Sammie Szmodics - Signs for Peterborough

[Sheltons Army]

1 hour ago, petehinton said:

Not forgetting LJ publicly saying ‘everything about him was screaming not to sign him, I had to be really convinced to’ - what a brilliant way to welcome a new 22 year old to the club 

That’s not what he said

He said that he was trying to find a reason not to sign him , but couldn’t (Find a reason not to)

[BRIAN WILSON]

5 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

That’s not what he said

He said that he was trying to find a reason not to sign him , but couldn’t (Find a reason not to)

Spot on Shelton

Amazing how time passes and reinvention of actuality takes place, just for another dig at LJ 

[Bristol Oil Services]

9 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

That’s not what he said

He said that he was trying to find a reason not to sign him , but couldn’t (Find a reason not to)

Then, having signed him, found reasons aplenty .... it would seem?

[Sheltons Army]

12 minutes ago, Moments of Pleasure said:

Then, having signed him, found reasons aplenty .... it would seem?

Yes - seemed to go off him quickly 

and It was a strange comment to make about a new signing albeit he was saying how impressed he was when contemplating signing him

Why was he looking for reasons ‘Not to sign him’ (I can only guess , because we had Pato and Palmer was incoming 

That’s what choices are about - he shipped out Pato on loan and I presume we would have sold him had we had an offer

The sensible action was to sign Palmer or SS (Make your choice Lee) with the back up of knowing what Pato can or can’t bring 

If the one you signed is a success and embeds himself as a starter , then look to move Pato on , and replace with the next developer

Thats how recruitment and succession planning should work for me 

*FWIW I saw real potential in SS more as a second striker or wide in a three rather than a 10 or creator

[Sturny]

Who 

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, petehinton said:

Not forgetting LJ publicly saying ‘everything about him was screaming not to sign him, I had to be really convinced to’ - what a brilliant way to welcome a new 22 year old to the club 

 

32 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

That’s not what he said

He said that he was trying to find a reason not to sign him , but couldn’t (Find a reason not to)

OTIB in a nutshell!

[Bassomylord]

Another lower league punt that was a complete waste of money....we have a habit of this.....Smzodicz, Eisa, Adelekan.....almost comparable to our dire record of foreign investments ala Hegeler, Djuric, Engvall and no doubt countless more.

[Sheltons Army]

21 minutes ago, Bassomylord said:

Another lower league punt that was a complete waste of money....we have a habit of this.....Smzodicz, Eisa, Adelekan.....almost comparable to our dire record of foreign investments ala Hegeler, Djuric, Engvall and no doubt countless more.

Totally disagree - For all my criticism of the overall recruitment 

I would have signed him ,

Ive explained why -  some obvious talent , on the up , and most importantly a burning enthusiasm and bubbly character

No guarantees but he had , and has , a real chance , IMHO

I would happily have paid somewhere towards a million for him than 3 or 4 amount that for Palmer

I went down and watched the U23s specifically to have a look at him - Liked him and still like him

 

[Bassomylord]

18 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

Totally disagree - For all my criticism of the overall recruitment 

I would have signed him ,

Ive explained why -  some obvious talent , on the up , and most importantly a burning enthusiasm and bubbly character

No guarantees but he had , and has , a real chance , IMHO

I would happily have paid somewhere towards a million for him than 3 or 4 amount that for Palmer

I went down and watched the U23s specifically to have a look at him - Liked him and still like him

 

If he was that good 1 he wouldn't have come to us 2 he wouldn't of gone to Peterborough 3 he would be doing better than he clearly is.

Just another duff signing im afraid.

[Sheltons Army]

3 minutes ago, Bassomylord said:

If he was that good 1 he wouldn't have come to us 2 he wouldn't of gone to Peterborough 3 he would be doing better than he clearly is.

Just another duff signing im afraid.

But then again you think everyone’s ‘s**t or duff’

So not much of any guide really

[Son of Fred]

35 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

Totally disagree - For all my criticism of the overall recruitment 

I would have signed him ,

Ive explained why -  some obvious talent , on the up , and most importantly a burning enthusiasm and bubbly character

No guarantees but he had , and has , a real chance , IMHO

I would happily have paid somewhere towards a million for him than 3 or 4 amount that for Palmer

I went down and watched the U23s specifically to have a look at him - Liked him and still like him

 

Watched him myself a few times for the 23's & felt he had an eye for goal..

Maybe one we come to regret.

[Bassomylord]

15 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

But then again you think everyone’s ‘s**t or duff’

So not much of any guide really

Not everyone.....just the majority.

[Davefevs]

50 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

Totally disagree - For all my criticism of the overall recruitment 

I would have signed him ,

Ive explained why -  some obvious talent , on the up , and most importantly a burning enthusiasm and bubbly character

No guarantees but he had , and has , a real chance , IMHO

I would happily have paid somewhere towards a million for him than 3 or 4 amount that for Palmer

I went down and watched the U23s specifically to have a look at him - Liked him and still like him

 

 

13 minutes ago, Son of Fred said:

Watched him myself a few times for the 23's & felt he had an eye for goal..

Maybe one we come to regret.

Jealous some of you guys get to watch the u23s. Woukd love to check out the likes of Bell at their level to see what they have.

[Prinny]

I see this has surfaced after he scored 4 in two games and not during a run where he scored 1 goal in about 20 league games, in a top team, in league 1.  This year, Jamie Paterson scores more frequently, from less shots, has more assists and creates more per game, in a higher league. - BBC top scorer/assists pages.

So were we right to sell? Yep. So far anyway. Where would he have been if he were here? 6th choice striker? 5th-7th choice "8"? He might be getting game time now! Hakeeb Adelakun was scoring at a higher rate too. Considering our finances, and considering the likelihood he'd help our team, the opportunity to sell a player way down the pecking order for around or slightly more  (-wages) the money we paid for him is great.

A few months on from the sale, there's nothing to suggest that we'll regret this IMO. You can't just keep saleable assets around indefinitely and hope they'll come good when their value is ticking down. He has to get to the championship and then perform. For him he needed games to even have a chance to get to that level, which he wouldn't have gotten here. The alternative method of dealing with him ends up like Liam Walsh, where we're offering a contract to a guy who hasn't performed at this level, and he's got the power in the negotiations.

I'm still fine with how the club handled Szmodics.

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, Prinny said:

I see this has surfaced after he scored 4 in two games and not during a run where he scored 1 goal in about 20 league games, in a top team, in league 1.  This year, Jamie Paterson scores more frequently, from less shots, has more assists and creates more per game, in a higher league. - BBC top scorer/assists pages.

So were we right to sell? Yep. So far anyway. Where would he have been if he were here? 6th choice striker? 5th-7th choice "8"? He might be getting game time now! Hakeeb Adelakun was scoring at a higher rate too. Considering our finances, and considering the likelihood he'd help our team, the opportunity to sell a player way down the pecking order for around or slightly more  (-wages) the money we paid for him is great.

A few months on from the sale, there's nothing to suggest that we'll regret this IMO. You can't just keep saleable assets around indefinitely and hope they'll come good when their value is ticking down. He has to get to the championship and then perform. For him he needed games to even have a chance to get to that level, which he wouldn't have gotten here. The alternative method of dealing with him ends up like Liam Walsh, where we're offering a contract to a guy who hasn't performed at this level, and he's got the power in the negotiations.

I'm still fine with how the club handled Szmodics.

For me the criticism, like with Eisa is they weren’t given a chance.  Why sign them?  And profit probably very little when wages taken into account, sell-ons to Colchester and Cheltenham, etc.  Neither were really young.

[Prinny]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

For me the criticism, like with Eisa is they weren’t given a chance.  Why sign them?  And profit probably very little when wages taken into account, sell-ons to Colchester and Cheltenham, etc.  Neither were really young.

It's high floor investment/signings. The worst happens and you get close to breaking even, and they had attributes that were worth taking a gamble on. That's what I'm guessing is the logic behind them.

I believe you get an opportunity every day in training. In a competitive environment you need to be ready to take your opportunities when they come about, even if they're infrequent. Szmodics was awful in his couple of appearances. Eisa was too, and same for Adelakun.

Look at Adam Nagy by comparison, buried behind Brunt and Massengo at the start of the year, was ready when called upon due to his own hard work, performed, and is in the team regularly. Adelakun came back played ok and has gotten more opportunities. Got to be ready.

 

[Davefevs]

31 minutes ago, Prinny said:

It's high floor investment/signings. The worst happens and you get close to breaking even, and they had attributes that were worth taking a gamble on. That's what I'm guessing is the logic behind them.

I believe you get an opportunity every day in training. In a competitive environment you need to be ready to take your opportunities when they come about, even if they're infrequent. Szmodics was awful in his couple of appearances. Eisa was too, and same for Adelakun.

Look at Adam Nagy by comparison, buried behind Brunt and Massengo at the start of the year, was ready when called upon due to his own hard work, performed, and is in the team regularly. Adelakun came back played ok and has gotten more opportunities. Got to be ready.

 

Yeah, don’t disagree with any of that.  That strategy is no longer an option with the market anyway.

My question is should be be “wasting” (opinion) our time with these type of signings if it feels like a numbers game?  

[Prinny]

23 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Yeah, don’t disagree with any of that.  That strategy is no longer an option with the market anyway.

My question is should be be “wasting” (opinion) our time with these type of signings if it feels like a numbers game?  

These "type of signings" would be what in your mind?

I'd say that they're a 24 and under player from the lower leagues who has performed really well at that level for a fee where we're taking advantage of a contract situation either expired or short term left. The concept isn't wrong IMO. Now the individual decisions have been in some cases. Also we might have done it too much by having a larger portion of our budget invested into these "riskier" signings.

If you're going to argue that players can improve on one thread it's difficult to make the opposite argument on another. If you think we have quality coaches, shouldn't these players then get better generally? If we don't target these types of players then you can miss out on a Brownhill for example. 20, out of contract, performed in league 1. Reducing your recruitment pool isn't a good idea in my opinion.

If you don't have coaches that improve young talent, then find new coaches. If your talent ID picks players from lower leagues that can't be improved, find new talent ID. Find a new model for assessing players. Find new scouts etc.

We have much worse transfer concepts (financially) than the above that we've implemented. Ones where we're practically guaranteed to LOSE large amounts of money. Signing an older established championship level player for a fee is the worst one. They're less likely for improvement due to their age, and if you don't go up, you definitely lose transfer value on them, rather than retain it. Hunt, Kalas, Wells.

Because of FFP, we can't have the biggest budget, so if you need to make every penny count, why pick a transfer strategy that loses you money over a strategy that at worst retains it (or close to). Because it's a numbers game. Investing in these championship players can get you the ultimate number, Premiership income. It also keeps us in the championship, assumedly allowing our younger players and the best income/value propositions the chance to develop at a higher level.

I'm arguing against myself there because I don't really believe that the strategy is bad, it's the individual decisions. If signing a striker is the difference between getting promotion or not it's a great decision. Signing Wells, and not using him close to correctly hasn't been.

I think we should still sign the next Adelakun, because they could be the next Brownhill. We "just" have to get it right more often. With less money to play with, maybe it's even more important to do these "type of signings" because signing a Kalas or Wells isn't happening so it's even more important to find the players that can improve and you can turn a profit on. The free agent market is going to be interesting. There might even be "value" in paying fees, as clubs are desperate for any income to survive.

[Davefevs]

23 minutes ago, Prinny said:

These "type of signings" would be what in your mind?

exactly as you describe in your next paragraph....with the important addition that they get an opportunity to play!  The strategy of buying these types of players, to not play them and then sell on for a financial profit is probably a no-no short / medium term.

I'd say that they're a 24 and under player from the lower leagues who has performed really well at that level for a fee where we're taking advantage of a contract situation either expired or short term left. The concept isn't wrong IMO. Now the individual decisions have been in some cases. Also we might have done it too much by having a larger portion of our budget invested into these "riskier" signings.

no, exactly, the concept is good.  It’s the execution once they’ve been signed.

If you're going to argue that players can improve on one thread it's difficult to make the opposite argument on another. If you think we have quality coaches, shouldn't these players then get better generally? If we don't target these types of players then you can miss out on a Brownhill for example. 20, out of contract, performed in league 1. Reducing your recruitment pool isn't a good idea in my opinion.

Read my points above, I’m totally comfortable with the strategy, I actually advocate it, especially in these times.  But there has to be commitment to play them, give them opportunity.  Did Szmodics, Eisa or Adelakun get that opportunity, was LJ committed to playing them?  Was Mark Ashton committed to making sure LJ did play them....or just let him have a load of players.  These aren’t young, young players.  They might be late developers.

If you don't have coaches that improve young talent, then find new coaches. If your talent ID picks players from lower leagues that can't be improved, find new talent ID. Find a new model for assessing players. Find new scouts etc.

you’re now straying massively away from what I’m saying.

We have much worse transfer concepts (financially) than the above that we've implemented.

yep, but recruitment isn’t just financially, it is a key lens though.

Ones where we're practically guaranteed to LOSE large amounts of money. Signing an older established championship level player for a fee is the worst one.

Financially, yes.

They're less likely for improvement due to their age, and if you don't go up, you definitely lose transfer value on them, rather than retain it. Hunt, Kalas, Wells.

Because of FFP, we can't have the biggest budget, so if you need to make every penny count, why pick a transfer strategy that loses you money over a strategy that at worst retains it (or close to). Because it's a numbers game. Investing in these championship players can get you the ultimate number, Premiership income. It also keeps us in the championship, assumedly allowing our younger players and the best income/value propositions the chance to develop at a higher level.

I'm arguing against myself there because I don't really believe that the strategy is bad, it's the individual decisions. If signing a striker is the difference between getting promotion or not it's a great decision. Signing Wells, and not using him close to correctly hasn't been.

I think we should still sign the next Adelakun, because they could be the next Brownhill. We "just" have to get it right more often. With less money to play with, maybe it's even more important to do these "type of signings" because signing a Kalas or Wells isn't happening so it's even more important to find the players that can improve and you can turn a profit on. The free agent market is going to be interesting. There might even be "value" in paying fees, as clubs are desperate for any income to survive.

as above, I think you’ve misunderstood my point.

Comments.

[Sheltons Army]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

‘ exactly as you describe in your next paragraph....with the important addition that they get an opportunity to play!  The strategy of buying these types of players, to not play them and then sell on for a financial profit is probably a no-no short / medium term.‘
 

Spot on

- see my comments in MA interview thread touching on this, too many numbers ,  and players not developing or increasing in value if they’re not playing !

[Rob k]

18 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Comments.

I agree with those comments - can’t stand this policy of buying these players and not even giving them a chance, and i mean a proper chance not 20 mins here and there, all we did for SS, Eisa, Adelkun, engvall etc is ensure they got higher wages elsewhere . I’ve found some of the signings we have made completely baffaling, add Walsh to that list probably 

[Davefevs]

26 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

‘ exactly as you describe in your next paragraph....with the important addition that they get an opportunity to play!  The strategy of buying these types of players, to not play them and then sell on for a financial profit is probably a no-no short / medium term.‘
 

Spot on

- see my comments in MA interview thread touching on this, too many numbers ,  and players not developing or increasing in value if they’re not playing !

Just did

[Prinny]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

exactly as you describe in your next paragraph....with the important addition that they get an opportunity to play!  The strategy of buying these types of players, to not play them and then sell on for a financial profit is probably a no-no short / medium term.

I don't think that's the strategy, it's more how it's worked out because we've brought in the wrong players.

Read my points above, I’m totally comfortable with the strategy, I actually advocate it, especially in these times.  But there has to be commitment to play them, give them opportunity.  Did Szmodics, Eisa or Adelakun get that opportunity, was LJ committed to playing them?  Was Mark Ashton committed to making sure LJ did play them....or just let him have a load of players.  These aren’t young, young players.  They might be late developers.

I don't agree that the only opportunity to play is first team game time. It's how they perform in training, in pre-season and out on loan. Bakinson performed out on loan, then in pre season then in games, that's how you get "commitment". You're trying to skip a step and wanting playing time commitment for these players. Earn it. We've already committed financially to them, by signing them. They do have to start paying it back with performances.

If you don't have coaches that improve young talent, then find new coaches. If your talent ID picks players from lower leagues that can't be improved, find new talent ID. Find a new model for assessing players. Find new scouts etc.

you’re now straying massively away from what I’m saying.

Here I'm arguing against the idea of commitment as a concept because it's more about individual decisions IMO. I don't think we should be committed to playing an individual player. Unless you want the CEO to force a managers hand on who to pick? I don't think that's a good idea. It's better to get the recruitment right than to be committed to a bad decision. I don't want to commit to Mo Eisa. I want to fix the process that brought him here and resulted in him not developing. I don't agree that the only opportunity is first team game time.

They're less likely for improvement due to their age, and if you don't go up, you definitely lose transfer value on them, rather than retain it. Hunt, Kalas, Wells.

Because of FFP, we can't have the biggest budget, so if you need to make every penny count, why pick a transfer strategy that loses you money over a strategy that at worst retains it (or close to). Because it's a numbers game. Investing in these championship players can get you the ultimate number, Premiership income. It also keeps us in the championship, assumedly allowing our younger players and the best income/value propositions the chance to develop at a higher level.

I'm arguing against myself there because I don't really believe that the strategy is bad, it's the individual decisions. If signing a striker is the difference between getting promotion or not it's a great decision. Signing Wells, and not using him close to correctly hasn't been.

I think we should still sign the next Adelakun, because they could be the next Brownhill. We "just" have to get it right more often. With less money to play with, maybe it's even more important to do these "type of signings" because signing a Kalas or Wells isn't happening so it's even more important to find the players that can improve and you can turn a profit on. The free agent market is going to be interesting. There might even be "value" in paying fees, as clubs are desperate for any income to survive.

as above, I think you’ve misunderstood my point.

I'm directly responding to your question here. You replied to me and asked the question "My question is should be be “wasting” (opinion) our time with these type of signings if it feels like a numbers game?  " I am replying YES and WHY I think that.

I believe your point is that we should have a commitment to play the players we bring in. While that sounds obvious I don't think it's right. I'm saying we don't need to play them to see if they're good enough or not. Ideally we identify a player, and that player performs well enough to play, and the manager picks them. I'm saying that the commitment to purchase them and train them is enough for me. I'm putting more responsibility in the pre recruitment and then on the players performance post recruitment than the manager to pick them. Edit - And the coaching and the development including loans.

[Prinny]

1 hour ago, Sheltons Army said:

‘ exactly as you describe in your next paragraph....with the important addition that they get an opportunity to play!  The strategy of buying these types of players, to not play them and then sell on for a financial profit is probably a no-no short / medium term.‘
 

Spot on

- see my comments in MA interview thread touching on this, too many numbers ,  and players not developing or increasing in value if they’re not playing !

I agree about squad size as in players actually here, although this year we've needed it, I did say it was too big in some areas.

These type of players don't have to be part of the squad really, and if they're loaned out a large portion of their wages are paid + maybe a loan fee, and they have a shop window too and a chance to play to develop,

[Davefevs]

48 minutes ago, Prinny said:

I believe your point is that we should have a commitment to play the players we bring in. While that sounds obvious I don't think it's right. I'm saying we don't need to play them to see if they're good enough or not. Ideally we identify a player, and that player performs well enough to play, and the manager picks them. I'm saying that the commitment to purchase them and train them is enough for me. I'm putting more responsibility in the pre recruitment and then on the players performance post recruitment than the manager to pick them. Edit - And the coaching and the development including loans.

It’s commitment to a plan. The reason for signing them was their fit / alignment to the plan, and I feel lip-service has been paid to that plan by both CEO in his role in Recruitment and the head-coach in his assembly of his squad.

The first measure of success of the execution of that plan is the minutes played and contribution made.  You’ve already agreed the initial purchase, that’s sunk.  The next measure, possibly final measure is how much you sell them for.  There are many contributory factors though.

Where was the plan with Szmodics?  How did that early summer planning fit in with Palmer?  At what point do you move on from Palmer?  It’s like magpies seeing a new shiny object.

[Prinny]

13 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

It’s commitment to a plan. The reason for signing them was their fit / alignment to the plan, and I feel lip-service has been paid to that plan by both CEO in his role in Recruitment and the head-coach in his assembly of his squad.

Do you know what the plan with Szmodics was? "Where was the plan with Szmodics?" Seems not.

The first measure of success of the execution of that plan is the minutes played and contribution made.  You’ve already agreed the initial purchase, that’s sunk.  The next measure, possibly final measure is how much you sell them for.  There are many contributory factors though. But it's contribution over the length of the contract, not year one. We can look at the deal after he's sold and judge that entire transfer based on what happened, but we can't say much about a plan we don't know about.

Where was the plan with Szmodics?  How did that early summer planning fit in with Palmer?  At what point do you move on from Palmer?  It’s like magpies seeing a new shiny object.

Why are you assuming it was a one year plan with Sammie Szmodics? It ended up like that because Dean Holden wanted to sell.

The coach changed, the plan may have too. If Ashton is being honest about the decisions being made, it's really really hard to judge LJ's plan of Szmodics. We don't know what it was.

I thought the Palmer permanent signing was weird. If you're employing a guy, you do need to trust his judgement though. If you don't trust his talent ID, and his ability to develop a player when he says he will, then you have to fire him. And he's gone. It's easier to be critical of the Palmer signing because of the amount paid, clearly not a one for the future amount IMO and that we spent first team player money on a player we didn't use in the first team.

I'm not really disagreeing about the outcome, but you seem to holding the club to a plan that to my knowledge was never stated. If I've missed something where they've (MA/LJ) directly spoken about the development plan of Sammie Szmodics to the first team, apologies and please link it. Best I could find was when he went out on loan, and Dean Holden straight batted an answer saying its good for him to go out and get minutes, that he'd improve while out on loan, and that he's contracted us.