Jump to content
IGNORED

Max O'Leary Signs 3-Year Deal


steviestevieneville

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

First, you need to get past your preconceptions of me, as I don't go out of my way looking for an argument. 

Yes, in the past I have been rude and/or sometimes got argumentative while debating people, but I don't go searching for it.

I'm not being contrarian, you said the club tricked people into thinking it was Fam or Eliasson. They didn't. 

Your final sentence this time perhaps makes a point. But the club didn't go and trick anyone, people tricked themselves by making assumptions and that is on them.

Didn't mean to imply they'd tricked anyone (purposefully) - just questioned the strategy. I didn't see the tweets until the whole thing had been announced but I can definitely see how some people would be a bit disappointed. The replies to the teaser tweet indicate that many people didn't pick up on the hint. 

It's just a bit of a shame really because the result has been a piece of good news (and yet another success story from the academy) that has ended up being a bit disappointing for people expecting more. 

It's a very small example but to me yet again indicates a wider misunderstanding of how to communicate via social media. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Agree, I don’t see Max as a flapper.  To be a flapper, imho, you’ve got to be one who comes for crosses and flaps at them.  As it stands Max isn’t one who comes for lots of crosses, so I don’t see the evidence of the “flapper” comment.

I disagree, when people have put high crosses directly on him he's flapped at them. So he can flap and not come out :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Bentley and O'Leary will make a good first team pair. The younger keeper knows that he's second choice, but the moment Benley is injured, theres a great opportunity. In the meantime, O'Leary can keep learning and become accustomed to being part of a Championship squad.

The other reason for O'Leary to be optimistic is we all know that Bentley is a confidence player and is prone to losing form. Holden will have an alternative option if Bentley needs to be taken out of the spotlight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Tangle Foot said:

TBH I’d rather see us get those players on new contracts (including Fam), than sign anyone else in what’s left of this this transfer window! Further injuries not withstanding.

COYR.

I suspect we will see a few more announcements ahead of the weekend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Prinny said:

Do watch those highlights, watch as firstly Max pushes out a shot directly to a Villa player instead of away. Then watch a stunning, fantastic point blank save of his.

Watch as he hesitates and doesn't come out, then makes a poor attempt to stop the 1st goal. Then watch as he lets a shot ricochet off him then make a good save by quickly getting back across goal into the line of fire.

Even in the game you say to watch to see how good he can be, his highlights are mixed. Not terrible, mixed. NOT UNBELIEVABLE! It is unbelievable what you said, because right there is the evidence of a mixed performance. 

I have a couple of Shrewsbury supporter friends who go regularly, and they say he was very good and in the convo for their best player alongside Pierre and Edwards over the season, and they described his weak points as his erratic dealing with crosses, command of area and actually his distribution too, which actually I thought was ok! But generally very good. So I think the narrative some people have taken that Max was this god amongst goalkeepers last year, without watching him, or even speaking to anyone who watched him, or listening to anyone who watched him who doesn't have the direct interest in playing up how he performed is a bit off. Or my mates could be off, which I can easily admit, but they some sources, rather than, no sources.

It's ideal for a lot of people to believe that Max is the real deal, it suits their narrative. All I'm saying is, I haven't seen that from him YET. I see the potential, the good and the bad. He's definitely better than Marinovic, but is he better overall than Maenpaa? Dunno. Let's hope Bentley keeps up this form and we don't have to find out.

If they were both fit and available who would you pick in a promotion deciding game tomorrow? O'Leary or Maenpaa? I'd definitely pick Maenpaa in this imaginary scenario. So that mean I think we've downgraded in quality at number 2, if improved in availability. And I believe availability is a skill.

Here's his highlights from Shrewsbury vs Tranmere. Watch as he repeatedly pushes the ball directly in front of his goal. Then watch the winner as he gets beaten by a slow rolling shot as he messes up his angles. Or was it a great finish? Was it both? What narrative are you trying to tell?

I'm not trying to make the case that he's terrible. I want him to succeed. But it's VERY easy to just look at an isolated highlights and pull what you want from them. The good and the bad. So don't just judge off of random and selective highlights.

As regards to Maenpaa & your comparison between him & O’Leary, there are a few things to take into consideration. Maenpaa is extremely more experienced than O’Leary so with all that extra training & match action, I would expect Maenpaa to do things better than relatively inexperienced keeper. Maenpaa was injured for a fair amount of his relatively short time here, O’Leary hasn’t really been injured for any of his time in the professional game. Maenpaa was probably on a fair bit more than O’Leary (even now with his new contract) & I accept that that is me speculating.

So we could of offered Maenpaa a new contract (again I’m speculating as we could well of) & he refused the offer because he wanted to be #1 ahead of Bentley? Or we could of decided that we could save those extra wages that would of gone to Maenpaa & allow a fairly competent young keeper the opportunity to train with our first team set-up & to possibly give the opportunity of first team football here (should the opportunity arise) to someone that has a future in the game for the next 10 years or so? Or we could run the risk of losing that young professional because he has got disenchanted with being sent out on loan while he watches an old injury prone player take what he see’s as his position?

Now it is also more than feasible that our new head coach decided that he didn’t want to offer an old injury prone professional a new contract (similarly to Korey Smith) & that our new head coach knew that he had a ready made replacement for Maenpaa already in the squad (as with Smith in Walsh & Morrell) so rather than risking losing these young players with potential sell-on value for nothing as their contracts run down, he has shown them that there is a pathway to the first team at this club that in some cases, the youngsters have been at for years.

O’Leary isn’t perfect & if he was he wouldn’t be at Bristol City but he is likely to only get better & that has a better opportunity of happening while he trains with Bentley everyday & gets coached by the coaches at this club rather than at a lower league team & while doing this, it gives O’Leary the hope that he can succeed here & in turn possibly save the club £2m-£3m in potentially having to sign a new keeper & could actually make us a healthy profit in the future if he continues to do well.

This isn’t all about the here & now, this is about the future & O’Leary is probably the first keeper to of come through the system in nearly 15 years (Phillips left here in 2006) that has the potential to be the clubs #1 & personally I think that’s great news.

The club have to look at the long term finances of the club & the long term future of the club & it could be another reason why DH was given the job because he was willing to give O’Leary, Moore, Vyner, Morrell, Walsh, Bakinson & Semenyo first team opportunities where as any outside appointment would of probably wanted to sign 5 or 6 new players to not allow those named above to have the opportunity they will now get.

Just my opinion of course but I’d much rather give O’Leary any potential game time rather than Maenpaa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tipps69 said:

As regards to Maenpaa & your comparison between him & O’Leary, there are a few things to take into consideration. Maenpaa is extremely more experienced than O’Leary so with all that extra training & match action, I would expect Maenpaa to do things better than relatively inexperienced keeper. Maenpaa was injured for a fair amount of his relatively short time here, O’Leary hasn’t really been injured for any of his time in the professional game. Maenpaa was probably on a fair bit more than O’Leary (even now with his new contract) & I accept that that is me speculating.

So we could of offered Maenpaa a new contract (again I’m speculating as we could well of) & he refused the offer because he wanted to be #1 ahead of Bentley? Or we could of decided that we could save those extra wages that would of gone to Maenpaa & allow a fairly competent young keeper the opportunity to train with our first team set-up & to possibly give the opportunity of first team football here (should the opportunity arise) to someone that has a future in the game for the next 10 years or so? Or we could run the risk of losing that young professional because he has got disenchanted with being sent out on loan while he watches an old injury prone player take what he see’s as his position?

Now it is also more than feasible that our new head coach decided that he didn’t want to offer an old injury prone professional a new contract (similarly to Korey Smith) & that our new head coach knew that he had a ready made replacement for Maenpaa already in the squad (as with Smith in Walsh & Morrell) so rather than risking losing these young players with potential sell-on value for nothing as their contracts run down, he has shown them that there is a pathway to the first team at this club that in some cases, the youngsters have been at for years.

O’Leary isn’t perfect & if he was he wouldn’t be at Bristol City but he is likely to only get better & that has a better opportunity of happening while he trains with Bentley everyday & gets coached by the coaches at this club rather than at a lower league team & while doing this, it gives O’Leary the hope that he can succeed here & in turn possibly save the club £2m-£3m in potentially having to sign a new keeper & could actually make us a healthy profit in the future if he continues to do well.

This isn’t all about the here & now, this is about the future & O’Leary is probably the first keeper to of come through the system in nearly 15 years (Phillips left here in 2006) that has the potential to be the clubs #1 & personally I think that’s great news.

The club have to look at the long term finances of the club & the long term future of the club & it could be another reason why DH was given the job because he was willing to give O’Leary, Moore, Vyner, Morrell, Walsh, Bakinson & Semenyo first team opportunities where as any outside appointment would of probably wanted to sign 5 or 6 new players to not allow those named above to have the opportunity they will now get.

Just my opinion of course but I’d much rather give O’Leary any potential game time rather than Maenpaa.

Those are all totally fine points and possibilities. I can counter them all of course with the exact same speculation and reasons why you loan out players, why you pick the best team to win games and the immediate benefit of trying to win now in relation to future finances. I'm sure you know all this, and I know the points you made. There's nothing surprising there from either of us.

Holden signed Mawson, Williams, Brunt and Martin. They're already eating up game time for young players already here. We even signed Fulham's young player in Sessegnon which prevents whoever is our young right back from playing. It's a case by case basis. We look like we'll give opportunities and game time to the players who deserve it, which is all I want from a manager. It looks like he's picking what he believes is the best team, not a team based on anything else. We'll get a clearer picture when he has more people to choose from and closer calls to make.

Like most things there's nuance.

There's only one thing I definitely disagree with you on. I want to pick the best team always in a critical game. In the situation I describe. I'd pick Maenpaa and try to win, you'd pick O'Leary and that hurts the team in that game by your own admission. I can never agree that picking potential over current ability is the right thing to do in that situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Prinny said:

Those are all totally fine points and possibilities. I can counter them all of course with the exact same speculation and reasons why you loan out players, why you pick the best team to win games and the immediate benefit of trying to win now in relation to future finances. I'm sure you know all this, and I know the points you made. There's nothing surprising there from either of us.

Holden signed Mawson, Williams, Brunt and Martin. They're already eating up game time for young players already here. We even signed Fulham's young player in Sessegnon which prevents whoever is our young right back from playing. It's a case by case basis. We look like we'll give opportunities and game time to the players who deserve it, which is all I want from a manager. It looks like he's picking what he believes is the best team, not a team based on anything else. We'll get a clearer picture when he has more people to choose from and closer calls to make.

Like most things there's nuance.

There's only one thing I definitely disagree with you on. I want to pick the best team always in a critical game. In the situation I describe. I'd pick Maenpaa and try to win, you'd pick O'Leary and that hurts the team in that game by your own admission. I can never agree that picking potential over current ability is the right thing to do in that situation.

Well it could be argued that Mawson, Brunt & Williams aren’t actually taking up anyone’s minutes? We have no one else to play in Mawson’s place that is close to being first ready, Brunt has only played against Villa really & that’s while Walsh, Morrell & Williams are all injured. And Williams hasn’t taken anyone’s minutes as he’s not got anywhere near playing.

Mäenpää can’t play for us as he doesn’t have a contract with us & no one really knows if that was Mäenpää’’s choice because he didn’t want to stay as #2 or if that was DH / the clubs choice because they wanted to save money on the potential game time that he would get, so I would argue that that’s a fairly moot point? It’s like saying you’d prefer Korey Smith to be playing in our midfield, he can’t, he’s not here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tipps69 said:

Well it could be argued that Mawson, Brunt & Williams aren’t actually taking up anyone’s minutes? We have no one else to play in Mawson’s place that is close to being first ready, Brunt has only played against Villa really & that’s while Walsh, Morrell & Williams are all injured. And Williams hasn’t taken anyone’s minutes as he’s not got anywhere near playing.

Mäenpää can’t play for us as he doesn’t have a contract with us & no one really knows if that was Mäenpää’’s choice because he didn’t want to stay as #2 or if that was DH / the clubs choice because they wanted to save money on the potential game time that he would get, so I would argue that that’s a fairly mute point? It’s like saying you’d prefer Korey Smith to be playing in our midfield, he can’t, he’s not here.

You could argue the same thing for every player. Who decides what first team ready is? The manager obviously because they pick the first team. So while LJ didn't think some players weren't neither does Holden for others. Brunt took Massengo's minutes. Not that they're "his" of course, you have to "earn them". If Brunt wasn't here, Massengo could have played. Or Morton if his Grimsby move wasn't far along enough to prevent that, Now you can easily argue against that too.

Don't waste both our time with the fact Williams is injured when the point was obviously about Holden's philosophy when it comes to our current staff. He seems to be picking and buying on the basis that "this is the best thing to do for the team" IMO. And I'm really happy about that. So far, I can't see gross acts of favouritism or bias. Great!

When one player gets picked another misses out. I don't care which ones that is in critical must win games. I just want the "best" team picked. Which I define by what the manager genuinely believes to give the best chance to win the game. I actually think it's really interesting that someone doesn't think that way.

The point that you'll want to make is that by (potentially) saving money and developing talent for resale/future first team has benefit too which we both know. Which is why I asked the hypothetical so we can actually get somewhere. So no, it's not moot (not mute), because it's relevant to discussing and understanding the differences in our philosophy which is what I'm interested in as most of the content in your and my posts on this thread IS hypothetical. And because it's thrown up a disagreement, that demonstrates why it's not moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Prinny said:

You could argue the same thing for every player. Who decides what first team ready is? The manager obviously because they pick the first team. So while LJ didn't think some players weren't neither does Holden for others. Brunt took Massengo's minutes. Not that they're "his" of course, you have to "earn them". If Brunt wasn't here, Massengo could have played. Or Morton if his Grimsby move wasn't far along enough to prevent that, Now you can easily argue against that too.

Don't waste both our time with the fact Williams is injured when the point was obviously about Holden's philosophy when it comes to our current staff. He seems to be picking and buying on the basis that "this is the best thing to do for the team" IMO. And I'm really happy about that. So far, I can't see gross acts of favouritism or bias. Great!

When one player gets picked another misses out. I don't care which ones that is in critical must win games. I just want the "best" team picked. Which I define by what the manager genuinely believes to give the best chance to win the game. I actually think it's really interesting that someone doesn't think that way.

The point that you'll want to make is that by (potentially) saving money and developing talent for resale/future first team has benefit too which we both know. Which is why I asked the hypothetical so we can actually get somewhere. So no, it's not moot (not mute), because it's relevant to discussing and understanding the differences in our philosophy which is what I'm interested in as most of the content in your and my posts on this thread IS hypothetical. And because it's thrown up a disagreement, that demonstrates why it's not moot.

But isn’t that the point of a fans forum? It’s about fans opinions & the debate that throws up.

And it could also be argued that Williams isn’t actually needed now? Obviously we all knew about Bakinson but not to the degree of how well he has progressed and because of Williams injury it has allowed Bakinson the opportunity which he has seemingly grasped. Personally I’ve only seen Williams play a couple of times & while he looked impressive, I would suggest I don’t have enough real information on him to get excited about him although the rumoured fee we paid for him does seem like a bargain for a player at this standard of football.

Similarly, I haven’t seen enough of Bakinson but for the little I have seen so far this season really, the signs are encouraging.

As you rightly say, DH is the guy who is in the position to make the decisions & he is the guy that would of seen the likes of O’Leary, Bakinson, Moore, Vyner & Semenyo etc progress through the last few seasons & as we were told basically from the minute DH took the position on, it was his decision to let Smith go! So it’s likely that he see’s something in O’Leary that he decided was worth allowing Mäenpää to leave?

Now we could continue to hypothetically discuss this because that’s all 99% of discussions are on a fans forum as unless someone is privy to inside inside information, that’s what this is. It’s one person’s opinion against another person’s opinion unless they agree with each other.

So everyone could just not bother in replying to any messages because they don’t know 100% the correct answer or everyone could just wait for that 1% of people that may know the actual answer but then this place would be pretty boring. So hypothetically people do put their opinion across & that starts the debate but you knew that right.

Just because we don’t agree with each other doesn’t mean that I think you are entirely wrong, there are different reasons for different decisions. It is just my opinion that I am happy with O’Leary is being given more of an opportunity than Mäenpää now. And rather than just responding to your original post with a one line response, I prefer to give reasons, as you clearly do & that then allows for this board to be used as it should be, for healthy debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said this on a thread yesterday but I think Max has got a really good chance of becoming a future number one here and it is great we are committing to his development. Even eighteen months ago, when he had a run in the team as an emergency back-up due to injuries, he didn't make mistakes or let us down and he's now got a season under his belt where he was highly rated and did well even against Liverpool. 

At the star of last season, I would have taken Maenpaa over O'Leary and I think O'Leary's lone was the right move. At this point, I don't see any reason to feel O'Leary will let us down is selected and would not have any issue at all if he was called upon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tipps69 said:

But isn’t that the point of a fans forum? It’s about fans opinions & the debate that throws up.

And it could also be argued that Williams isn’t actually needed now? Obviously we all knew about Bakinson but not to the degree of how well he has progressed and because of Williams injury it has allowed Bakinson the opportunity which he has seemingly grasped. Personally I’ve only seen Williams play a couple of times & while he looked impressive, I would suggest I don’t have enough real information on him to get excited about him although the rumoured fee we paid for him does seem like a bargain for a player at this standard of football.

Similarly, I haven’t seen enough of Bakinson but for the little I have seen so far this season really, the signs are encouraging.

As you rightly say, DH is the guy who is in the position to make the decisions & he is the guy that would of seen the likes of O’Leary, Bakinson, Moore, Vyner & Semenyo etc progress through the last few seasons & as we were told basically from the minute DH took the position on, it was his decision to let Smith go! So it’s likely that he see’s something in O’Leary that he decided was worth allowing Mäenpää to leave?

Now we could continue to hypothetically discuss this because that’s all 99% of discussions are on a fans forum as unless someone is privy to inside inside information, that’s what this is. It’s one person’s opinion against another person’s opinion unless they agree with each other.

So everyone could just not bother in replying to any messages because they don’t know 100% the correct answer or everyone could just wait for that 1% of people that may know the actual answer but then this place would be pretty boring. So hypothetically people do put their opinion across & that starts the debate but you knew that right.

Just because we don’t agree with each other doesn’t mean that I think you are entirely wrong, there are different reasons for different decisions. It is just my opinion that I am happy with O’Leary is being given more of an opportunity than Mäenpää now. And rather than just responding to your original post with a one line response, I prefer to give reasons, as you clearly do & that then allows for this board to be used as it should be, for healthy debate.

I agree completely. That's why i disagreed with you suggesting that it's moot because that's directly arguing against what you're saying here. Logical consistency. And I appreciate your posts because you list your reasons hence liking them AND arguing against them! But if you give hypothetical arguments rather than opinions which sometimes did it isn't that useful when the other person clearly knows those hypothetical theories too.

So let's take the O'Leary point above. It could be that, or it's finances, or the injury or whatever. Right? But we have to state our opinion on it and the decision, or it's just a list of possibilities. And then we can only say "yes, that is a possibility". as a response. Which i dunno, isn't interesting to me! So you saying, I think it's best to give Max any minutes over Mäenpää and why is interesting and creates debate (point of forum/exchange of views). But you going "So it’s likely that he see’s something in O’Leary that he decided was worth allowing Mäenpää to leave?" isn't because all I can to say to that is, sure, that's a possibility. So it's important in a forum to boil things down to questions and opinions rather than lists of options when there's a mutual agreement/understanding that the person you're interacting with understands the options.

So, Max is alright and I hope he succeeds, but there are flaws that I can see in his game so I'm not that hyped, I think Mäenpää is better (when fit) and I'd definitely play him over Max if given the chance to in an important game. For me it's an interesting decision for him to sign a new deal considering Bentley's age and number 1 status but there are reasons to believe he'll get a good opportunity at the shirt due to my perception of Holden's selection policy and Bentley's consistently inconsistent history. I don't think there's a general sweeping policy on youth players from Holden, it's more a case by case basis, and I'm happy with that so far.

And I agree we should be allowed to discuss hypothetical situations and I think the absolute worst posts on this forum are the "I'm not interested in this" / "You're not the manager so discussion is pointless" / "This is speculation so don't discuss it" posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Prinny said:

I agree completely. That's why i disagreed with you suggesting that it's moot because that's directly arguing against what you're saying here. Logical consistency. And I appreciate your posts because you list your reasons hence liking them AND arguing against them! But if you give hypothetical arguments rather than opinions which sometimes did it isn't that useful when the other person clearly knows those hypothetical theories too.

So let's take the O'Leary point above. It could be that, or it's finances, or the injury or whatever. Right? But we have to state our opinion on it and the decision, or it's just a list of possibilities. And then we can only say "yes, that is a possibility". as a response. Which i dunno, isn't interesting to me! So you saying, I think it's best to give Max any minutes over Mäenpää and why is interesting and creates debate (point of forum/exchange of views). But you going "So it’s likely that he see’s something in O’Leary that he decided was worth allowing Mäenpää to leave?" isn't because all I can to say to that is, sure, that's a possibility. So it's important in a forum to boil things down to questions and opinions rather than lists of options when there's a mutual agreement/understanding that the person you're interacting with understands the options.

So, Max is alright and I hope he succeeds, but there are flaws that I can see in his game so I'm not that hyped, I think Mäenpää is better (when fit) and I'd definitely play him over Max if given the chance to in an important game. For me it's an interesting decision for him to sign a new deal considering Bentley's age and number 1 status but there are reasons to believe he'll get a good opportunity at the shirt due to my perception of Holden's selection policy and Bentley's consistently inconsistent history. I don't think there's a general sweeping policy on youth players from Holden, it's more a case by case basis, and I'm happy with that so far.

And I agree we should be allowed to discuss hypothetical situations and I think the absolute worst posts on this forum are the "I'm not interested in this" / "You're not the manager so discussion is pointless" / "This is speculation so don't discuss it" posts.

I guess my main point with regarding O’Leary is that I believe that at his age & with the way his career has progressed so far, from non-league loans to his 16 or so games for us to his more or less full season at Shrewsbury last season, his natural progression would be to either go on loan to a Championship club or to be allowed to train in the first team environment here (as I stated previously with Bentley & our first team coaches), which could now be more beneficial than training at league one standard but that could also be argued that that would only really be beneficial if he was given game time here?

As regards of the possibility of a loan to a Championship club to provide him with progression, it’s very plausible that there would be no takers because who’s going to guarantee a 23 year-old with a season’s experience at League One an opportunity to be their first team keeper & after all, if he’s not going to be first choice at say Rotherham, he may as well stay here as #2, hadn’t he?

And while the reasons why DH got given the job will rumble on, it’s my belief that his willingness to promote & give the younger players that have been out on League One loans played a part, so that includes Semenyo, O’Leary, Walsh & Morrell (not sure if I’ve missed any others?) so if a Hughton or anyone else from outside of the club had been given the job, how much would that of cost the club to bring in players through transfers (quite easily £10m)?

The club were aware at the time of parting company with LJ that there was going to be a financial situation due to Covid-19 & (again it’s guess work on my behalf) but we were probably aware that spending largely in the transfer market wasn’t an ideal situation). Ashley Williams, Nikki Mäenpää, Korey Smith & Benik Afobe were all coming out of contract & again it’s guess work on my part but the likelihood is that to renew any of those contracts would mean it costing the club more than the current contracts of their in house possible replacements? So the appointment of DH has potentially done several things for the club, it has allowed the club to save money on transfer fee’s & wages & allowed the club to bring the average age of the squad down & this helps the clubs in several positions. It means we aren’t automatically spending money, it should mean that these players that have been on loan to League One (if given the opportunity in the Championship) will have their values increased, which in theory means that if these players do well enough, they will be sold for profit, which seems to be the clubs blueprint at present. And by giving these players the opportunity, it means in particular that Walsh, who’s contract runs out next summer might be tempted to sign a new contract here & allowing City to make a profit on him in the future rather than allowing him to walk for nothing (or a fairly minimal fee) next summer which is still a possibility if he doesn’t sign the rumoured new contract that has been offered to him.

All these things go hand in hand & while they may not provide instant results in terms of both money & points on the table, for the long term benefit of the club (especially in these uncertain financial times) it quite possibly will do. So while it saves the club money now, it also has more chance of making the club money in the future.

It’s all opinion but while keeping Smith & Mäenpää (the players on permanent contracts that were running out) may of been beneficial this season for points on the table, I think it would of been detrimental to the club in the long run. And there is obviously no evidence of that.

And that is why I think promoting O’Leary to the position he is now in & giving him his new contract is a great idea.

It’s not just about one thing with the club now, we don’t just look at the now, we are looking to preserve our future & that is why SL has been going on for years about us becoming self-sustainable & all of this helps to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30/09/2020 at 15:49, Tipps69 said:

I guess my main point with regarding O’Leary is that I believe that at his age & with the way his career has progressed so far, from non-league loans to his 16 or so games for us to his more or less full season at Shrewsbury last season, his natural progression would be to either go on loan to a Championship club or to be allowed to train in the first team environment here (as I stated previously with Bentley & our first team coaches), which could now be more beneficial than training at league one standard but that could also be argued that that would only really be beneficial if he was given game time here?

As regards of the possibility of a loan to a Championship club to provide him with progression, it’s very plausible that there would be no takers because who’s going to guarantee a 23 year-old with a season’s experience at League One an opportunity to be their first team keeper & after all, if he’s not going to be first choice at say Rotherham, he may as well stay here as #2, hadn’t he?

And while the reasons why DH got given the job will rumble on, it’s my belief that his willingness to promote & give the younger players that have been out on League One loans played a part, so that includes Semenyo, O’Leary, Walsh & Morrell (not sure if I’ve missed any others?) so if a Hughton or anyone else from outside of the club had been given the job, how much would that of cost the club to bring in players through transfers (quite easily £10m)?

The club were aware at the time of parting company with LJ that there was going to be a financial situation due to Covid-19 & (again it’s guess work on my behalf) but we were probably aware that spending largely in the transfer market wasn’t an ideal situation). Ashley Williams, Nikki Mäenpää, Korey Smith & Benik Afobe were all coming out of contract & again it’s guess work on my part but the likelihood is that to renew any of those contracts would mean it costing the club more than the current contracts of their in house possible replacements? So the appointment of DH has potentially done several things for the club, it has allowed the club to save money on transfer fee’s & wages & allowed the club to bring the average age of the squad down & this helps the clubs in several positions. It means we aren’t automatically spending money, it should mean that these players that have been on loan to League One (if given the opportunity in the Championship) will have their values increased, which in theory means that if these players do well enough, they will be sold for profit, which seems to be the clubs blueprint at present. And by giving these players the opportunity, it means in particular that Walsh, who’s contract runs out next summer might be tempted to sign a new contract here & allowing City to make a profit on him in the future rather than allowing him to walk for nothing (or a fairly minimal fee) next summer which is still a possibility if he doesn’t sign the rumoured new contract that has been offered to him.

All these things go hand in hand & while they may not provide instant results in terms of both money & points on the table, for the long term benefit of the club (especially in these uncertain financial times) it quite possibly will do. So while it saves the club money now, it also has more chance of making the club money in the future.

It’s all opinion but while keeping Smith & Mäenpää (the players on permanent contracts that were running out) may of been beneficial this season for points on the table, I think it would of been detrimental to the club in the long run. And there is obviously no evidence of that.

And that is why I think promoting O’Leary to the position he is now in & giving him his new contract is a great idea.

It’s not just about one thing with the club now, we don’t just look at the now, we are looking to preserve our future & that is why SL has been going on for years about us becoming self-sustainable & all of this helps to do that.

I think your posts are really interesting but I’d recommend cutting them down a bit so you get more engagement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I just said on the Vyner thread, it's brilliant that we've produced a young player who fits our current squad. We needed a back-up keeper. I really like Maenpaa, but he has his injury issues, and was likely on higher wages than we're (even on a new contract) paying Max. So it works perfectly for us. Max has proven in his cameo performances last season that he's good enough to be a No.2. However, he's not so good that he's going to get bought for silly money in January. 

It's really hard for the academy to consistently produce this kind of goldilocks player, as our position in the league could feasibly be anything from lower L1 to lower Prem, and the quality of player we need and can hold on to will vary accordingly. We should celebrate whenever the stars align and we get well-suited players like Vyner and O'Leary (and Morrell maybe).

Ultimately I want our academy to produce players for our team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...