shouldn't have spoke the way he did about someone he's letting go, as it doesn't make sense and makes him look rather silly. Smith: We've ruined a proven goal scorer. Something along the road has gone badly wrong.
Swindon let Smith go for some reason and can't see our loan fee being worthy of letting one of the best strikers in the league from last season go to a divisional rival.
Wilkinson - wasn't it more about contract security than money? There's a bit of a difference and unfair to be critical really. Jackson - how many goals for Coventry last season? Proven in the past, not so much in recent times. Smith - one season scoring goals in the best attacking side in the league doesn't qualify as proven. With a better centre forward than Smith they might have got automatic promotion.
I think your comments on Jackson and Smith are rather contradictory. You've said Smith hasn't done anything prior to last season, but used last season's poor return as an example as to why we shouldn't have signed Jackson? If we were to look for a striker that has scored as regularly as Jackson and as recently as Smith, we'd be paying 7 figures unless we were to pick one up from the lower/non leagues. I recall reading the Coventry forun when we took Jackson on trial, and the sentiment I got is rather similar to that I've read on here. Many thought he looked good when he came on, but feel he didn't get the run of games he deserved, and others eluded to his recent form as being the reason he didn't get the games he needed. I reckon there's still a 15 goal striker in there if he was given the opportunity, however 1 start (I think) and a series of 10 minute cameos isn't ever going to bring that striker back. Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
J Not contradictory at all. Not questioning the ability or potential of either, just the term 'proven' that is constantly being thrown around. I think Smith would actually look a lot better in the current system playing up front with Winnall, and having proper wingers. And Jackson kind of looked promising, but all ifs and maybes. We'll never know. I do know that it's a touch extreme to be calling either proven players at this stage in their respective careers.