Jump to content
oneBoro Forum
SmogDane

January transfer window 19/20 season Post Mortem

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, wilsoncgp said:

Just to pick up on a point you've raised there... who in here is happy for us to spend £2m on Maddison given the context of his situation? My understanding is that most people who are being critical of spending absolutely don't want us spending that kind of money on even someone who could improve us when they have so little of their contract left. Isn't that quite a significant part of why people have a problem with the Stojanovic fee?

Loads of people have questioned why we aren't in for Maddison, granted none directly involved in this discussion but many have popped up asking why we haven't bid against Charlton.

I just think if the club think he's the right player £1mill which could be paid in installments or have performance based incentives is not a massive sum. Just like the fees for Browne and Bola weren't massive, so there is less risk involved

At the mooted wage of Randolph at 25k a week, the new keepers fee would be less than one year of Randolph's wages. Even counting the reported wage of 8k a week for Dejan on top, it's still only an added 116k over the first year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BoroMart said:

As the footballs got lighter in the late 90s they started to move around more. By 2010 we got to the Jubalani ball at the world cup that moved all over the place with any kind of shot or bending cross. By this period most goalkeepers throughout the world punch and parried rather than caught. It's not a problem to me as long as his positioning is good and he has the upper body strength to compete.

The balls have not got lighter.

http://www.morethanmindgames.com/2010/06/26/an-enduring-football-myth-the-weight-of-the-ball/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that £1.2m is a relatively significant figure though. Like, we can only speculate how that fee is split but for the sake of argument, let's say all of that fee is both correct and not inclusive of performance based bonuses. If that is just the guaranteed fee we will pay them regardless of how he does, that would seem to be quite a large sum of money to me for a player who isn't going straight into the team and was out of contract in the summer, so someone we could have spoken to about his contract starting this month anyway thanks to the Bosman rule.

As I said earlier, the fee being split over a few years is probably true but its significance in terms of our finances and our ability to spend seems to be very little as we are still paying it, as West Ham are also likely to be doing with Randolph in the other direction and as we are undoubtedly both sending and receiving fees for older transfers still.

I don't agree with your general point on fans discussing finances. I think discussing how we've spent money and how we will spend money is more relevant than it has been in a long time, it is directly affecting the quality of our squad when we have our hands partially tied behind our backs. We need X and Y players, why aren't we getting them? Money.

Take Rudy Gestede for example; there was a plan when we signed him supposedly, correct? And now we're to understand that we've been severely hindered by the execution of that transfer, most prominently in terms of the money we are paying him. Rudy's contribution has been very little in the grand scheme of things and yet he is one of a few players who we have been unable to shift. If we're to ignore discussing finances, you completely avoid the only reason he's still here. "Why not get rid of him?" some fans might say, well the answer is a significant sum of money. And that kind of transfer doesn't stand alone in our recent history. Which really means we should, as fans, be asking more questions of how the money is being spent and why. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's safe to assume we aren't paying £1.2m upfront cash.

It's also probably safe to assume that if we had waited til the summer, another club would've probably come in with higher wages or something and signed him.

My final safe assumption for the evening is that the club & Woodgate must be pretty keen on this guy and don't want to risk not getting him, so I'm guessing it's a transfer for the first team rather than spunking the money on a substitute. If we are to mount a play off push in the second half of the season, and Pears goes pear-shaped, we'd be stuck with Meijas in goal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve just watched videos of That Shankland have to admit he does look pretty good, his touch and composure are as good as you’d want to see in a striker.

He kind of reminds me of Ricky Lambert, not physically but in the way he plays, he’s direct, not scared to run through the middle of a defence and finishes strongly with surprisingly good technique. He seems to score all types of goals, first time finishes, screamer volleys, one on ones and headers.

My way of seeing if a lower league player can make the step up is what kind of influence they have on their team, I’d bet shankland Will definately handle some kind of step up as he dictates literally everything in their attack and for some goals just does it all on his own. 
 

Id have him over cosgrove who just seems to be a standard ‘bustling’ striker, with clumsy touches, lucky rebounds and keeper mistakes featuring in most of his goals.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, LewisBoroPalfrey said:

I literally couldn't think of a worse signing if I was a Stoke fan. I've loved George for us but his best days are well behind him and he's had a lot of injuries. 

The story doesn't make a lot of sense to me. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Duvel said:

I literally couldn't think of a worse signing if I was a Stoke fan. I've loved George for us but his best days are well behind him and he's had a lot of injuries. 

The story doesn't make a lot of sense to me. 

I doubt he'd pass a medical, tbf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Erimus 63 said:

But that article also says: "What has changed are (1) the material from which the ball is made, and thus the ability of the ball to avoid weight gain during the game through water absorption, and (2) the aerodynamics of the ball i.e. the smoothness of the surface."

Which does lead to the ball moving more so kind of backs up his point.

 

Anyway getting off topic now, anyone spotted random cars at Rockcliffe lately?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Borodane said:

I doubt we’ve paid that much for him. Probably 500k max. 

750k up front with 500k in addons if clauses are met

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Smogzilla said:

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/woodgate-issues-update-middlesbrough-contract-17582560

 

 

some good news this morning. Woody says that he thinks Spence will sign a new contract "in the next 10 days" with Pears and Tavernier to follow suit soon after.

I get very little about contracts but I would like to think 4.5yr deals for all 3 of them. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on footballs moved more these days. to right they do. they get smacked all over compared to the old mitres when i was a kid. watch old games, the balls coming in are not nearly as hard for keeper to take as these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Smoggydownsouth said:

I get very little about contracts but I would like to think 4.5yr deals for all 3 of them. 

Same but Coulson got a 3.5yr deal few weeks back so could be that for Spence too maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...