Dan Bentley to Wolves - Confirmed

[Loosey Boy]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

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

I was thinking the same - I expect Klose to leave (& return home) in January and think there’s a good chance that Martin may well go in Jan too (given his age, he won’t want to be sitting around, not playing for the next five months)

 

Edited December 31, 2022 by Loosey Boy

[Charlie BCFC]

2 hours ago, ZiderMeUp said:

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

Possible that Moore hasn’t been talked to due to being out on loan? Highly doubt we’ll see him next season but there are a number of players who haven’t been offered a contract/told they can leave

[Henry]

9 hours ago, Davefevs said:

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.

That was my first thought.

Either way, good on him. I’d imagine it’s not cheaper gear, he could have just lobbed it in the river.

[Davefevs]

15 minutes ago, Henry said:

That was my first thought.

Either way, good on him. I’d imagine it’s not cheaper gear, he could have just lobbed it in the river.

Anyone zoom in to see if the red / black had signs of being training kit….just me?

[Loosey Boy]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Anyone zoom in to see if the red / black had signs of being training kit….just me?

You’re correct @Davefevs - training kit right there

[Numero Uno]

On 30/12/2022 at 20:17, 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? 

Your general point is sound, however, in the individual case of Bentley the facts strongly suggest that the right decision is being made. I would have dropped Max after the Stoke and West Brom games where his indecisiveness and communication cost us BUT he's shown plenty of bollocks and followed two mediocre games with two good ones, that's all you can ask. You can see why the club want to give him another half a season to prove he's got what it takes to be a Championship Starter. What we now need to see is a reduction in the mediocre and the higher consistency levels that you expect from a Champ Number 1. The goals conceded stats back it up even more.

[Numero Uno]

On 30/12/2022 at 17:37, Percy Pig said:

I don't think Dan is happy about the situation and would obviously rather be playing, his old man even more obviously a bit more robust in his thoughts on things...

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. 

His old man can be as robust as he likes but no Goalkeeper can be letting nigh on two goals per game go past him (unless playing for a bottom of the league side who he is personally saving from getting absolutely battered every week) and EXPECT a starting spot, particularly when the other guy steps up and is conceding one per game in a team with exactly the same defensive frailties. It's not like we have signed a dominant centre half and are comparing apples with pears. O'Leary has to put up with the same shite that Bentley had to earlier in the season and, to date, is showing up better.

That's how it is as a Goalkeeper, one spot only and the best performer gets the shirt. As well as the bigger picture which benefits the club O'Leary is in the side on merit to be fair.

[Davefevs]

FWIW, here’s Bents v O’Leary from a “stats” view.  Keeper stats are a bit unreliable, but thought I’d share.

Top Left: reverse scale on both axis.  Max conceding just over 1 goal p90 and also conceding less than his XG (conceded).  Much better to Bents.

Top Right: Max less shots faced p90 and saving more.

Bottom Left: Max making more longer passes p90, but slightly less accurate than Bents

Bottom Centre: Max making more short / medium passes p90, but slightly less accurate than Bents

Bottom Right:  Max making twice as many Aerial Duels* p90 and getting on for twice as many Exits** p90 too.

 

* coming for a cross / aerial ball into the box where directly challenged

** coming for a cross / aerial ball into the box and claiming / punching where not directly challenged

Edited January 3, 2023 by Davefevs

[italian dave]

56 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

Your general point is sound, however, in the individual case of Bentley the facts strongly suggest that the right decision is being made. I would have dropped Max after the Stoke and West Brom games where his indecisiveness and communication cost us BUT he's shown plenty of bollocks and followed two mediocre games with two good ones, that's all you can ask. You can see why the club want to give him another half a season to prove he's got what it takes to be a Championship Starter. What we now need to see is a reduction in the mediocre and the higher consistency levels that you expect from a Champ Number 1. The goals conceded stats back it up even more.

Sure, and the point I was making included the proviso that players still have to earn their place. And for me, like you, Bentley would be a prime example of someone who hasn’t done that. Max is holding down his place because he deserves to, and Bents is on the bench because he’s second best, not because he won’t sign a contract. 

The only thing I don’t get is the proposition that players get sidelined or excluded simply and purely because the club wants them to sign a new contract and they haven’t. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

FWIW, here’s Bents v O’Leary from a “stats” view.  Keeper stats are a bit unreliable, but thought I’d share.

Top Left: reverse scale on both axis.  Max conceding just over 1 goal p90 and also conceding less than his XG (conceded).  Much better to Bents.

Top Right: Max less shots faced p90 and saving more.

Bottom Left: Max making more longer passes p90, but slightly less accurate than Bents

Bottom Centre: Max making more short / medium passes p90, but slightly less accurate than Bents

Bottom Right:  Max making twice as many Aerial Duels* p90 and getting on for twice as many Exits** p90 too.

 

* coming for a cross / aerial ball into the box where directly challenged

** coming for a cross / aerial ball into the box and claiming / punching where not directly challenged

And when you consider that Bentley comes at a considerable cost more than Max does then I think its best for us to let Bentley leave and free up the cash. 

[SecretSam]

How much would the financial position improve from the likes of Martin, Bents et al leaving at the end of their contracts?

Edited January 4, 2023 by SecretSam
Changed emphasis to "OOC"

[Port Said Red]

Just now, SecretSam said:

How much would the financial position improve from releasing the likes of Martin, Bents et al?

Not at all, you can't just release them for free.

[SecretSam]

4 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

Not at all, you can't just release them for free.

Sorry, I meant in the summer, when they are OOC

[Fpcity]

13 hours ago, Numero Uno said:

His old man can be as robust as he likes but no Goalkeeper can be letting nigh on two goals per game go past him (unless playing for a bottom of the league side who he is personally saving from getting absolutely battered every week) and EXPECT a starting spot, particularly when the other guy steps up and is conceding one per game in a team with exactly the same defensive frailties. It's not like we have signed a dominant centre half and are comparing apples with pears. O'Leary has to put up with the same shite that Bentley had to earlier in the season and, to date, is showing up better.

That's how it is as a Goalkeeper, one spot only and the best performer gets the shirt. As well as the bigger picture which benefits the club O'Leary is in the side on merit to be fair.

He's been a liabity for us for a while and has dropped some major clangers. People like him as he'll make a good camera save during the game. True he'll have a game where he might save everything but 99% of keepers will have a blinder of a game once in a while. I'm not 100% sold on Max in goal but the stats don't lie and much rather him in goal. 

[Davefevs]

15 minutes ago, SecretSam said:

How much would the financial position improve from the likes of Martin, Bents et al leaving at the end of their contracts?

You’d think it’s probably something like £25k p.w (£1.25m) off of the wage costs.

[James54De]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

You’d think it’s probably something like £25k p.w (£1.25m) off of the wage costs.

You think Martin, Bentley, Kalas, Dasilva and Massengo only contribute 25k p.w? 

[brad blit]

18 minutes ago, James54De said:

You think Martin, Bentley, Kalas, Dasilva and Massengo only contribute 25k p.w? 

I think @Davefevs is prob referring to just Martin and Bents when he mentions 25k p/w

 

[James54De]

38 minutes ago, brad blit said:

I think @Davefevs is prob referring to just Martin and Bents when he mentions 25k p/w

 

Se highlighted below.

3 hours ago, SecretSam said:

How much would the financial position improve from the likes of Martin, Bents et al leaving at the end of their contracts?

 

[Supersonic Robin]

On 30/12/2022 at 20:17, 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? 

Very well put (as are many of the responses to this).

IMO the key factor in allowing us to operate this way has been our relatively safe Championship status. Last season we were safe all season. This season we've looked fairly safe (admittedly, we're now getting closer than I'd like). For the most part, the "points and success on the field" you reference would simply be the difference between finishing 17th and 14th. If we were closer to the top 6/bottom 3, then these extra points would mean a lot more (again, I admit things are looking a bit more precarious right now).

With that being the case, it makes some sense to bench/drop players who will be leaving at the end of the season. Not out of spite, but simply because their form, understanding, and development no longer serves a purpose to us.

• Why investment minutes in developing Massengo if we won't be the club to benefit from it? Why not invest those minutes in a player who will be here next season?
• Why ensure Bentley remains in good form, instead of use the opportunity to see if O'Leary is up to Championship standard?
• Why help Kalas build an understanding with the players around him in our defence when he'll be leaving at the end of the season anyway? Why not allow Vyner the chance to build that understanding instead? (Kalas not playing is more of an injury thing than a contract thing, but you get the point)

It's not a case of leaving these players out to 'get back at them', it's a case of leaving them out because it's in the mid-long term interest of the club to do so.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, James54De said:

You think Martin, Bentley, Kalas, Dasilva and Massengo only contribute 25k p.w? 

14 minutes ago, James54De said:

Se highlighted below.

 

I missed the “et al” bit….although I could cover myself and say I read it as El-Abd!!!

In terms of:

• Martin
• Massengo
• Bentley
• Dasilva
• Moore
• Kalas
• Klose

Who are the ones that might not be here next season, I reckon you’re talking in the region of £4-5m off the wage bill.  All their amortisation will be gone too, leaving us with circa £5m less in costs next season too.

So letting them all go reduces our 22/23 costs by £9-10m in 23/24…as a starting point!

[Kid in the Riot]

Have a feeling Martin has been offered a contract on a player/coach kinda wage i.e. very low.

[Henry]

Just now, Kid in the Riot said:

Have a feeling Martin has been offered a contract on a player/coach kinda wage i.e. very low.

Here or elsewhere?

[Kid in the Riot]

Just now, Henry said:

Here or elsewhere?

Here.

[Davefevs]

40 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Have a feeling Martin has been offered a contract on a player/coach kinda wage i.e. very low.

Definitely “future manager type” for sure ().

I can see some logic to this, but am also surprised, as I thought he’d want to carry on playing, even down the levels.

[Harry]

5 hours ago, Supersonic Robin said:

Very well put (as are many of the responses to this).

IMO the key factor in allowing us to operate this way has been our relatively safe Championship status. Last season we were safe all season. This season we've looked fairly safe (admittedly, we're now getting closer than I'd like). For the most part, the "points and success on the field" you reference would simply be the difference between finishing 17th and 14th. If we were closer to the top 6/bottom 3, then these extra points would mean a lot more (again, I admit things are looking a bit more precarious right now).

With that being the case, it makes some sense to bench/drop players who will be leaving at the end of the season. Not out of spite, but simply because their form, understanding, and development no longer serves a purpose to us.

• Why investment minutes in developing Massengo if we won't be the club to benefit from it? Why not invest those minutes in a player who will be here next season?
• Why ensure Bentley remains in good form, instead of use the opportunity to see if O'Leary is up to Championship standard?
• Why help Kalas build an understanding with the players around him in our defence when he'll be leaving at the end of the season anyway? Why not allow Vyner the chance to build that understanding instead? (Kalas not playing is more of an injury thing than a contract thing, but you get the point)

It's not a case of leaving these players out to 'get back at them', it's a case of leaving them out because it's in the mid-long term interest of the club to do so.

I guess the counter argument is the value for money. 
If these players are under contract then we are paying them. Often a bloody good wage too! 
By not playing them, we are not getting any value out of them. Bentley has spent the last 3 months sat on his arse and taking possibly something like £15k per week from the club. If he spends the rest of the season on the bench then we’ve basically thrown away something like £350k. 
Add Martin, Massengo, Klose and Dasilva to that and we could easily have pissed away nearly £1m on wages for players who haven’t contributed eff all in 6 months. 
 

One of the most interesting things that Gould said early in his tenure was that we “have to get value for money on the pitch”. 
By not playing the highest earners at the club, we are clearly not getting value for money out of them - not even VFM; we’re getting no value at all!! 
 

So yes, whilst I understand and to a degree agree with the points you’ve made, we are a club in a severe financial situation which is purposely not maximising the value of its assets. That seems odd to me, and is certainly at odds with what the CEO stated he wanted to achieve. 

4 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Have a feeling Martin has been offered a contract on a player/coach kinda wage i.e. very low.

FFS - really!! 

[Lew-T]

5 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Have a feeling Martin has been offered a contract on a player/coach kinda wage i.e. very low.

I hope not.

But can imagine SL would love it…

 

[Lew-T]

On topic though, would Palace be interested in taking Bentley?

Now that Butland is off to United.

[chinapig]

39 minutes ago, Harry said:

I guess the counter argument is the value for money. 
If these players are under contract then we are paying them. Often a bloody good wage too! 
By not playing them, we are not getting any value out of them. Bentley has spent the last 3 months sat on his arse and taking possibly something like £15k per week from the club. If he spends the rest of the season on the bench then we’ve basically thrown away something like £350k. 
Add Martin, Massengo, Klose and Dasilva to that and we could easily have pissed away nearly £1m on wages for players who haven’t contributed eff all in 6 months. 
 

One of the most interesting things that Gould said early in his tenure was that we “have to get value for money on the pitch”. 
By not playing the highest earners at the club, we are clearly not getting value for money out of them - not even VFM; we’re getting no value at all!! 
 

So yes, whilst I understand and to a degree agree with the points you’ve made, we are a club in a severe financial situation which is purposely not maximising the value of its assets. That seems odd to me, and is certainly at odds with what the CEO stated he wanted to achieve. 

FFS - really!! 

Surely following your logic we should pick the 11 highest earners regardless of form and whether they are likely to be here next season?

It would in fact have been an argument for playing Palmer because he was on a big wage. We were also supposed to get value on the pitch from Fammy of course.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Harry said:

I guess the counter argument is the value for money. 
If these players are under contract then we are paying them. Often a bloody good wage too! 
By not playing them, we are not getting any value out of them. Bentley has spent the last 3 months sat on his arse and taking possibly something like £15k per week from the club. If he spends the rest of the season on the bench then we’ve basically thrown away something like £350k. 
Add Martin, Massengo, Klose and Dasilva to that and we could easily have pissed away nearly £1m on wages for players who haven’t contributed eff all in 6 months. 
 

One of the most interesting things that Gould said early in his tenure was that we “have to get value for money on the pitch”. 
By not playing the highest earners at the club, we are clearly not getting value for money out of them - not even VFM; we’re getting no value at all!! 
 

So yes, whilst I understand and to a degree agree with the points you’ve made, we are a club in a severe financial situation which is purposely not maximising the value of its assets. That seems odd to me, and is certainly at odds with what the CEO stated he wanted to achieve. 

FFS - really!! 

Big difference in getting the value for money on the pitch for players you’ve signed yourself or re-contracted yourself, than ones you’ve inherited!

Hence why we’ve got rid of Palmer etc to save costs.  Some players we are only now in a position where we e either a) change our opinion of their ability and / or b) got other players ready to take their place.

If Nige is still picking Max over Bents after 13 games, it’s probably (debate, discuss) because he thinks it’s best for the team, and clears his thinking re next season.  Don’t forget he needed to make a decision on both keepers, it’s not just Bents OOC.   Bentley’s wage was inherited, there’s not a lot he can do about that is there?  Humour me for the mo’ with a hypothetical question - Do you play the better keeper on £4k p.w or the lesser keeper of £15k p.w?  Had Nige signed Bents for £15k p.w and not played him, that’s a completely different kettle of fish, and a more realistic take on what RG said.

You’ve probably got a similar scenario with Pring and Dasilva - a relatively high wage inherited.

Massengo, I’d be including him, but as you know a few rumours around that he’s moving on this window.  Bentley might be too.

Klose, I’ve no idea of his wage, normally I reckon I can come up with a ball-park, but he’s a tough one.  Even so, he’s a compromise signing anyway.

So, in summary, I don’t really think the same way about it as you, and we shouldn’t be picking players because of their wages either! edit:@chinapigtypes quicker than me!

I see it as we’ve got better player in some positions who are cheaper.  I see that positively on 4th Jan.  We really need to wait and see where we are on 1st Feb, after the window shuts, then we will know what we have, and what wages we are left doing nothing.  But I’d be giving Nige credit for lowering the wage bill as much as he has so far.

Edited January 4, 2023 by Davefevs

[chinapig]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Big difference in getting the value for money on the pitch for players you’ve signed yourself or re-contracted yourself, than ones you’ve inherited!

Hence why we’ve got rid of Palmer etc to save costs.  Some players we are only now in a position where we e either a) change our opinion of their ability and / or b) got other players ready to take their place.

If Nige is still picking Max over Bents after 13 games, it’s probably (debate, discuss) because he thinks it’s best for the team, and clears his thinking re next season.  Don’t forget he needed to make a decision on both keepers, it’s not just Bents OOC.   Bentley’s wage was inherited, there’s not a lot he can do about that is there?  Humour me for the mo’ with a hypothetical question - Do you play the better keeper on £4k p.w or the lesser keeper of £15k p.w?  Had Nige signed Bents for £15k p.w and not played him, that’s a completely different kettle of fish, and a more realistic take on what RG said.

You’ve probably got a similar scenario with Pring and Dasilva - a relatively high wage inherited.

Massengo, I’d be including him, but as you know a few rumours around that he’s moving on this window.  Bentley might be too.

Klose, I’ve no idea of his wage, normally I reckon I can come up with a ball-park, but he’s a tough one.  Even so, he’s a compromise signing anyway.

So, in summary, I don’t really think the same way about it as you, and we shouldn’t be picking players because of their wages either! edit:@chinapigtypes quicker than me!

I see it as we’ve got better player in some positions who are cheaper.  I see that positively on 4th Jan.  We really need to wait and see where we are on 1st Feb, after the window shuts, then we will know what we have, and what wages we are left doing nothing.  But I’d be giving Nige credit for lowering the wage bill as much as he has so far.

I may type quicker but you make the point better. A 1-1 draw then.