|
Post by paulayres on Apr 30, 2011 9:38:00 GMT
So you want Wilder to ensure that every signing he makes is a good one for the club? What world are you living in!? Of course your not going to get every signing right, however when working on a smaller budget you need to get it right more than wrong. Its has to be taken into consideration that we have had a number of players at the club who have failed or not been given a real chance to prove themselves. The 12th man fund has helped the club bring players in, but I'm sure that you will agree, very few if any were what you would call a success.
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Apr 30, 2011 11:30:09 GMT
So you want Wilder to ensure that every signing he makes is a good one for the club? What world are you living in!? Of course your not going to get every signing right, however when working on a smaller budget you need to get it right more than wrong. Its has to be taken into consideration that we have had a number of players at the club who have failed or not been given a real chance to prove themselves. The 12th man fund has helped the club bring players in, but I'm sure that you will agree, very few if any were what you would call a success. Plenty of CW signings have been big successes even when the 12th man fund was used, Jake Wright for instance and Onome Sodje (in his brief spell) or Tonks were successes. Whilst Chris Hargreaves might not have been that successful on the pitch, I suspect that he was very useful to have in the dressing room for the play-offs. CW has got plenty of signings right to have got us promotion back into the FL and improved the squad year on year in 2 1/2 seasons at the club. On what basis have you got the above point by Godders into something narrow to only mean the 12th man funded/part funded signings? Paul, do you really dislike CW as you always find ways to criticise him and very rarely miss joining in with a thread where somebody else has also?
|
|
|
Post by Godders on Apr 30, 2011 17:02:43 GMT
So you want Wilder to ensure that every signing he makes is a good one for the club? What world are you living in!? Of course your not going to get every signing right, however when working on a smaller budget you need to get it right more than wrong. Its has to be taken into consideration that we have had a number of players at the club who have failed or not been given a real chance to prove themselves. The 12th man fund has helped the club bring players in, but I'm sure that you will agree, very few if any were what you would call a success. I think you're living on a different planet in all fairness.
|
|
|
Post by m on May 1, 2011 7:34:15 GMT
It might be easier to take the "Wilder signs too many bad/untried players" brigade more seriously if they actually backed it up with something.
I don't mean a banal list of fringe players - I mean examples of clubs and managers where the 'successful signing' ratio is much higher.
I suspect these examples don't actually exist.
|
|
|
Post by scoob on May 1, 2011 8:47:43 GMT
You also have to take account of the squad sizes of some clubs. We may have had some duff signings but the don't hang around for long whereas some clubs have huge squads so their duff signings presumably pad out their reserves and cost them money. Very few of our permanent, long term signings under CW have been poor.
For example, last season Wycombe had an average of 60 players on their books, Crewe had 74 players and coaches, Shrewsbury had 35 players, Port Vale had 42.
In order to cope with our financial constraints (ie not overspending) CW has had to take players on loan or short term contracts. These players are those out of favor with their own clubs so are bound to be higher risk than players who can demand long term contracts.
|
|