TRL Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 You must be either joking or attention seeking. Pitman is not the fastest, and has an ungainly running style, but he is a natural goalscorer who makes up for these limitations with superb positional sense. He would obviously not thrive as a lone striker so hopefully KM will play with two up front once Pitman takes over from Maynard. In which case there's no doubt he'll be amongst the leading marksmen in the Championship. Pitman has something no other Striker has at our club.... he thinks, and shoots early, no first touch, he hits it first time and accurately. A keepers worst nightmare. This is not something you can teach. In terms of striking, for me it puts him ahead of Maynard. Maynard has a better all round game, But this is something Pitman can work on. he is lucky, he has something you cannot teach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nogbad the Bad Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Pitman has something no other Striker has at our club.... he thinks, and shoots early, no first touch, he hits it first time and accurately. A keepers worst nightmare. This is not something you can teach. In terms of striking, for me it puts him ahead of Maynard. Maynard has a better all round game, But this is something Pitman can work on. he is lucky, he has something you cannot teach. Well put TRL, Pitman indeed has these qualities which are rare at any level. If City become a chance creating team there is no doubt in my mind that Pitman will score heavily and could be our most prolific striker since Bob Taylor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Well put TRL, Pitman indeed has these qualities which are rare at any level. If City become a chance creating team there is no doubt in my mind that Pitman will score heavily and could be our most prolific striker since Bob Taylor. Yep, i have that feeling. This is where Maynard gets the nod at the moment, he can create his own goals, I am not sure Pitman has that in his locker. If we can create more Pitman will be a goal machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Then it's down to the board to protect our interest and leave Maynard out of all first team games and concentrate on the players who wish to be here. He can sit out his remaining time on the bench so that Pitman and Stead get plenty of time on the pitch, otherwise we shall end up with Maynard gone, Pitman unwilling to sign an extension and Stead nearing the end of his contract. What a stupid position that would be, if that's a good business plan then we are well and truly f....d with this new board. If he doesn't wish to be here, what is the point in playing him? We could be using this time to give Pitman a full season to make the position his own, he's good enough in my opinion, he just needs the games up front, not stuck on the bloody left wing. I said in my post that Maynard has us over a barrell, but perhaps this is the sort of strong and decisive management that has been lacking for some time now and might give Maynard something to think about. When Johnson came here he ruffled a few feathers and upset a few players ( and one or two fans) but he laid down a clear marker about who was in charge and it brought about a complete change in attitude at the club and proved the basis for our subsewuent success. The club's management has appeared to be weak and indecisive and it seems they are too often reacting to events rather than being in control of events. It might just be that a clear and decisive stance such as you suggested might not only force Maynard into a rethink of his strategy, but also give other players a bit more confidence in the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semblar Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 I remember a similar "clear and decisive stance" was slated by many when GJ refused to play Orr...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Batman Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Well put TRL, Pitman indeed has these qualities which are rare at any level. If City become a chance creating team there is no doubt in my mind that Pitman will score heavily and could be our most prolific striker since Bob Taylor. I think Pitman reminds me of Mark Robins. Not much offering outside the box but very clinical when needed. Just a shame we could not get him on a full time contract rather than on loan. I just missed out on watching Bob Taylor but my grandad told me what a great player he was. (and living in the midlands, I get told by WBA fans as well) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdgifford64 Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Then it's down to the board to protect our interest and leave Maynard out of all first team games and concentrate on the players who wish to be here. He can sit out his remaining time on the bench so that Pitman and Stead get plenty of time on the pitch, otherwise we shall end up with Maynard gone, Pitman unwilling to sign an extension and Stead nearing the end of his contract. What a stupid position that would be, if that's a good business plan then we are well and truly f....d with this new board. If he doesn't wish to be here, what is the point in playing him? We could be using this time to give Pitman a full season to make the position his own, he's good enough in my opinion, he just needs the games up front, not stuck on the bloody left wing. Thats brilliant...leave our best goal scorer on the sidelines, while we`re still paying his wages BTW, and play Pitman til he drops.......and also remembers how to finish in front of an open goal from 5 yards. I`ve read some shite over the past few weeks and thats pretty close to the top of the pile. Maynard signed a contract, he`s under no obligation to sign another one. I may be in the minority but if he wants to run out his current contract, thats fine by me. He`s still going to give it his all because it`s in his best interests to do so..it`s not rocket science. PDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havanatopia Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Maynard signed a contract, he`s under no obligation to sign another one. I may be in the minority but if he wants to run out his current contract, thats fine by me. He`s still going to give it his all because it`s in his best interests to do so..it`s not rocket science. PDG Finally a concurring voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshy Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Who would buy half our debt? Maybe we could try the European Central Bank, they're in a buying mood. Not within their legal mandate but that hasn't stopped them yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slave to the rhythm Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Maynard will be signing a new contract in a few weeks Do you really belive that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobby the red Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Do you really belive that? http://www.bcfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10327~2438705,00.html interesting ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slave to the rhythm Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Likewise baffled. Did the club not give him 2 weeks to make up his mind recently or is my memory playing tricks on me? Allowing him to keep them waiting indefinitely just makes the club look weak. Perhaps they are. The club have absolutely no power over Maynard and he knows it. So they give him two weeks and he still doesn't sign. So what? What, realistically, can the club do about it, apart from making him train with the kids or on his own? They can't force him to do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slave to the rhythm Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 http://www.bcfc.co.u...2438705,00.html interesting ? No, stupid. Turning down big money is just stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobby the red Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 No, stupid. Turning down big money is just stupid. I meant do you believe the board will regret this decision ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nogbad the Bad Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Thats brilliant...leave our best goal scorer on the sidelines, while we`re still paying his wages BTW, and play Pitman til he drops.......and also remembers how to finish in front of an open goal from 5 yards. I`ve read some shite over the past few weeks and thats pretty close to the top of the pile. Maynard signed a contract, he`s under no obligation to sign another one. I may be in the minority but if he wants to run out his current contract, thats fine by me. He`s still going to give it his all because it`s in his best interests to do so..it`s not rocket science. PDG Presumably you mean when Pitman hit the bar at Cardiff. I agree you'd have expected him to score although the ball bounced quite high to his weaker foot and he couldn't quite get his knee over the ball. The fact he got such good connection to the bouncing ball was to his credit and thumping the bar slightly unlucky. Hardly a tap in. If you want to highlight a really bad miss by one of our strikers let's talk about Maynard's shocking effort when clean through at Doncaster. Or let's just accept that no striker takes every chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davros Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Sorry but all the Nicky Maynard vitriol is pointless its just how the game is its not his fault or the clubs its just the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Then it's down to the board to protect our interest and leave Maynard out of all first team games and concentrate on the players who wish to be here. He can sit out his remaining time on the bench so that Pitman and Stead get plenty of time on the pitch, otherwise we shall end up with Maynard gone, Pitman unwilling to sign an extension and Stead nearing the end of his contract. What a stupid position that would be, if that's a good business plan then we are well and truly f....d with this new board. If he doesn't wish to be here, what is the point in playing him? We could be using this time to give Pitman a full season to make the position his own, he's good enough in my opinion, he just needs the games up front, not stuck on the bloody left wing. I totally agree with every single word of this post, I think the club needs to take the bull by the horns and give Maynard an ultimatum, this saga is causing too much damage now. Bottom line if he is going to walk on a Bosman don't play him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshy Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 I totally agree with every single word of this post, I think the club needs to take the bull by the horns and give Maynard an ultimatum, this saga is causing too much damage now. Bottom line if he is going to walk on a Bosman don't play him. Plus another one, ....and what Premier League team will look at him if he's been out of action for four months come the January transfer window? Maybe the club has more power than some think in this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Bottom line if he is going to walk on a Bosman don't play him. This is not something I usually agree with. But in this case I think (but he wont) Millen should be brave and drop Maynard. When Bradley Orr refused to sign his contract - it was the wrong move, because we did'nt have a adequate replacement - We were cutting our nose off to spite our face. On this occasion, we have a very good young goalscorer on the bench and he is our future. If Maynard is set on leaving, then play pitman - he is the future. The last thing we want is Maynard leaving and then Brett Pitman also wanting to leave because he is pissed off sitting on the bench all season. At least tell Maynard to tell us his intentions or drop to the reserves. We are already ****ed in the goalkeeping department because of lack of forward planning - lets not let the same thing happen with our goalscorers. I've always rated Maynard, but we must do our best to keep the other good players happy - because they want to play for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Presumably you mean when Pitman hit the bar at Cardiff. I agree you'd have expected him to score although the ball bounced quite high to his weaker foot and he couldn't quite get his knee over the ball. The fact he got such good connection to the bouncing ball was to his credit and thumping the bar slightly unlucky. Hardly a tap in.If you want to highlight a really bad miss by one of our strikers let's talk about Maynard's shocking effort when clean through at Doncaster. Or let's just accept that no striker takes every chance. I agree Noggers.There were 2 defenders on the line as well as the keeper scrambling back across. Should have scored but it was not an open goal. I'm not sure where all the stick coming Pitman's way is coming from. BCAGFC seem's to really have it in for him , but that could just be his love of Maynard clouding his judgement. Pitman is what he is , an out and out goalscorer who needs service into the box. And he's firkin good at it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 I totally agree with every single word of this post, I think the club needs to take the bull by the horns and give Maynard an ultimatum, this saga is causing too much damage now. Bottom line if he is going to walk on a Bosman don't play him. NO it's completely wrong, in what other walks of life where fixed term contracts are used is this used as a bargaining chip? It is ridiculous to say to anyone "sign a contract for 3 years but if after 2 of those years you refuse to sign another one, or go to another organisation that you don't want to work for, that we will not put you on gardening leave until you give in to blackmail". It is doesn't make any business sense unless the person is not performing their job to the standards required, are you suggesting that is the case with NM, because I haven't seen much evidence for that? The story on the official site today makes it clear that our decision to turn down the large offer from Leicester was made all the easier by the fact that NM wasn't agitating for a move to Leicester or any other Championship club. Some people may not like the fact that the days are gone when clubs could trade players and tie them to contracts that basically treated them like paid slaves, but that is where we are and all clubs have to manage that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southport Red Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 NO it's completely wrong, in what other walks of life where fixed term contracts are used is this used as a bargaining chip? It is ridiculous to say to anyone "sign a contract for 3 years but if after 2 of those years you refuse to sign another one, or go to another organisation that you don't want to work for, that we will not put you on gardening leave until you give in to blackmail". It is doesn't make any business sense unless the person is not performing their job to the standards required, are you suggesting that is the case with NM, because I haven't seen much evidence for that? The story on the official site today makes it clear that our decision to turn down the large offer from Leicester was made all the easier by the fact that NM wasn't agitating for a move to Leicester or any other Championship club. Some people may not like the fact that the days are gone when clubs could trade players and tie them to contracts that basically treated them like paid slaves, but that is where we are and all clubs have to manage that. Not only that, the idea of doing it to your most talented and valuable employee, who is performing his role very well, at a time when the business is in something of a crisis, is ridiculous. Is the situation at BCFC so absolutely peachy that we can afford to not use our deadliest asset in an attempt to threaten him into signing an extension when he is still very faithfully performing the duties specified in his current contract? A little less Championship Manager and rather more Professional Manager is required on this forum I think. Changing tack a little, the same argument goes for Millen's handling of Nicky Hunt. If I had a talented employee with a good CV who joined my firm when he was ill and, possibly as a result, he performed poorly, it would be MY job to tunr him around, to get him back to former levels of performance. Only in football do you have a situation where, if an employee performs poorly, the 'Manager' can ignore them and just go out and hire someone else (at great cost) to do their job for them! It's like GJ & Marcus Stewart all over again. In the real world, managers HAVE to get the best out of the resources they have (perhaps that's why they call it 'Managing'?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 NO it's completely wrong, in what other walks of life where fixed term contracts are used is this used as a bargaining chip? It is ridiculous to say to anyone "sign a contract for 3 years but if after 2 of those years you refuse to sign another one, or go to another organisation that you don't want to work for, that we will not put you on gardening leave until you give in to blackmail". It is doesn't make any business sense unless the person is not performing their job to the standards required, are you suggesting that is the case with NM, because I haven't seen much evidence for that? The story on the official site today makes it clear that our decision to turn down the large offer from Leicester was made all the easier by the fact that NM wasn't agitating for a move to Leicester or any other Championship club. Some people may not like the fact that the days are gone when clubs could trade players and tie them to contracts that basically treated them like paid slaves, but that is where we are and all clubs have to manage that. So why not ask him what his intentions are?, give him a deadline, what difference will that make?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melksham Red Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 The 'board' actually think they can get Maynard to sign a new deal So there we have it , Leicester did come back in with a massive bid, we said NO because they were a championshup club and Sexstone quoted has saying they CAN GET Maynard to sign a deal...Clueless The board have been extremely weak, should of told Maynsrd HE WAS TO SIGN TODAY OR DO ONE and we take the the money, If Maynard said NO- tell maynard he was to take the move or he would be frozen out. Why the hell they are still pussy footing around this bloke is beyond me, its as clear as the nose on my face he has ABSOLUTELY no intention of being here any longer then necessary. When are Bristol City going to stop letting Maynard bang em up the arse and show some bolloxs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southport Red Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 The 'board' actually think they can get Maynard to sign a new deal The board have been extremely weak, should of told Maynsrd HE WAS TO SIGN TODAY OR DO ONE and we take the the money, If Maynard said NO- tell maynard he was to take the move or he would be frozen out. Why the hell they are still pussy footing around this bloke is beyond me, its as clear as the nose on my face he has ABSOLUTELY no intention of being here any longer then necessary. Only trouble is, what you are suggesting is illegal. If an employee signs a fixed term contract for, say three years, you cannot step in after two years and insist he signs an extension. The law is very clear, Maynard does not HAVE to do anything until his contract expires. I understand everyone's frustration, and it may well be that Maynard does NOT intend to sign and therefore stay on once his contract expires (I do not 'know' this to be a fact and neither do you), but the law is the law, if the 'Weak' Board did as you suggest, they would be wide open to legal cases of harassment/constructive dismissal and possibly much else. It is frustrating, I agree. Would it be best if Maynard signed up now, of course (even for him, pro footballers are only ever one bad tackle away from having their careers ended), but the law is the law, so I don't think it is viable for the board to be 'strong' in the way you are suggesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark43 Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 So why not ask him what his intentions are?, give him a deadline, what difference will that make?. The 'board' actually think they can get Maynard to sign a new deal So there we have it , Leicester did come back in with a massive bid, we said NO because they were a championshup club and Sexstone quoted has saying they CAN GET Maynard to sign a deal...Clueless The board have been extremely weak, should of told Maynsrd HE WAS TO SIGN TODAY OR DO ONE and we take the the money, If Maynard said NO- tell maynard he was to take the move or he would be frozen out. Why the hell they are still pussy footing around this bloke is beyond me, its as clear as the nose on my face he has ABSOLUTELY no intention of being here any longer then necessary. When are Bristol City going to stop letting Maynard bang em up the arse and show some bolloxs. Ok lets look " how close do you think we could be to being sued for breach of contract or constructive dismissal? What you are suggesting is blackmail and would not go down very well if we were taken to court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pederho ll Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Ok lets look " how close do you think we could be to being sued for breach of contract or constructive dismissal? What you are suggesting is blackmail and would not go down very well if we were taken to court. ....and to prevent all this nonsense we should have sold him. It's a bad bad decision by the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Ok lets look " how close do you think we could be to being sued for breach of contract or constructive dismissal? What you are suggesting is blackmail and would not go down very well if we were taken to court. What for asking him what his intentions are?. The manager can pick who he want's GJ proved that with Basso. I really love the assumption that Maynard is doing nothing wrong, of course legally he is'nt (which should cheer you up) but morally it stinks, players show absolutely no loyalty whatsoever to clubs and especially fans. The deadline day sale of Arteta proves that a couple of weeks ago he was badge kissing and giving an interview about how happy he was, then throws in a last minute transfer request to manufacture a transfer. I admire the fact that the club appears to have stuck to it's guns over not selling to a championship club, but the mixed messages and the manager and chairman apparently not reading from the same hymn sheet is de-stabilising. This cannot be allowed to drag on much longer it really can't because with us playing a system with 1 up front and the likely hood that the rest of the squad are well aware of what his intentions are and some fans seemingly wanting to play him come what may, this could have much wider implications in the dressing room. All I am saying is ask the question and put this to bed once and for all, surely even the law allows that?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark43 Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 ....and to prevent all this nonsense we should have sold him. It's a bad bad decision by the board. But for all we know he didnt want to be sold to any of the teams that wanted to buy him, you cant force him unless its something he wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.