Pitman Permanent Deal

[Red-Robbo]

I suspect I was one of those dunderheads, and I stand by my comments. Someone on a Bournemouth fans site commented: 'Pitman rarely plays a good game. He just scores goals.' and I think that sums him up. Its a difficult call, but I do think that even for a striker there is more than just scoring goals. Scoring 13 in a season is good, but does it compensate for the fact that he did very little else? He strikes me as the sort of player that you have to build the entire team around, with the other players making up for his shortcomings, but if he isn't doing much else then he needs to be capable of scoring far more than 13 goals in a season. I'm struggling to think of a player like him who has been successful in the top two divisions, but I'm happy to concede if someone can think of one.

Who'd you rather have up front - someone who "just scores goals" or someone like Stead and Taylor who do everything apart from score goals?

I don't need to trot out football cliche #478 "goals win games", do I?

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

Who'd you rather have up front - someone who "just scores goals" or someone like Stead and Taylor who do everything apart from score goals?

I don't need to trot out football cliche #478 "goals win games", do I?

I certainly wouldn't want Pitman as a target man.

[Red-Robbo]

I certainly wouldn't want Pitman as a target man.

Hmmm. The concept of a 'target man' doesn't work at this club.

Over-hit punts up field, don't work for 6ft 3ins Jon Stead and they wouldn't work for 6ft Brett Pitman either.

Methinks the problems are further back.

[dezgimed]

There are loads of strikers who do sod all but score goals, Owen, Bent etc.

I'd say Pitman actually does more than that sort, as his link up play with midfield was very good when it happened.

[Monkeh]

Who'd you rather have up front - someone who "just scores goals" or someone like Stead and Taylor who do everything apart from score goals?

I don't need to trot out football cliche #478 "goals win games", do I?

we score plenty this season its done us no good,

I'd rather have workrate and teamwork then sulky hands on hips if the ball isn't played to my feet any day of the week in the situation we're in 2 managers left him on the bench for well over half his apperances for us no other club even had a sniff at him tells you all you need to know about him,

the other thing about him is people banging on about him being a 20 goal a season striker he's not he's scored over 20 goals once in his career so far and thats in league 2

[ateyomike]

will always remember the stead brett partership that got us out of trouble before maynard by that time we were out of trouble and it is easier to be in a team that has no no fear of being relegated it was easy for maynard after that the hard work had been done but seeing what has happened with injuries since perhaps we were better of without him (maynard)

[The Bard]

Goalscorers aren't supposed to be running channels and dropping deep. If you want someone on the end of balls into the box and through balls, they need to be making only the runs that put them on the end of goalscoring chances. If you find a player that can score 20 a season and run the channels and work hard, they're going to end up in the Prem. Pitman's movement was exactly what a striker's should be, which is why he scored plenty despite not being quick.

As for the whole attitude thing - reading an awful lot into body language there really. I'd say I'd expect any player like Pitman to have been massively frustrated with being played the way he was here.

Not sure I really agree, we managed to get to the playoff final with two from Elliott, Skuse and Johnson playing with two up top more than half the time - weaker strikers too. We aren't any worse off now in midfield if not much improved. Our problem defensively isn't a weak midfield, it's a constantly changing back four of poor ability and nobody actually leading them.

But I didn't say that. I said he had poor movement. He had a habit of literally standing and watching. He was passive too much, only waking up when he sensed a chance. In cricketing terms, he's a flat track bully suited to a team that can get by when he isn't performing.

Agree with what you say about the defence. That has been the case for ages, with the brief exception of Amogou who by accounts took the changing room over for the period he was here. Caulker made a difference, but that was more down to sheer class and the calmness he brought rather than leadership.

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

There are loads of strikers who do sod all but score goals, Owen, Bent etc.

I'd say Pitman actually does more than that sort, as his link up play with midfield was very good when it happened.

Blimey. So better than Owen and Bent then?

[Monkeh]

Blimey. So better than Owen and Bent then?

Bent does alot of running off the ball as does owen infact owens workrate use to be fantastic

[hortonred]

Not many clubs could sign a proven goal scorer who invariably came up with the goods when allowed on and freeze him out completely.I wish all the best and am sure he will craking the goals in niw he has a chance.

[CiderHider]

I recall reading some time ago that his G/F was missing life on the south coast, perhaps he was as well.

Sometimes players are satisfied to be at a club which suits them and not necessarily chasing the big wages. He's from Jersey so maybe he's happier at Bournemouth?

Le Tissier, another Chanel Islander, spent his career at Southampton. Not that BP is anywhere near the player Le Tissier was.

I rated BP, but he's gone. Plus he hasn't messed the club around at all (probably the contrary), so good luck to him.

Yeah no hard feelings, wish him well. Onwards and upwards, so long as we replace him with a better striker all is well.

[Jordan Tansley]

So you think he's disruptive on the basis of perceived body language? He just has a sort of frowny miserable-looking face. He has that look in official team portraits. And I'd say wanting to take set pieces - which he's pretty bloody good at - is a sign of keeness to contribute to the team cause, rather than of petulance.

No, it's a myth, Jordan. Negated, indeed, by both Millen and McInnes's praise for his professional attitude.

In terms of him as a player, I'm not trying to argue he is 'better' than Baldock. Merely pointing out that he was our only striker to have scored 13 Championship goals recently. That was a response to the dunderheads who were calling him "a league one player at best".

I didn't say he was disruptive. He is a sulker on the pitch though and when he doesn't get his own way his performance is hindered. That's a bad attitude if ever I've seen one.

He's gone, he wasn't much use to us, cost a lot of money in wages and fee and overall didn't live up to his billing. Time to move on.

[dezgimed]

Blimey. So better than Owen and Bent then?

Well clearly not because they are goalscorers at Premiership level and Brett is a goalscorer at this level.

[Super]

Baldocks movement is of a different level to Pitman.

Hardly difficult as he rarely moved!

[Nibor]

But I didn't say that. I said he had poor movement. He had a habit of literally standing and watching. He was passive too much, only waking up when he sensed a chance. In cricketing terms, he's a flat track bully suited to a team that can get by when he isn't performing.

Agree with what you say about the defence. That has been the case for ages, with the brief exception of Amogou who by accounts took the changing room over for the period he was here. Caulker made a difference, but that was more down to sheer class and the calmness he brought rather than leadership.

Well, that wasn't what I saw at all. I saw well timed runs in and around the danger areas that were possible because earlier in that spell instead of running wide and deep like Stead or Taylor he'd remained in a threatening position. His movement was exceptionally good in terms of putting himself into positions to score goals. He was never static in the final third and he had exceptionally good touch and awareness around the box.

[WellRedPhil]

Well, that wasn't what I saw at all. I saw well timed runs in and around the danger areas that were possible because earlier in that spell instead of running wide and deep like Stead or Taylor he'd remained in a threatening position. His movement was exceptionally good in terms of putting himself into positions to score goals. He was never static in the final third and he had exceptionally good touch and awareness around the box.

Agree with this. His movement and link up play with the midfield was good, not non-existant as some have said. There's no point dwelling over him as he's gone now but his failure to exceed here was more down to the limited chances and treatment he received then anything he did wrong on the pitch.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Bent does alot of running off the ball as does owen infact owens workrate use to be fantastic

Well, Bent may do work off the ball but his all round game is not as good as it might be. Why is he not playing for Villa atm? Question marks over his all round game- I remember Montenegro away 2011 Bent touched the ball maybe twice- something like that, maybe it was 2 passes but not as good as it should be for an international standard striker. Owen? Technically goodyeah but wrong era...injuries played a huge part of curse but the top level he lacks perhaps lone striker capability. Maybe it was the injury.

[Mr Popodopolous]

£60k. How much did we pay for him? From a busines pov for a player who is quite young, it is not brilliant.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Well one thing is for sure we have replaced one bench warming striker with 2 more, that's progress.

[bearded_red]

£60k. How much did we pay for him? From a busines pov for a player who is quite young, it is not brilliant.

Firstly it has been heavily rumoured that we still owe them money from the original transfer so in reality the fee is more than the 60k. (A similar situation to the transfer of Baldock coming here while West Ham still owed us money for Mickey.

Secondly in the financial condition we are in it is more important to get a high earner such as Pitman off the books if not playing regularly then to worry too much about the fee. It was glaringly obvious to everyone on the opening day (it if wasn't before) that McInnes doesn't rate Brett as he didn't bring him on until injury in a game that we never looked like scoring in. In the three days after that Forest game we bought Davies and Baldock to really stamp it home how difficult (impossible) it was going to be for Brett to force his way into the team.

Maybe Bournemouth have got themselves a bargain, but having one of your top earner sat in the stand every week is not a healthy situation to be in and therefore Brett had to be moved on as soon as there any interest.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Firstly it has been heavily rumoured that we still owe them money from the original transfer so in reality the fee is more than the 60k. (A similar situation to the transfer of Baldock coming here while West Ham still owed us money for Mickey.

Secondly in the financial condition we are in it is more important to get a high earner such as Pitman off the books if not playing regularly then to worry too much about the fee. It was glaringly obvious to everyone on the opening day (it if wasn't before) that McInnes doesn't rate Brett as he didn't bring him on until injury in a game that we never looked like scoring in. In the three days after that Forest game we bought Davies and Baldock to really stamp it home how difficult (impossible) it was going to be for Brett to force his way into the team.

Maybe Bournemouth have got themselves a bargain, but having one of your top earner sat in the stand every week is not a healthy situation to be in and therefore Brett had to be moved on as soon as there any interest.

This is true, off the wage bll always helps and god knows our wage bill is too high but so are our losses. For me, the bottom line is this. We should be getting a decent return on a promising young striker such as Pitman, maybe I overreacted when it said £60k, do we think we made a profit or loss on him?

[bearded_red]

This is true, off the wage bll always helps and god knows our wage bill is too high but so are our losses. For me, the bottom line is this. We should be getting a decent return on a promising young striker such as Pitman, maybe I overreacted when it said £60k, do we think we made a profit or loss on him?

Definitely a loss.

I like Pitman a lot and I agree he is going for a transfer that doesn't represent his talent, but we are in an awful position as a selling club. The manager doesn't rate him and probably doesn't want to see him every morning at training, he is a high earner that sits in the stand every week at a club making massive losses, his contract is out in the summer... All of this leaves us in a position that suggests we did the right thing getting rid of him as quickly as possible and taking whatever small figure we could.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

How will OTIB remember Sam Baldock once DMC finally breaks his spirit and he buggers off back to MK Dons with his tail between his legs?.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Definitely a loss.

I'm a fan of Pitman and I agree he is going for a transfer that doesn't represent his talent, but we are in an awful position as a selling club. The manager doesn't rate him and probably doesn't want to see him every morning at training, he is a high earner that sits in the stand every week at a club making massive losses, his contract is out in the summer... All of this leaves us in a position that suggests we did the right thing getting rid of him as quickly as possible and taking whatever small figure we could.

Like I say, shouldn't be making a loss but maybe it was thew best we could do financially. In our position though we can't afford to be taking loses on young players with a resale value- Pitman, think we maybe made one on Maynard and Bolasie? Maybe a small profit but given how good he now has been for Palace...

[CiderRob]

He's not a top player but in the right league he could be and with us potentially going down I can't help but think we should have gave him a little more playing time to keep him and if we stayed up then sell in the summer . Lets be honest I can't see us having baldock and stead upfront if we go down

[bearded_red]

Like I say, shouldn't be making a loss but maybe it was thew best we could do financially. In our position though we can't afford to be taking loses on young players with a resale value- Pitman, think we maybe made one on Maynard and Bolasie? Maybe a small profit but given how good he now has been for Palace...

With almost all transfers these days it is largely guesswork, but I think I'm right in saying that due to the tiny five figure sum we spent on Bolasie we actually made a very large profit. Of course now it is easy to look and think we could/should have held out for more but even I, as one of Yannick's biggest fans while he was here thought we did good business in the money we got for Bolasie after he made it clear he would like to leave.

[Mr Popodopolous]

With almost all transfers these days it is largely guesswork, but I think I'm right in saying that due to the tiny five figure sum we spent on Bolasie we actually made a very large profit. Of course now it is easy to look and think we could/should have held out for more but even I, as one of Yannick's biggest fans while he was here thought we did good business in the money we got for Bolasie after he made it clear he would like to leave.

Glad we posted a profit on him anyway, we signed him very cheap didn't we.

[Red-Robbo]

He's gone, he wasn't much use to us, cost a lot of money in wages and fee and overall didn't live up to his billing. Time to move on.

Other than being top scorer for us in a season when we weren't bumping along the bottom...

[old_eastender]

Whichever way you look at and regardless of whether you rate Pitman or not, to sign a young player for £600k and sell him for £60k is darned bad business, which sadly has become the norm for BCFC.

[glynriley]

£300K according to this

http://www.bristolcity.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=304676