Jump to content
IGNORED

Danny Simpson


Hampshire reds

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, East End Old Boy said:

Glad to hear and the figure is……?

Not accurate, as in out of date.  I’m sure he was on that at some stage - probably when he signed for Huddersfield, but Weimann’s is pre-summer and he (and Baker) took big pay cuts.  Simpson was offered a new deal as his short term deal had expired.

I’d be surprised if he’s on more than £5k per week.  I suspect King on similar(ish).  Having seen the financial results, I don’t believe we were dishing out the kind of wages for players who negotiated deals in the summer.  The constraints haven’t come out of the blue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, GrahamC said:

Yep.

A grade ****.

Simpson didn’t have a club for 9 months last season before we gave him a short term deal yet this ***** still comes out with shite like “on decent money”.

******* bore off.

This is completely unnecessary IMO.

I know poster has history but he just has a different opinion. I don’t think he’s trolling like some get away with on here.

Is it ludicrous to suggest a player who’s won the Premier League is probably on decent money?

Also entitled to ask where he is, seems a valid question to me.

There used a be a rule / phrase on here, attack the post, not the poster. Sometimes easier said than done, but this wasn’t a post worth attacking IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

If Vyner plays at right back with Tanner out then that really does suggest to me that Pearson realises he made a mistake bringing in Simpson.

I am sure Pearson will want Vyner to stay alongside Kalas, and moving Vyner to right back will suggest to me he doesnt trust Simpson.

I am sure there would have been other options in the summer at right back.

No idea how much Simpson earns. I judge a signing on what they do on the pitch. And if Simpson does not play well or is not even trusted to play then it is a bad signing imo.

But I am still thinking Simpson was really not signed to play but more of a mentor role on our young defenders 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

If Vyner plays at right back with Tanner out then that really does suggest to me that Pearson realises he made a mistake bringing in Simpson.

I am sure Pearson will want Vyner to stay alongside Kalas, and moving Vyner to right back will suggest to me he doesnt trust Simpson.

I am sure there would have been other options in the summer at right back.

No idea how much Simpson earns. I judge a signing on what they do on the pitch. And if Simpson does not play well or is not even trusted to play then it is a bad signing imo.

I would guess Scott goes back to RWB and Vyner plays right of 3 CBs 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JonDolman said:

If Vyner plays at right back with Tanner out then that really does suggest to me that Pearson realises he made a mistake bringing in Simpson.

I am sure Pearson will want Vyner to stay alongside Kalas, and moving Vyner to right back will suggest to me he doesnt trust Simpson.

I am sure there would have been other options in the summer at right back.

No idea how much Simpson earns. I judge a signing on what they do on the pitch. And if Simpson does not play well or is not even trusted to play then it is a bad signing imo.

⬇️⬇️⬇️

1 hour ago, JonDolman said:

It seemed like to me that Pearson planned to trust in Vyner and Simpson as right back options. 

Pearson realised after the first 6 competitive games of the season that those 2 were not good enough.

So he then brings in Tanner at the end of August. Going by Tanner's interview he was was not expecting to come to us in that window, and it seems was probably a signing Pearson was initially planning to make the following summer.

For me if a player is a part of a squad then they have to be able to contribute on the pitch.

Pretty confident he saw Vyner and Simpson as his RBs….a compromise to buy some time to assess what was needed, trying to get through to this summer without needing to spend money.  Think you have to look about in the context that finances restricted it.  In an ideal world he’d have brought in a ready-made RB, probably spent similar to Atkinson, and everything would be hunky dory.  As it was we spent nothing, tried to work with what he had (bar wages).

Personally, I thought Vyner was fine at RB, but that’s my opinion.  If he has to play there again now, I have no worries.

As it happened, perhaps he felt he might want to try a back three, and that ruled Simpson out (who played fine v Reading and Swansea, not World beating, but did a job) as a wingback, hence the move for Tanner.  Maybe Simpson has struggled to stay fit.  I honestly don’t think Simpson is on anymore that £5k p.w. and for the sake of a year’s money, had it worked then great.

So, Simpson might not have worked out, you can call it a “bad signing” (I’m fine with that), but you have to look at the rationale and context too…even more so in light of the finances just announced.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JonDolman said:

If Vyner plays at right back with Tanner out then that really does suggest to me that Pearson realises he made a mistake bringing in Simpson.

I am sure Pearson will want Vyner to stay alongside Kalas, and moving Vyner to right back will suggest to me he doesnt trust Simpson.

I am sure there would have been other options in the summer at right back.

No idea how much Simpson earns. I judge a signing on what they do on the pitch. And if Simpson does not play well or is not even trusted to play then it is a bad signing imo.

I think anyone who was at WBA, and saw his quite frankly pathetic attempt at a back pass, would understand why he hasn't been playing since.

Vyner isn't the answer at RB either, even though he had one of his best games for the club in my view on Thursday.

It would have been interesting to see whether if he was on the bench for the QPR game he would have come on for Tanner, rather than the Atkinson sub.

For me, an upgrade in both full back positions is a priority, particularly if JD isn't playing/off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

If Simpson plays very little for the rest of his time here then we might as well have just had Tanner and Vyner as right backs imo.

But ideally we could have looked to have signed someone else.

Laird, Sterling, Spence, Kane. 

Sanderson who is more a centre back but has played right back a fair bit too.

Or if wing backs then Jordan Graham on a free.

Maybe even Nathan Thompson on a free before he signed a new deal with Peterborough.

All frees or loans.

I don't necessarily rate all those but just examples that could either be good or do a job at this level.

I didnt rate Jack Hunt in the end, but I expect he was an option to keep on.

Wasn't Hunt on quite big money? I'm sure Weds would have outbid us, if we had wanted to keep him.

Amazed that he actually made over 100 appearances for us.

Was trying to think of the last really decent right back we had, and settled on Tavenier. I would have loved him to have signed after the promotion season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

I actually preferred Little to Tavanier when we had both.

Hunt was probably on quite decent money. Seems like he was released though wasn't he? I assume we didnt even offer him a lower wage.

Great pairing all round for us. Wonderful recruitment at the time. Not unlike the rest of the L1 squad that Cotts put together.

I know he doesn't get much credit but SOD played a major part in our future league winning side as well of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

If Simpson plays very little for the rest of his time here then we might as well have just had Tanner and Vyner as right backs imo.

But ideally we could have looked to have signed someone else.

Laird, Sterling, Spence, Kane. 

Sanderson who is more a centre back but has played right back a fair bit too.

Or if wing backs then Jordan Graham on a free.

Maybe even Nathan Thompson on a free before he signed a new deal with Peterborough.

All frees or loans.

I don't necessarily rate all those but just examples that could either be good or do a job at this level.

I didnt rate Jack Hunt in the end, but I expect he was an option to keep on.

Don’t disagree with any of that.  But we know Nige’s position on loans too.  I just think he was trying to be frugal, nor did we look hugely attractive for someone like Laird.  I have a feeling that the recruitment team do more analysis on targets given to them, than come up with players themselves though data / video themselves.  That might change under Nige, but Ashton would’ve been very keen to keep the pond small, wouldn’t he!

So Simpson, will probably end up being classed as a bad signing, but it’s important to weigh that up against why it happened…and not paint it purely black or white.

25 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

I actually preferred Little to Tavanier when we had both.

Hunt was probably on quite decent money. Seems like he was released though wasn't he? I assume we didnt even offer him a lower wage.

Hunt would’ve been on reasonable money to leave Wednesday….gotta be £15k p.w. (Imho)

Theres also a big difference between sitting down and discussing terms and getting offered something.  We saw with Baker that the club had discussions but were too far apart in their terms, so Bakes said he’d look elsewhere.  Ultimately he came back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

There's been unsuccessful signings over the years. Always expect there to be some. Just hopefully we make less of them in the future.

Yep…It’s the ones that cost £3.5m and £1.25m in wages p.a that don’t play that are the problem, not freebies like DS.

50 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

LJ did at some point say the recruitment team are now bringing me players which is what they are supposed to do. So hopefully that changed back then and has carried on.

The question is how many progress further than MA and his narrow list of agents ???

Link to comment
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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