Jump to content
IGNORED

The Palmer problem


SecretSam

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I was certainly happy he signed, but questioned the timing and the strategy having already signed Szmodics and Pato being here.

It hasn’t worked out bar a 5 game spell in 19/20 and another 5 game spell when returning from his Swansea loan in 20/21.

It was a weird one as for much of his loan period before we signed him permanently he was on the subs bench, so always makes me wonder what LJ saw in him that suggested we should keep him. Unless we had agreed to sign him as part of that loan deal

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, TheReds said:

As much is it was down to them, didn't the majority of fans want him as well? I cannot remember too much negativity before signing him permanently, or when it was a done deal. It just hasn't worked out, he needs to play in the right type of formation/team/players etc.

Reading some of the stuff on here (now) you would think nobody at all wanted him bar Ashton/LJ, which was definitely not the case.

You may be correct. I can't speak for the whole fanbase. Only myself. ?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, TheReds said:

I do not disagree, but no doubt there are many on here where who seem to imply we should have never have signed him, worse signing ever (hindsight), yet I really cannot remember a huge bunch of people actually against the signing at the time, and it seemed to me (I may well be wrong), that the huge majority of fans were ecstatic when it was announced.

We are only privy though to a fraction of the information LJ and MA would've had at their disposal when making their decision to sign him - the first to take the plunge and offer him a permanent contract. We can only go by what we see on matchday, and that's missing a lot of vital info. 

LJ and MA were paid handsomely to get enough of these decisions right, and they got far too many wrong.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Bristol Oil Services said:

We are only privy though to a fraction of the information LJ and MA would've had at their disposal when making their decision to sign him - the first to take the plunge and offer him a permanent contract. We can only go by what we see on matchday, and that's missing a lot of vital info. 

LJ and MA were paid handsomely to get enough of these decisions right, and they got far too many wrong.

You have to factor the fans in on this as well,

Like with tomlin the fans took to him quickly and had a chant for him while on loan,

It's a signing made to appease the fans imo nothing more,

To put at ease the grumbles after another season had collapsed into mediocrity 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

You have to factor the fans in on this as well,

Like with tomlin the fans took to him quickly and had a chant for him while on loan,

It's a signing made to appease the fans imo nothing more,

To put at ease the grumbles after another season had collapsed into mediocrity 

If we were signing players to ‘appease the fans’ , they were even more stupid and incompetent than I thought

 

He was a vanity signing by the pair of them 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

If we were signing players to ‘appease the fans’ , they were even more stupid and incompetent than I thought

 

He was a vanity signing by the pair of them 

They are stupid, and it was to appease the fans imo, the same as signing tomlin, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sheltons Army said:

If we were signing players to ‘appease the fans’ , they were even more stupid and incompetent than I thought

 

He was a vanity signing by the pair of them 

There would definitely have been a part of the signings of Tomlin and Palmer to do with the fans. Both were fans favourites before signing, and didn't Tomlin have the majority of the ground singing "sign him on"? 

The issue is the likes of Ashton and LJ basically did what they wanted to, and the signings of both of those did appease the fans, whilst they could then sign other unknowns/higher risk and get given more slack because they did have fans on side at the time imo. The trouble is when a couple of signings go south, the fans then questions more and more of the signings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Monkeh said:

They are stupid, and it was to appease the fans imo, the same as signing tomlin, 

Hardly the same! 

Tomlin was outstanding in his loan spell & we rightly pulled out all the stops to get him here permanently - OK, it didn't work out, longer term, but his signing was very exciting, after his loan spell success. 

 

Palmer, on the other hand, did virtually nothing during his loan spell and has been consistent in that level of apathy since (apart from 1 Cup game against Northampton!) 

A questionable signing, based on an unremarkable loan spell, that has been a complete waste of time & money. 

  • Like 5
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Show Me The Money! said:

It was a weird one as for much of his loan period before we signed him permanently he was on the subs bench, so always makes me wonder what LJ saw in him that suggested we should keep him. Unless we had agreed to sign him as part of that loan deal

 

I had the feeling LJ thought he could turn him into the next big money player. Seem to remember it being said, LJ wanted a full pre-season with him to get up to speed, as he wasn't fit enough when he came in on loan.

There were also social media posts from KP aimed at the club/LJ about how he was working hard on his fitness throughout the summer, before signing for us.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could it have been the case that in order to get Kalas and DaSilva on the terms we did, Palmer for a couple of million had to be thrown in? Can't really recall.

Palmer or Paterson though? I know who I would have rather had/retained...the latter although older is more versatile too- yes he has had his critics but Palmer or Paterson, the latter by a good margin. Palmer was not really a great fit tactically among other things...Paterson while far from perfect was better in this regard IMO.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Could it have been the case that in order to get Kalas and DaSilva on the terms we did, Palmer for a couple of million had to be thrown in? Can't really recall.

Palmer or Paterson though? I know who I would have rather had/retained...the latter although older is more versatile too- yes he has had his critics but Palmer or Paterson, the latter by a good margin. Palmer was not really a great fit tactically among other things...Paterson while far from perfect was better in this regard IMO.

 

At the time I think getting Jay for £2m was a great deal….and we paid OTT for Kalas.  I think Chelsea then knew how much we wanted Palmer and paid over the odds…again.  I just think Chelsea played us, not that there was a pre-agreed deal for all 3.

Only my view.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

At the time I think getting Jay for £2m was a great deal….and we paid OTT for Kalas.  I think Chelsea then knew how much we wanted Palmer and paid over the odds…again.  I just think Chelsea played us, not that there was a pre-agreed deal for all 3.

Only my view.

Did we overpay for Kalas though? Context of the time...2 promotions and 2 playoffs in the prior 4 Championship seasons- the excellence of the loan spell and of course a pre Covid market, regular international in a fairly decent side albeit n not the Czechs of say the mid 1990s to late 2000's.

His track record at time at the top end of this division at time of signing permanently was really very good. Was 26 too, in and around peak with perhaps still a little room for growth at CB.

Then again, Jansson £5.5m to Brentford- suppose it could've been argued either way.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Did we overpay for Kalas though? Context of the time...2 promotions and 2 playoffs in the prior 4 Championship seasons- the excellence of the loan spell and of course a pre Covid market, regular international in a fairly decent side albeit n not the Czechs of say the mid 1990s to late 2000's.

His track record at time at the top end of this division at time of signing permanently was really very good. Was 26 too, in and around peak with perhaps still a little room for growth at CB.

Then again, Jansson £5.5m to Brentford- suppose it could've been argued either way.

Only in my opinion….yes we did.  Fulham allegedly baulked at £8-10m the summer before, and they were Prem, which to my mind meant they didn’t think he was worth that even with their money.

Had we paid £5m (for a CB) I’d have said that was about right…Dasilva should probably have been £3m…and Palmer £2m.  Imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

At the time I think getting Jay for £2m was a great deal….and we paid OTT for Kalas.  I think Chelsea then knew how much we wanted Palmer and paid over the odds…again.  I just think Chelsea played us, not that there was a pre-agreed deal for all 3.

Only my view.

Saying we overpaid for Kalas is with hindsight though surely? I don’t recall anyone saying that at the time 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Saying we overpaid for Kalas is with hindsight though surely? I don’t recall anyone saying that at the time 

Nope, no hindsight, I said it at the time.  I’ve always said I thought we paid too much back then, because we got too good a deal on Dasilva…so Chelsea “claimed it back” on Kalas.

Good player, happy he signed….but not at £8m to a club like us.

Snd I think it knocked on to Palmer too, Chelsea knew we would pay more for him too.

  • Hmmm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Only in my opinion….yes we did.  Fulham allegedly baulked at £8-10m the summer before, and they were Prem, which to my mind meant they didn’t think he was worth that even with their money.

Had we paid £5m (for a CB) I’d have said that was about right…Dasilva should probably have been £3m…and Palmer £2m.  Imho.

Think as the pair though not too unhappy with- Palmer was the odd one out.

By that token did Brentford overpay for Jansson- £5.5m v £5m yet he has been competent not only in helping to take them up but in the PL too...yet Leeds turned down a £10m bid from a European club the year before. Hard to pin down player values, all seems quite subjective IMO. Think he was bounced out of there a bit though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Think as the pair though not too unhappy with- Palmer was the odd one out.

By that token did Brentford overpay for Jansson- £5.5m v £5m yet he has been competent not only in helping to take them up but in the PL too...yet Leeds turned down a £10m bid from a European club the year before. Hard to pin down player values, all seems quite subjective IMO. Think he was bounced out of there a bit though.

Totally, it’s all subjective.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Nope, no hindsight, I said it at the time.  I’ve always said I thought we paid too much back then, because we got too good a deal on Dasilva…so Chelsea “claimed it back” on Kalas.

Good player, happy he signed….but not at £8m to a club like us.

Snd I think it knocked on to Palmer too, Chelsea knew we would pay more for him too.

I remember you saying that £7m was good as we would still have value after a few years.  So if £7m is a good signing, is £8m that bad?  Maybe some of the £8m was add-ons anyway.  Nowadays, I don't think we can ever know how a transfer is structured. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

I remember you saying that £7m was good as we would still have value after a few years.  So if £7m is a good signing, is £8m that bad?  Maybe some of the £8m was add-ons anyway.  Nowadays, I don't think we can ever know how a transfer is structured. 

I seem to recall saying that the £7m (as we thought at the time) plus £2m for Dasilva was ok as a total.  Pretty sure Kid was mentioning about Chelsea / agent trying to push Dasilva to £4m, and therefore had we paid that and Kalas £5m (£9m total) I’d have been comfy with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/06/2022 at 13:09, Show Me The Money! said:

It was a weird one as for much of his loan period before we signed him permanently he was on the subs bench, so always makes me wonder what LJ saw in him that suggested we should keep him. Unless we had agreed to sign him as part of that loan deal

 

"you can have Kalas but you've got to take Palmer too" ?

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...