Saturday Build Up

[Red Army 75]

Really tough game against Coventry unbeaten this year . Only lost 3 all season. The uncertainty around FD I wouldn’t play him and start with Martin and Wells . Heart say 3-1 head says draw. 


 

 

 

[Steve Watts]

I really don't get the mentality of not playing Fam.  You play your best players.  He has a year left on the contract we offered him and we are keen to extend...irrespective of whether or not he signs a deal he should play.  He's one of our best strikers, has a great attitude and if he decides not to extend beyond the contract we gave him (as is his right) then he's going to do all he can to put himself in the shop window.  With respect to contract negotiations there is literally no downside to playing him!

[Red Army 75]

4 minutes ago, Steve Watts said:

I really don't get the mentality of not playing Fam.  You play your best players.  He has a year left on the contract we offered him and we are keen to extend...irrespective of whether or not he signs a deal he should play.  He's one of our best strikers, has a great attitude and if he decides not to extend beyond the contract we gave him (as is his right) then he's going to do all he can to put himself in the shop window.  With respect to contract negotiations there is literally no downside to playing him!

For me SW and don’t get me wrong I love FD . IF he is not going to sign or he’s unsure he can’t be 100% focused. The Exeter game he looked awful IMO. I would just take him out the side until he has made a decision about his future. Same as NE

[Steve Watts]

But isn't it us that's trying to force his hand, rather than the other way around?  We offered him a contract to play for us for 4 years, not "3 years and then if you don't agree to sign on for longer than the agreed term then you're out of the team".  It's just a bizarre concept to me. 

Obviously we would want to get a fee for him if possible, but it seems the club are the ones with an issue, not the player.  He's not asked to leave or refused to play, like some others have before him, so I don't see that there's anything to concern ourselves with on the pitch.

Watching the training videos he doesn't look like someone who's not focussed. Nakhi didn't play well against Exeter either, so it wasn't necessarily the contract negotiations that caused a poor match.  I honestly don't think there's any concern with Fam at all.

[RedRoss]

5 minutes ago, Steve Watts said:

But isn't it us that's trying to force his hand, rather than the other way around?  We offered him a contract to play for us for 4 years, not "3 years and then if you don't agree to sign on for longer than the agreed term then you're out of the team".  It's just a bizarre concept to me. 

Obviously we would want to get a fee for him if possible, but it seems the club are the ones with an issue, not the player.  He's not asked to leave or refused to play, like some others have before him, so I don't see that there's anything to concern ourselves with on the pitch.

Watching the training videos he doesn't look like someone who's not focussed. Nakhi didn't play well against Exeter either, so it wasn't necessarily the contract negotiations that caused a poor match.  I honestly don't think there's any concern with Fam at all.

Sorry when we're you partial to the contract negotiations we've had with Fam?

Also it's a bizarre concept to you when a player is left out of a team when they don't commit to the club fully? That happens all the time and justifiably. I like Fam, you obviously like Fam alot but if he isn't going to pen a new contract we should allow others to fill his boots considering they are more committed to the cause. That's not a bizarre concept.. it's pretty run of the mill. 

[frenchred]

1 minute ago, RedRoss said:

Sorry when we're you partial to the contract negotiations we've had with Fam?

Also it's a bizarre concept to you when a player is left out of a team when they don't commit to the club fully? That happens all the time and justifiably. I like Fam, you obviously like Fam alot but if he isn't going to pen a new contract we should allow others to fill his boots considering they are more committed to the cause. That's not a bizarre concept.. it's pretty run of the mill. 

It's bizarre, he signed a 4 year contract, he's been here 3!

[RedRoss]

1 minute ago, frenchred said:

It's bizarre, he signed a 4 year contract, he's been here 3!

So put your business hat on. Your happy for us to allow him to run his contact down go for free but play him every week and stop other committed players from playing at the same time?

[Carey 6]

I'd play Fam, I don't think he's the sort of player to down tools. January onwards is when you'd have to worry if he hasn't signed by then, he'll be worried about injuries etc. 

I'm still not quite up for this season yet, I can't get excited knowing I wont be there to watch!

I'm sure my attitude will be different if we win our first 3. 

 

 

[frenchred]

1 minute ago, RedRoss said:

So put your business hat on. Your happy for us to allow him to run his contact down go for free but play him every week and stop other committed players from playing at the same time?

If he was proving himself to the manager in training and being selected as the best choice then yes!

[Steve Watts]

4 minutes ago, RedRoss said:

Sorry when we're you partial to the contract negotiations we've had with Fam?

Also it's a bizarre concept to you when a player is left out of a team when they don't commit to the club fully? That happens all the time and justifiably. I like Fam, you obviously like Fam alot but if he isn't going to pen a new contract we should allow others to fill his boots considering they are more committed to the cause. That's not a bizarre concept.. it's pretty run of the mill. 

I apologise for your confusion.

Do you think we should also stop signing players on loan?  I can't believe we played Tammy all that time when he had no intention of staying with us.  Tsk.... not committed to the cause at all. 

[Robbored]

49 minutes ago, Red Army 75 said:

For me SW and don’t get me wrong I love FD . IF he is not going to sign or he’s unsure he can’t be 100% focused. The Exeter game he looked awful IMO. I would just take him out the side until he has made a decision about his future. Same as NE

Yep I tend to agree as long as Fam understands the rational behind the reasoning. It’d be a shame if he saw being omitted as some kind of threat.

[Steve Watts]

3 minutes ago, RedRoss said:

So put your business hat on. Your happy for us to allow him to run his contact down go for free but play him every week and stop other committed players from playing at the same time?

But again, that's the club's issue, not his.  Doesn't make him any less committed to the cause during the length of the contract that he agreed with the club 3 years ago. 

[frenchred]

2 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Yep I tend to agree as long as Fam understands the reasons behind the reasoning. It’d be a shame if he saw being omitted as some kind of threat.

So why omit him if he's the best man for the role. If not selected on form that's different, he should be treated exactly the same as every other squad member

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Carey 6 said:

I'd play Fam, I don't think he's the sort of player to down tools.

I can’t believe he is either, but....

January onwards is when you'd have to worry if he hasn't signed by then, he'll be worried about injuries etc.

....as you say what if he gets injured.

I'm still not quite up for this season yet, I can't get excited knowing I wont be there to watch!

I'm sure my attitude will be different if we win our first 3.

I wouldn’t be freezing him out though, but even w/o contract talks, I’d be playing Weimann with Wells.  We are evolving into a possession based side, and I think for anyone that watched the Cheltenham highlights (yes I know they’re Lg2, but like Exeter, a good Lg2 side), the more natural movement of the pair of them, coupled with the ability to play forward into their runs, has merit.

FWIW, I think he will leave.  I think that is why Semenyo isn’t going on loan (at this point).

 

 

 

[RedRoss]

Just now, Steve Watts said:

I apologise for your confusion.

Do you think we should also stop signing players on loan?  I can't believe we played Tammy all that time when he had no intention of staying with us.  Tsk.... not committed to the cause at all. 

Difference is Tammy was playing for opportunity in the Chelsea team and had to shine to get there eventually under the agreement we borrow him for a year.

I'm sure Fam will remain professional and he's never shown that he wouldn't but considering the business side and maintaining opportunity to the rest of the lads in his position I'd personally want to give others a chance. 

[Steve Watts]

10 minutes ago, RedRoss said:

Difference is Tammy was playing for opportunity in the Chelsea team and had to shine to get there eventually under the agreement we borrow him for a year.

I'm sure Fam will remain professional and he's never shown that he wouldn't but considering the business side and maintaining opportunity to the rest of the lads in his position I'd personally want to give others a chance. 

There you go again with the business side argument.  We're in the business of trying to win football matches.  To do that you pick the best team to achieve that. 

If Fam is on form and focussed - and there's no reason why he wouldn't be, after all he's possibly trying to shine to get the best move whenever he leaves us... - then he should be in the team.  If he's not in form and doesn't seem switched on enough he shouldn't. 

Nothing else should come into it.

[RedRoss]

Just now, Steve Watts said:

There you go again with the business side argument.  We're in the business of trying to win football matches.  To do that you pick the best team to achieve that. 

If Fam is on form and focussed - and there's no reason why he wouldn't be, after all he's possibly trying to shine to get the best move whenever he leaves us... - then he should be in the team.  If he's not in form and doesn't seem switched on enough he shouldn't. 

Nothing else should come into it.

Obviously you're very excited Steve about this idea that I want fully committed players playing in the team. I'd feel the same about Walsh if he doesn't except a new deal to be here even though I want him playing. We look at things differently evidently. 

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, Steve Watts said:

There you go again with the business side argument.  We're in the business of trying to win football matches.  To do that you pick the best team to achieve that. 

If Fam is on form and focussed - and there's no reason why he wouldn't be, after all he's possibly trying to shine to get the best move whenever he leaves us... - then he should be in the team.  If he's not in form and doesn't seem switched on enough he shouldn't. 

Nothing else should come into it.

I don’t think MA or SL would look on very well at our one time record signing (£5.3m) taking £6-700k in wages this season to leave for free next summer.

I’m not usually black and white, but on this occasion, you either tie him down to a longer deal or you sell him in this window.

MA nor SL will not pass up an opportunity for £3-6m (I think that’s the range a fee would fall into) and saving 8/9 Months of wages versus him walking away next summer

Whether Holden plays him is part of the dynamic, but you can’t ignore the business side of it either.

[steviestevieneville]

13 minutes ago, Steve Watts said:

There you go again with the business side argument.  We're in the business of trying to win football matches.  To do that you pick the best team to achieve that. 

If Fam is on form and focussed - and there's no reason why he wouldn't be, after all he's possibly trying to shine to get the best move whenever he leaves us... - then he should be in the team.  If he's not in form and doesn't seem switched on enough he shouldn't. 

Nothing else should come into it.

Unfortunately the business side of it is massive. Say he is fit and focused but we’ve had a bid for £5m + from a club and Dean and Ashton think they can get a better player in for just as much . Then you’d have to weigh up if it worth playing him and risking injury, when we have Martin or wiemann that  do just as good a job . 

[A Horse With No Name]

53 minutes ago, RedRoss said:

Sorry when we're you partial to the contract negotiations we've had with Fam?

Also it's a bizarre concept to you when a player is left out of a team when they don't commit to the club fully? That happens all the time and justifiably. I like Fam, you obviously like Fam alot but if he isn't going to pen a new contract we should allow others to fill his boots considering they are more committed to the cause. That's not a bizarre concept.. it's pretty run of the mill. 

isn't it a bit similar to signing a player on a season long loan, and then the player stating that he wants to go back at the end and fight for his place at his Premier League club? You wouldnt drop that player too surely  ?Fam has to play, mainly because he is one of the best strikers we have, but also because of his usefulness in defence at set pieces, and also because if he is intent on leaving, he needs to playing and playing well to get any sort of money for him.

[RedRoss]

1 minute ago, The Horse With No Name said:

isn't it a bit similar to signing a player on a season long loan, and then the player stating that he wants to go back at the end and fight for his place at his Premier League club? You wouldnt drop that player too surely  Fam has to play, mainly because he is one of the best strikers we have, but also because of his usefulness in defence at set pieces, and also because if he is intent on leaving, he needs to playing and playing well to get any sort of money for him.

The difference is we aren't able to receive a transfer fee for that player during the next month or so. To allow our record fee signing to play his contract down to leave on a free isn't a good move. 

[lager loud]

6 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

Unfortunately the business side of it is massive. Say he is fit and focused but we’ve had a bid for £5m + from a club and Dean and Ashton think they can get a better player in for just as much . Then you’d have to weigh up if it worth playing him and risking injury, when we have Martin or wiemann than do just as good a job . 

That’s fair enough if we are convinced we’re going to sell him in the short term (which depends on someone coming in with an offer that FD as well as BCFC is happy with). In that situation the short term benefit of having him play might be outweighed by the risk of losing the transfer fee.

But until it’s clear a player is going to be on his way, and if there’s no suggestion the player won’t give 100% if played, I think we should just pick our best side.

The club may not like it that a player runs down his contract, but that’s the nature of fixed term deals. Ultimately, the club can’t force a player to leave before the end of their contract. If you freeze a player out you might make life unpleasant enough to persuade him to leave, but you might just end up paying a good player for 4 years but only getting 3 years’ output from him. 

[lager loud]

Just now, RedRoss said:

The difference is we aren't able to receive a transfer fee for that player during the next month or so. To allow our record fee signing to play his contract down to leave on a free isn't a good move. 

No suggestion that this would apply to FD, but how does the club stop a player doing this if they’re determined to?

[RedRoss]

6 minutes ago, lager loud said:

No suggestion that this would apply to FD, but how does the club stop a player doing this if they’re determined to?

Have a honest conversation and work with his agent to get another club ASAP (if that did apply) so all parties are happy.

Our transfer business will resemble that campsite on the other side of Bristol ala Matty Taylor if we don't.

[steviestevieneville]

12 minutes ago, lager loud said:

That’s fair enough if we are convinced we’re going to sell him in the short term (which depends on someone coming in with an offer that FD as well as BCFC is happy with). In that situation the short term benefit of having him play might be outweighed by the risk of losing the transfer fee.

But until it’s clear a player is going to be on his way, and if there’s no suggestion the player won’t give 100% if played, I think we should just pick our best side.

The club may not like it that a player runs down his contract, but that’s the nature of fixed term deals. Ultimately, the club can’t force a player to leave before the end of their contract. If you freeze a player out you might make life unpleasant enough to persuade him to leave, but you might just end up paying a good player for 4 years but only getting 3 years’ output from him. 

My post was just a hypothetical reason why you wouldn’t play him even if he was fit and focused. 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, RedRoss said:

Have a honest conversation and work with his agent to get another club ASAP (if that did apply) so all parties are happy.

Our transfer business will resemble that campsite on the other side of Bristol ala Matty Taylor if we don't.

I was gonna mention Matty Taylor earlier.  He was out of contract at Rovers when Oxford tried to sign him.  I guess he wasn’t offered enough to go to Oxford because he signed a new deal with Rovers with a £300k release clause.  It meant Rovers kept a player, but also could get a fee.

[Edge1981]

Fam has to play and should play IMO. If he plays and puts on a MOTM performance then that is going to make the club more likely to give in to his wage demands. I don’t think his commitment would wander just yet. I think that may happen later on in the season.
 

If he was given a new four year deal, who’s to say he would put in the same level of performance and commitment he did over the past few seasons? He could put his feet up knowing he’s doubled his wages with a big fat signing on fee. Fortunately I don’t think he’s that type of player. I think he’ll be just as committed regardless of his contract status 

[mozo]

5 hours ago, Davefevs said:

 

MA nor SL will not pass up an opportunity for £3-6m (I think that’s the range a fee would fall into) and saving 8/9 Months of wages versus him walking away next summer

Whether Holden plays him is part of the dynamic, but you can’t ignore the business side of it either.

Absolutely right. In this financial climate it would be negligent.

[Kingswoodactor]

 

Bristol City vs Coventry, Saturday 3pm

After much toing and froing, Bristol City finally decided to appoint Dean Holden as their manager, now they have to back him as their man to take them that step further this season and get into the top six.

Coventry fully deserved their promotion last season despite the curtailment of the campaign, and it is great to see them back at this level after so long away. Even after so long without a competitive game, I fancy them to cause a bit of a shock here.

Prutton predicts: 0-1 (17/2 with Sky Bet)