Dan Bentley to Wolves - Confirmed

[weepywall]

Heard a whisper today that Bentley is off in January, not sure if permanent or loan, been a falling out apparently and Sam Bell may be going out on loan to a league 1 side.

[Port Said Red]

12 hours ago, weepywall said:

Heard a whisper today that Bentley is off in January, not sure if permanent or loan, been a falling out apparently and Sam Bell may be going out on loan to a league 1 side.

The first part might be true, but I don't think it's really a falling out, more a recognition that we happy with our cheaper options but he wants to be playing.

If the second part is true then I think we are hoping to bring someone in, because he has been on the bench and a first choice sub since the international break.

[LondonBristolian]

On 02/12/2022 at 06:58, Port Said Red said:

The first part might be true, but I don't think it's really a falling out, more a recognition that we happy with our cheaper options but he wants to be playing.

If the second part is true then I think we are hoping to bring someone in, because he has been on the bench and a first choice sub since the international break.

Maybe getting ahead of myself based on the hype but - if Bell is off on loan (which I've no idea is true or not - could Elijah Morrison be a factor? Bell would be the player most vulnerable to being overtaken by a promising wide forward breaking through from nowhere...

[Port Said Red]

1 hour ago, LondonBristolian said:

Maybe getting ahead of myself based on the hype but - if Bell is off on loan (which I've no idea is true or not - could Elijah Morrison be a factor? Bell would be the player most vulnerable to being overtaken by a promising wide forward breaking through from nowhere...

I know Tinnion said that he think Morrison will end up in that position, but I haven't actually seen him play there. He might have in the games I haven't seen, but he will have a lot to learn in that role.

[tin]

On 01/12/2022 at 18:04, weepywall said:

Heard a whisper today that Bentley is off in January, not sure if permanent or loan, been a falling out apparently and Sam Bell may be going out on loan to a league 1 side.

I’ve heard Bell’s off on loan to Cheltenham. Good move, if true. 

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, tin said:

I’ve heard Bell’s off on loan to Cheltenham. Good move, if true. 

I think Nlundulu’s loan from Saints is only to Jan…so could be legs in it.

[Davefevs]

20 minutes ago, Percy Pig said:

No falling out, 

According to Bents Dad the club have told Dan he can look elsewhere and we will be using the rest of the season to assess whether Max is good enough to be our long term number one.

Perfectly reasonable thing to do, to be honest. We can't afford Bents' £13k pw wages and he is supposedly happy to wait for the summer to boost his chances of a Prem back-up/competition role. 

 

 

That’s exactly the scenario several of us painted too (without any inside info).  I don’t get why there has to be a falling out every time a player is nit in the starting eleven.

[AshtonRobin21]

34 minutes ago, Percy Pig said:

But its the case of Nige putting the long term future of the team ahead of short term needs. Refreshing to have a bigger picture manager rather than the egotistical self preservation we've been accustomed to. 

Exactly this.

In years gone by, we’ve been somewhat of a soft touch in regards to players running down their contracts, and us continue to play them. Almost parading them in the shop window, for no financial gain.

The last time I remember a high-profile player being taken out of the squad/starting 11 for refusing to sign a new contract, was Bradley Orr under GJ. If my memory is correct, eventually Orr caved in and signed a new deal.

Nige is fully focused on who will be here next season, and has presented them with opportunities. Personally, I’m all for it.

Our squad will be very, very different next season, and Nige is giving players under contract the chance to prove themselves.

[headhunter]

1 hour ago, AshtonRobin21 said:

Exactly this.

In years gone by, we’ve been somewhat of a soft touch in regards to players running down their contracts, and us continue to play them. Almost parading them in the shop window, for no financial gain.

The last time I remember a high-profile player being taken out of the squad/starting 11 for refusing to sign a new contract, was Bradley Orr under GJ. If my memory is correct, eventually Orr caved in and signed a new deal.

Nige is fully focused on who will be here next season, and has presented them with opportunities. Personally, I’m all for it.

Our squad will be very, very different next season, and Nige is giving players under contract the chance to prove themselves.

I think similar with Basso IIRC

[italian dave]

1 hour ago, AshtonRobin21 said:

Exactly this.

In years gone by, we’ve been somewhat of a soft touch in regards to players running down their contracts, and us continue to play them. Almost parading them in the shop window, for no financial gain.

The last time I remember a high-profile player being taken out of the squad/starting 11 for refusing to sign a new contract, was Bradley Orr under GJ. If my memory is correct, eventually Orr caved in and signed a new deal.

Nige is fully focused on who will be here next season, and has presented them with opportunities. Personally, I’m all for it.

Our squad will be very, very different next season, and Nige is giving players under contract the chance to prove themselves.

I’m going to be devil’s advocate. I just don’t get it to be honest.

If a club signs a player on a 3 year contract, does that mean they’ll simply write off the final 25% of that contract - simply because a player chooses to honour that contract and no more. 

Why should players be expected to do more than that if they don’t want to? Clubs most certainly don’t reciprocate: they treat players like commodities, trading, loaning out, releasing at the end of every contract whenever it suits. 

It just seems like a ludicrous position to be in, where you’ve got a decent player who’s willing to honour his contract and the club chooses to leave that player out - potentially at the cost of points and success on the field, just because they won’t sign a new contract. It smacks of spite and throwing toys out of the pram to me. 

Just to be clear: I’m not saying this with any specific individuals in mind, I’m not suggesting that players shouldn’t still earn their place, I get the potential issue with players heads being elsewhere, I get all that….but all things being equal why get all huffy and refuse to play a player simply because they’re in the final year of the contract both parties agreed? 

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, italian dave said:

I’m going to be devil’s advocate. I just don’t get it to be honest.

If a club signs a player on a 3 year contract, does that mean they’ll simply write off the final 25% of that contract - simply because a player chooses to honour that contract and no more. 

Why should players be expected to do more than that if they don’t want to? Clubs most certainly don’t reciprocate: they treat players like commodities, trading, loaning out, releasing at the end of every contract whenever it suits. 

It just seems like a ludicrous position to be in, where you’ve got a decent player who’s willing to honour his contract and the club chooses to leave that player out - potentially at the cost of points and success on the field, just because they won’t sign a new contract. It smacks of spite and throwing toys out of the pram to me. 

Just to be clear: I’m not saying this with any specific individuals in mind, I’m not suggesting that players shouldn’t still earn their place, I get the potential issue with players heads being elsewhere, I get all that….but all things being equal why get all huffy and refuse to play a player simply because they’re in the final year of the contract both parties agreed? 

I don’t think anything is wrong with your logic / rationale at all.

I think we are likely to see more players running their contracts to the ends over the next couple of summers, because they will be ending contract signed predominantly pre-covid…and on terms they can no longer achieve.  Players who have a bit about them, will fancy their chances of a decent deal in a free transfer market. Bents falls into that group imho.

In City’s case, we have a no1 who has not been at his best, but still ok.  We know we have a cheap no2, who’s done ok when he’s come in before, but until last season it had always been appearances due to injury.  Last season he played due to a drop in Bents’ form and although it was injury that cost him his place, there’s a good chance Bents would’ve earned it back (Max lost it).  We needed to know whether he can step up and become no1, hence giving him another chance this season.

I don’t think there’s a problem with that.  I think it makes sense.  It’s succession planning in one sense, or at least knowing what we enter the summer needing.

It’s double edged, because we also need to know whether to offer Max a new contract, exercise his option, or let him go too.

All whilst we develop Stefan Bajic.

 

I don’t think we are doing this with all players either, maybe goalkeeping is a specialist position that allows this?  Nor do I think he’s doing it with Bents.  An opportunity arose and Max has been challenged to take it.  Bents still on the bench.

Massengo appears a unique situation.  I’m still expecting us to find out he’s signed a pre-contract on 1st Jan.  That’s speculation from me, but if he’s said he intends to leave next summer, surely he’s touting himself around, he ain’t gonna wait til the end of the season.

[AshtonRobin21]

44 minutes ago, italian dave said:

I’m going to be devil’s advocate. I just don’t get it to be honest.

If a club signs a player on a 3 year contract, does that mean they’ll simply write off the final 25% of that contract - simply because a player chooses to honour that contract and no more. 

Why should players be expected to do more than that if they don’t want to? Clubs most certainly don’t reciprocate: they treat players like commodities, trading, loaning out, releasing at the end of every contract whenever it suits. 

It just seems like a ludicrous position to be in, where you’ve got a decent player who’s willing to honour his contract and the club chooses to leave that player out - potentially at the cost of points and success on the field, just because they won’t sign a new contract. It smacks of spite and throwing toys out of the pram to me. 

Just to be clear: I’m not saying this with any specific individuals in mind, I’m not suggesting that players shouldn’t still earn their place, I get the potential issue with players heads being elsewhere, I get all that….but all things being equal why get all huffy and refuse to play a player simply because they’re in the final year of the contract both parties agreed? 

It’s a very good point, and in previous years I would have been in full agreement. 
 

However, this year just feels much different due to the level of change coming this summer. The focus has to be on the players committed to being here medium/long-term.

We cannot renew contracts on the same terms (wages + clauses). Therefore it’s unlikely we retain all of the players that we hope to.

Nige stated recently that we had offered deals to 7/8 players. I would expect 3/4 to renew, whilst the remaining few mull over offers from other clubs before making a decision. 

Its a difficult position to be in, as we will likely be in the bottom third of the league throughout the remainder of the season, and will need a squad of players committed to avoiding relegation. 
 

FWIW, I believe that Nige will bring a couple back into the squad after January if no move occurs. HNM would be one in that bracket, as the club could likely obtain a fee (not much) in January should he depart. If not, I think he will be back in the squad until the end of the season.

[italian dave]

32 minutes ago, AshtonRobin21 said:

It’s a very good point, and in previous years I would have been in full agreement. 
 

However, this year just feels much different due to the level of change coming this summer. The focus has to be on the players committed to being here medium/long-term.

We cannot renew contracts on the same terms (wages + clauses). Therefore it’s unlikely we retain all of the players that we hope to.

Nige stated recently that we had offered deals to 7/8 players. I would expect 3/4 to renew, whilst the remaining few mull over offers from other clubs before making a decision. 

Its a difficult position to be in, as we will likely be in the bottom third of the league throughout the remainder of the season, and will need a squad of players committed to avoiding relegation. 
 

FWIW, I believe that Nige will bring a couple back into the squad after January if no move occurs. HNM would be one in that bracket, as the club could likely obtain a fee (not much) in January should he depart. If not, I think he will be back in the squad until the end of the season.

As I said, I’ve deliberately tried to avoid making my comments with specific clubs or players in mind, more of a general point about any player near the end of a contract and not wanting to sign another. 

But I’d have thought that applies particularly to a club in the bottom third. You play your best players. Last 2-3 games when you’re safe, yes, play next seasons squad - but not until you’re safe.

I don’t believe that being near the end of a contract necessarily equates to a lack of commitment. (And by the same token I can think of players who’ve shown precious little commitment 6 months into a new contract!).

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, italian dave said:

As I said, I’ve deliberately tried to avoid making my comments with specific clubs or players in mind, more of a general point about any player near the end of a contract and not wanting to sign another. 

But I’d have thought that applies particularly to a club in the bottom third. You play your best players. Last 2-3 games when you’re safe, yes, play next seasons squad - but not until you’re safe.

I don’t believe that being near the end of a contract necessarily equates to a lack of commitment. (And by the same token I can think of players who’ve shown precious little commitment 6 months into a new contract!).

Yeah, definitely those players who play for a contract and then once signed don’t seem to put it in.

I think we need to wait and see who the 7 are and who the 3 are but if Bents is 1 of the 3 I can imagine Klose and Martin are the other two.

Not all 7 will re-sign, I imagine Han is one where we’ve offered him a contract purely for compo reasons.

Think it will be interesting to see how other clubs cope with their players in the same situation. Generally i haven’t heard many players extending contracts other than young players, but that might change. 

[spudski]

2 hours ago, italian dave said:

I’m going to be devil’s advocate. I just don’t get it to be honest.

If a club signs a player on a 3 year contract, does that mean they’ll simply write off the final 25% of that contract - simply because a player chooses to honour that contract and no more. 

Why should players be expected to do more than that if they don’t want to? Clubs most certainly don’t reciprocate: they treat players like commodities, trading, loaning out, releasing at the end of every contract whenever it suits. 

It just seems like a ludicrous position to be in, where you’ve got a decent player who’s willing to honour his contract and the club chooses to leave that player out - potentially at the cost of points and success on the field, just because they won’t sign a new contract. It smacks of spite and throwing toys out of the pram to me. 

Just to be clear: I’m not saying this with any specific individuals in mind, I’m not suggesting that players shouldn’t still earn their place, I get the potential issue with players heads being elsewhere, I get all that….but all things being equal why get all huffy and refuse to play a player simply because they’re in the final year of the contract both parties agreed? 

This is a really good point...and probably lost on this part of the forum.

Contract work is so different to being just ' employed'. Especially when the career is short compared to normal employment.

Players are in a career. Wanting to do the best for them and their families...just like us.

They have no allegiance to a club...it's just a job, career.

The attitude of fans and in many ways clubs, needs to change when it comes to players, contracts etc.

They agree and sign a contract. However many years.

Like all of us...family life, desire, situation, changes. 

We all change jobs when we need or want to. For the situation we are in at the time.

Clubs and fans judge players and treat them so abnormally when they decide to ' run down a contract'. 

There is an element of head hunting involved...but that's the best position to be in as an individual.

Imo...fans shouldn't get so up tight about players running down a contract.

And Clubs should act accordingly.

[AshtonRobin21]

40 minutes ago, spudski said:

This is a really good point...and probably lost on this part of the forum.

Contract work is so different to being just ' employed'. Especially when the career is short compared to normal employment.

Players are in a career. Wanting to do the best for them and their families...just like us.

They have no allegiance to a club...it's just a job, career.

The attitude of fans and in many ways clubs, needs to change when it comes to players, contracts etc.

They agree and sign a contract. However many years.

Like all of us...family life, desire, situation, changes. 

We all change jobs when we need or want to. For the situation we are in at the time.

Clubs and fans judge players and treat them so abnormally when they decide to ' run down a contract'. 

There is an element of head hunting involved...but that's the best position to be in as an individual.

Imo...fans shouldn't get so up tight about players running down a contract.

And Clubs should act accordingly.

Very good points.

Also worth noting as well that the one main method of being able to escape a contract early (buying club paying a fee), has (almost) completely come to a standstill. This is due to the market being hit hard by covid. Reduction of income etc.

This means that players have actually been stuck/forced to see out contracts. If no bid is forthcoming (Massengo?), then a player has no option but to honour their contract until end. Previously, the length of a contract has been more in the interest  of the club and protecting the value of a player should other teams become interested.

So what we are experiencing throughout the division, and also the rest of the EFL is a significantly larger amount of players seemingly ‘running down’ their contracts. 

The truth of course, is that the finances aren’t there to renew on similar terms. Therefore a huge amount of players will be looking elsewhere to see if any clubs can/are stupid enough to pay close to pre-COVID wages. 

We find ourselves in a situation where a large number of first team regulars are set to be out of contract at the end of the season. And as you rightly state, personal circumstances may have changed since they signed their original deals, this may lead to the first bit of genuine interest they have received from other clubs since COVID began. We may lose a few players purely down to circumstances such as location. 

An example of this would be Charlie Austin recently ripping up his contract in Australia, due to family circumstances. Apparently he was desperate for a move to a club down south. He trained with The blue few (R*vers), and today signed with Swindon.

So not all deals conducted this January and throughout the summer may be directed by money. However not all football fans will see it this way.

[spudski]

5 minutes ago, AshtonRobin21 said:

Very good points.

Also worth noting as well that the one main method of being able to escape a contract early (buying club paying a fee), has (almost) completely come to a standstill. This is due to the market being hit hard by covid. Reduction of income etc.

This means that players have actually been stuck/forced to see out contracts. If no bid is forthcoming (Massengo?), then a player has no option but to honour their contract until end. Previously, the length of a contract has been more in the interest  of the club and protecting the value of a player should other teams become interested.

So what we are experiencing throughout the division, and also the rest of the EFL is a significantly larger amount of players seemingly ‘running down’ their contracts. 

The truth of course, is that the finances aren’t there to renew on similar terms. Therefore a huge amount of players will be looking elsewhere to see if any clubs can/are stupid enough to pay close to pre-COVID wages. 

We find ourselves in a situation where a large number of first team regulars are set to be out of contract at the end of the season. And as you rightly state, personal circumstances may have changed since they signed their original deals, this may lead to the first bit of genuine interest they have received from other clubs since COVID began. We may lose a few players purely down to circumstances such as location. 

An example of this would be Charlie Austin recently ripping up his contract in Australia, due to family circumstances. Apparently he was desperate for a move to a club down south. He trained with The blue few (R*vers), and today signed with Swindon.

So not all deals conducted this January and throughout the summer may be directed by money. However not all football fans will see it this way.

Thank for the thought out response. Appreciated.

Like you say, things have changed...in a short time.

We are in a transition period where Clubs, players, agents are getting their head around it.

Anything could happen right now. It's so volitile.

[Davefevs]

Yep, it’s different out there.  I mentioned in another thread a while back that signing-on fees not likely to be as generous as previously, if at all.

Here’s a list of those OOC this summer.

If we think the three that haven’t been offered new deals are Bents, Klose and Martin, that leaves:

• O’Leary - we could just exercise his option, but wouldn’t surprise me if he’s due a new deal (assuming he’s seen as our no1 going forward).
• Dasilva - seems Nige likes his attitude last season, but likewise Pring’s re-emergence might’ve put a bit of doubt in his mind about whether to accept.
• Kalas - sounds like his future will be decided once he’s fit.
• Vyner - same as Max.
• Taylor - no idea, his loan to Cheltenham appears to have been one to get him used to being around a first team.  Not sure if that has been a success or not?
• Moore - assume he will be let go, but as he’s at Shrewsbury I’m guessing Nige sees him as gone already.
• King - assume he will get another player-coach contract, but really no rush on this.  His availability has been much better than last season.
• Kadji - assume if he is OOC he will get a new deal.  There was no term given by club at his last contract signing, but then 2 yrs was mentioned.
• Owers - no idea.
• Massengo - will be offered a deal, due to getting compo, but he will leave.
• Morton - currently on loan at Bath.  At 23, he’ll be let go.
• Edwards - exercise his option as a minimum, but he’s out on loan, so not sure if he was in the ones Nige felt part of his 7.

The 6 in bold are part of the 7 I reckon, Kalas will make up the 7 if he can prove his fitness.  Who signs or not, who knows.

[Port Said Red]

For the sake of brevity I won't quote any of you above, but I think you are all right in many cases. It's a change of mindset that's required, not just here but at all clubs. 

I don't think we have the right balance yet, but there are definitely signs it's improving, because I can see the club are applying it on a case by case basis.

Nakhi Wells is a good example, I think the club had taken the view that contract or no contract, he was bringing something we didn't have anywhere else in the squad in his position. So he continued to play.

Bentley on the other hand, whilst a good goalkeeper, to me doesn't stand out as being £5000pw (total guess) better than O'Leary now, and the club will feel that an O'Leary with a season under his belt will be better again. Bajic is a bit of a mystery to us, but the coaching staff will know his capabilities, then we have Buse, Casa-Grande etc all looking to move up. 

Similar logic could be applied to Klose.

The only one that disappoints me personally is Massengo, I know he hasn't shown much on the few occasions he has featured, but what came first, "the chicken or the egg?" Are his performances down because he is disappointed with the way the club have treated him, or are the club not using him because of his form? 

Those situations are where the club, in my opinion, need to look at how they operate. An in form Massengo, playing to catch the eye of suitors, could be a real asset for us and bring an energy we lack at times.

[TDarwall]

Unless we have a deal lined up for HNM & don't want to risk him getting crocked, then I'd have him in the squad every week & often in the starting 11. He not perfect but gives everything & has more of an engine than either James or Williams.  Whilst relegation is a possibility, I'd play the best team each week regardless of contract negotiations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Bard]

13 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I don’t think anything is wrong with your logic / rationale at all.

I think we are likely to see more players running their contracts to the ends over the next couple of summers, because they will be ending contract signed predominantly pre-covid…and on terms they can no longer achieve.  Players who have a bit about them, will fancy their chances of a decent deal in a free transfer market. Bents falls into that group imho.

In City’s case, we have a no1 who has not been at his best, but still ok.  We know we have a cheap no2, who’s done ok when he’s come in before, but until last season it had always been appearances due to injury.  Last season he played due to a drop in Bents’ form and although it was injury that cost him his place, there’s a good chance Bents would’ve earned it back (Max lost it).  We needed to know whether he can step up and become no1, hence giving him another chance this season.

I don’t think there’s a problem with that.  I think it makes sense.  It’s succession planning in one sense, or at least knowing what we enter the summer needing.

It’s double edged, because we also need to know whether to offer Max a new contract, exercise his option, or let him go too.

All whilst we develop Stefan Bajic.

 

I don’t think we are doing this with all players either, maybe goalkeeping is a specialist position that allows this?  Nor do I think he’s doing it with Bents.  An opportunity arose and Max has been challenged to take it.  Bents still on the bench.

Massengo appears a unique situation.  I’m still expecting us to find out he’s signed a pre-contract on 1st Jan.  That’s speculation from me, but if he’s said he intends to leave next summer, surely he’s touting himself around, he ain’t gonna wait til the end of the season.

This is a weird one.  If it is announced HNM has signed a contract elsewhere then in a way it resolves the situation.  No more doubt or insecurity.  If we need him why not play him?  However, I agree that if we are sat in mid table mediocrity we'd be better served playing Khadji or another up and coming midfielder.

 

Surely with Max we exercise his option?  He's got a transfer value and I believe not on a particularly high wage. I imagine a number of League 1 sides would be interested in him.  A smallish fee plus a nice sell on clause.  We did something similar with Bakinson.

[Vidal]

Seems to be the case that his BCFC career is ending in a similar vain to his time at Brentford. Signed by them from Southend as their number 1 before losing his place before a sideways/backwards move. He could move upwards to the prem but certainly wouldn’t be number 1, too many flaws in his game. 

Weak in the air, poor with the ball at his feet, has been known to have some absolute howlers. An outstanding shot stopper but we know there is so much more to goalkeeping than that.

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, TDarwall said:

Unless we have a deal lined up for HNM & don't want to risk him getting crocked, then I'd have him in the squad every week & often in the starting 11. He not perfect but gives everything & has more of an engine than either James or Williams.  Whilst relegation is a possibility, I'd play the best team each week regardless of contract negotiations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5, Massengo was at a local charity yesterday giving lots of clothes away.  Clearing stuff out before moving?  Likely he’s just doing a decent thing.  But saw someone post up a pic.

[The Bard]

12 hours ago, spudski said:

This is a really good point...and probably lost on this part of the forum.

Contract work is so different to being just ' employed'. Especially when the career is short compared to normal employment.

Players are in a career. Wanting to do the best for them and their families...just like us.

They have no allegiance to a club...it's just a job, career.

The attitude of fans and in many ways clubs, needs to change when it comes to players, contracts etc.

They agree and sign a contract. However many years.

Like all of us...family life, desire, situation, changes. 

We all change jobs when we need or want to. For the situation we are in at the time.

Clubs and fans judge players and treat them so abnormally when they decide to ' run down a contract'. 

There is an element of head hunting involved...but that's the best position to be in as an individual.

Imo...fans shouldn't get so up tight about players running down a contract.

And Clubs should act accordingly.

Part of the attitude surely is to do with the fact that players are seen as investments rather than people. It's remarkable that the fee system has kept going for so long after Bosman when you think about it.  The financial implosion during covid has been the catalyst to make it more sane.

You'll still see fees for the likes of Alex Scott or Tommy Conway due to their potential. We paid a fee for a promising young defender, but experienced pros will wait till being OOC and then move.  James, Naismith good examples.  At the moment Tomas Kalas is costing us £3 million per year, £2 million of which went straight to Chelsea - absolute insanity. 

It's normal in Rugby with only very occasionally a fee being paid to a club to buy out a contract (The last I can remember was Leicester buying George Ford from Bath which was years ago).  There is a different attitude amongst Rugby fans which is a reflection of this. Players have more professional pride frankly.   Can think of a number of players who have been leaving Bristol who put everything into their last games. Compare that to Paterson and Famara's 'commitment' towards the end of that season.  

No Bears fans doubt Joe Joyce's commitment despite knowing he is leaving at the end of this season.  He announced he was leaving a year in advance. 

 

 

[brad blit]

2 hours ago, TDarwall said:

Unless we have a deal lined up for HNM & don't want to risk him getting crocked, then I'd have him in the squad every week & often in the starting 11. He not perfect but gives everything & has more of an engine than either James or Williams.  Whilst relegation is a possibility, I'd play the best team each week regardless of contract negotiations

 

Having “an engine” in centre midfield is very outdated, you need to have players with good positional sense and the ability to ‘run’ games - HNM may have been a good technical player but he had neither of the above, and that’s why players like James and Williams play more 

In terms of Bents he’s been a very good GK for us and I wish him all the best, but a combination of City wanting a cheaper/younger no1 for the future, and Bents probably wanting to see if he could get a shot at higher level (maybe a sub at lower level prem club) 

Edited December 31, 2022 by brad blit

[TDarwall]

Do you honestly think that if it wasn't for the contract situation, HNM wouldn't have got more minutes on the pitch?

 

 

[The Bard]

18 minutes ago, brad blit said:

Having “an engine” in centre midfield is very outdated, you need to have players with good positional sense and the ability to ‘run’ games - HNM may have been a good technical player but he had neither of the above, and that’s why players like James and Williams play more 

In terms of Bents he’s been a very good GK for us and I wish him all the best, but a combination of City wanting a cheaper/younger no1 for the future, and Bents probably wanting to see if he could get a shot at higher level (maybe a sub at lower level prem club) 

100% HNM's weakness is his frankly poor game awareness.  A lot of the time he is running around because he wasn't in the right place initially.  Scott on the other hand plays with way more control and awareness.  He can play multiple positions whereas I still don't really know what HNM's position exactly is.  I could see him moved to RB in a 4 at some point as he might benefit from having a more clearly defined role. I wouldn't necessarily say Williams has it either.  He seems to end up diving into challenges.  James and Scott together both playing well is a very good midfield for this level.

[BigTone]

2 minutes ago, TDarwall said:

Do you honestly think that if it wasn't for the contract situation, HNM wouldn't have got more minutes on the pitch?

 

 

Conversely, if HNM had achieved more minutes on the pitch then we may not have a contract situation.  Really don't know TBH.

[ZiderMeUp]

14 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Yeah, definitely those players who play for a contract and then once signed don’t seem to put it in.

I think we need to wait and see who the 7 are and who the 3 are but if Bents is 1 of the 3 I can imagine Klose and Martin are the other two.

Not all 7 will re-sign, I imagine Han is one where we’ve offered him a contract purely for compo reasons.

Think it will be interesting to see how other clubs cope with their players in the same situation. Generally i haven’t heard many players extending contracts other than young players, but that might change. 

Taylor-moore got to be one of the three?  Unless Pearson is counting him as already gone

[Davefevs]

11 minutes ago, ZiderMeUp said:

Taylor-moore got to be one of the three?  Unless Pearson is counting him as already gone

I think he is…hence Bentley, Klose and Martin are “my three”.