Dan Bentley to Wolves - Confirmed

[Davefevs]

23 minutes ago, chinapig said:

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

Away goals rule?

[Harry]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

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.

I guess I’m just playing devils advocate a little. I agree, you don’t play players just because of their wage. But what we have here is a situation where we are not playing a significant proportion of the highest earners, and when that is assessed against value for money, it’s quite something!! It’s a lot of money that we are pissing away by choosing to bench (or not even matchday squad) these players. 
I suppose I’m just equating it to what Gould was quite categorical on - “we must see the value on the pitch”. 
Conclusion being that we are definitely not achieving that. 

[redsquirrel]

if a players off and not giving 100%, you certainly wouldnt give appearance bonus aswell, well,i wouldnt anyway

[Merrick's Marvels]

17 minutes ago, Harry said:

I guess I’m just playing devils advocate a little. I agree, you don’t play players just because of their wage. But what we have here is a situation where we are not playing a significant proportion of the highest earners, and when that is assessed against value for money, it’s quite something!! 

I suppose I’m just equating it to what Gould was quite categorical on - “we must see the value on the pitch”. 

Indeed, it is quite something - and illustrates just how piss poorly we were run in the last few years by Ashton.

As you also point out, Gould has said we must see the value on the pitch - Pearson is seeing to that, will make sure of that - given the time to clear up Ashton's piss poor mess. 

Edited January 4, 2023 by Merrick's Marvels

[chinapig]

13 minutes ago, Harry said:

I guess I’m just playing devils advocate a little. I agree, you don’t play players just because of their wage. But what we have here is a situation where we are not playing a significant proportion of the highest earners, and when that is assessed against value for money, it’s quite something!! It’s a lot of money that we are pissing away by choosing to bench (or not even matchday squad) these players. 
I suppose I’m just equating it to what Gould was quite categorical on - “we must see the value on the pitch”. 
Conclusion being that we are definitely not achieving that. 

@Davefevshas covered the inherited wages point.

I get your argument but I think it depends on what Gould meant. My reading is that we need players to deliver performances that justify the wage we pay them, which is a little different from your reading.

It certainly means reducing the wage bill and recruiting better either way.

[Harry]

9 minutes ago, chinapig said:

@Davefevs

It certainly means reducing the wage bill and recruiting better either way.

100% 

[W-S-M Seagull]

7 hours ago, Harry said:

I guess I’m just playing devils advocate a little. I agree, you don’t play players just because of their wage. But what we have here is a situation where we are not playing a significant proportion of the highest earners, and when that is assessed against value for money, it’s quite something!! It’s a lot of money that we are pissing away by choosing to bench (or not even matchday squad) these players. 
I suppose I’m just equating it to what Gould was quite categorical on - “we must see the value on the pitch”. 
Conclusion being that we are definitely not achieving that. 

Without a doubt players like Bentley will also have appearance fee bonuses etc in their contract. So playing them would actually cost us even more money.

[RedM]

11 hours ago, Lew-T said:

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

Now that Butland is off to United.

He's played for a London club before so could be something in this.

[Davefevs]

6 hours ago, RedM said:

He's played for a London club before so could be something in this.

PO on the case.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

In respect of Bentley perhaps I'm being unduly pessimistic but anyway.

It feels optimistic that a player who cannot getinto a lower midtable Championship side, was upgraded by Brentford in 2019, and who now has 6 months left on his deal will be picked up in January by a PL side.

The transfer market can be highly random at times but I don't really see it.

[Dolman_Stand]

6 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

In respect of Bentley perhaps I'm being unduly pessimistic but anyway.

It feels optimistic that a player who cannot getinto a lower midtable Championship side, was upgraded by Brentford in 2019, and who now has 6 months left on his deal will be picked up in January by a PL side.

The transfer market can be highly random at times but I don't really see it.

It's quite common these days for PL clubs to help meet their quota of English players by having a relatively cheap English 2nd/3rd choice keeper on the books. If Bentley went there on 15/20k a week on a 3 year deal it wouldn't break the bank for them and he would be a more than able deputy if called upon for cup games and to cover injuries

[ExiledAjax]

On 04/01/2023 at 21:26, chinapig said:

@Davefevshas covered the inherited wages point.

I get your argument but I think it depends on what Gould meant. My reading is that we need players to deliver performances that justify the wage we pay them, which is a little different from your reading.

It certainly means reducing the wage bill and recruiting better either way.

I've spoken to Gould about this precise point. "Value on the pitch" is a bit of both what you and @Harry are saying.

Gould's view on it is that you need as much of your wage bill playing as much as possible. Otherwise why are you paying them?

To achieve you need a sensible wage structure with carefully allotted wages. He would say that yes you should play your expensive players as much as you can, but before you do that you should be carefully choosing who gets those high wages. It's that second part that wasn't happening under Ashton, and so we ended up with players like Palmer and at certain times Wells.

Naturally you cannot always achieve this as things like injuries (Kalas) and managers discretion (see Bentley) might detail it. 

But basically the idea is to structure wages properly, be honest with players about potential minutes and therefore fair wages, and to have a clear idea from the manager about how much players will play. In that way we can try to get our "£ on the pitch" as Gould said to me.

[Negan]

7 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

In respect of Bentley perhaps I'm being unduly pessimistic but anyway.

It feels optimistic that a player who cannot getinto a lower midtable Championship side, was upgraded by Brentford in 2019, and who now has 6 months left on his deal will be picked up in January by a PL side.

The transfer market can be highly random at times but I don't really see it.

I mean the biggest club in the world just signed Jack Butland, he struggled in the championship with Stoke big time. Don’t think it’s that unlikely Palace pick up Bentley for back up. It would be pretty identical to what they did with Butland 

[GrahamC]

1 hour ago, Dolman_Stand said:

It's quite common these days for PL clubs to help meet their quota of English players by having a relatively cheap English 2nd/3rd choice keeper on the books. If Bentley went there on 15/20k a week on a 3 year deal it wouldn't break the bank for them and he would be a more than able deputy if called upon for cup games and to cover injuries

I’m not sure there is a quota on “English players”, is there? Homegrown ones, so through the Academy system maybe?

I have no idea if Palace plan to promote some kid to 3rd choice or look at making a signing, but this isn’t the most far fetched suggestion on here by a long way.

[chinapig]

2 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

I've spoken to Gould about this precise point. "Value on the pitch" is a bit of both what you and @Harry are saying.

Gould's view on it is that you need as much of your wage bill playing as much as possible. Otherwise why are you paying them?

To achieve you need a sensible wage structure with carefully allotted wages. He would say that yes you should play your expensive players as much as you can, but before you do that you should be carefully choosing who gets those high wages. It's that second part that wasn't happening under Ashton, and so we ended up with players like Palmer and at certain times Wells.

Naturally you cannot always achieve this as things like injuries (Kalas) and managers discretion (see Bentley) might detail it. 

But basically the idea is to structure wages properly, be honest with players about potential minutes and therefore fair wages, and to have a clear idea from the manager about how much players will play. In that way we can try to get our "£ on the pitch" as Gould said to me.

Thanks, impressive as ever from Gould. I'm missing him already!

I do sometimes wonder where we would be now if we had had him, Pearson and Tinnion in charge 3 or 4 years ago <sigh>.

[ExiledAjax]

30 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Thanks, impressive as ever from Gould. I'm missing him already!

I do sometimes wonder where we would be now if we had had him, Pearson and Tinnion in charge 3 or 4 years ago <sigh>.

Might even be 9th in the Championship.

[chinapig]

2 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Might even be 9th in the Championship.

But not in massive debt!

[Ronnie Sinclair]

Bentley to Palace isn't that far fetched, Leicester have Alex Smithies as their third choice

[Mr Popodopolous]

Yeah I suppose so, thanks for the answers just a bit sceptical of it.

Smithies and Butland have PL experience too- does Bentley?

[Dolman_Stand]

5 hours ago, GrahamC said:

I’m not sure there is a quota on “English players”, is there? Homegrown ones, so through the Academy system maybe?

I have no idea if Palace plan to promote some kid to 3rd choice or look at making a signing, but this isn’t the most far fetched suggestion on here by a long way.

99% sure there is a homegrown quota which means that you need a certain quantity of players in your squad that were trained in the UK for something like 4 years before there 21st birthday, doesn't have to necessarily be within your own academy though just within the UK. That's why Scott Carson is still at Man City, Butland now at United, Rob Green did it at Chelsea I think too.

[GrahamC]

35 minutes ago, Dolman_Stand said:

99% sure there is a homegrown quota which means that you need a certain quantity of players in your squad that were trained in the UK for something like 4 years before there 21st birthday, doesn't have to necessarily be within your own academy though just within the UK. That's why Scott Carson is still at Man City, Butland now at United, Rob Green did it at Chelsea I think too.

Thanks, so that’s UK (not English) then & say the likes of Chelsea or Man City have a Spanish or French player who has been with them since they’ve 16, presumably they come under this category too?

[Davefevs]

7 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

I've spoken to Gould about this precise point. "Value on the pitch" is a bit of both what you and @Harry are saying.

Gould's view on it is that you need as much of your wage bill playing as much as possible. Otherwise why are you paying them?

To achieve you need a sensible wage structure with carefully allotted wages. He would say that yes you should play your expensive players as much as you can, but before you do that you should be carefully choosing who gets those high wages. It's that second part that wasn't happening under Ashton, and so we ended up with players like Palmer and at certain times Wells.

Naturally you cannot always achieve this as things like injuries (Kalas) and managers discretion (see Bentley) might detail it. 

But basically the idea is to structure wages properly, be honest with players about potential minutes and therefore fair wages, and to have a clear idea from the manager about how much players will play. In that way we can try to get our "£ on the pitch" as Gould said to me.

Well articulated.

1 hour ago, GrahamC said:

Thanks, so that’s UK (not English) then & say the likes of Chelsea or Man City have a Spanish or French player who has been with them since they’ve 16, presumably they come under this category too?

Here’s City’s status:

Kalas, despite coming over young, spent loan periods abroad so didn’t meet the reqs of been home grown.  Whereas Weimann did.  Naismith doesn’t because he was in Scotland, Atkinson in France!  Yesterday Massengo is club developed!!!

[Son of Fred]

On 04/01/2023 at 18:39, Harry said:

On 04/01/2023 at 13:48, 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!! 

Ditto!!!

This has to be wrong!

[Son of Fred]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Gould's view on it is that you need as much of your wage bill playing as much as possible

 

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

He would say that yes you should play your expensive players as much as you can,

Crackpot logic - imo.

Football is played on grass(mostly!)

[RED4LIFE]

3 minutes ago, Son of Fred said:

 

Crackpot logic - imo.

Football is played on grass(mostly!)

In football  as in life, money does not maketh the man

[Davefevs]

17 minutes ago, Son of Fred said:

 

Crackpot logic - imo.

Football is played on grass(mostly!)

Not sure the second of those was my quotes

Not that it matters…crackpot logic indeed, as per my reply near the top of this page (3).

Edited January 7, 2023 by Davefevs

[LondonBristolian]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Well articulated.

Here’s City’s status:

Kalas, despite coming over young, spent loan periods abroad so didn’t meet the reqs of been home grown.  Whereas Weimann did.  Naismith doesn’t because he was in Scotland, Atkinson in France!  Yesterday Massengo is club developed!!!

If someone had set me "which seven Bristol City players don't count as homegrown under league requirements?", I'd have failed to get at least three of them correct! 

[Davefevs]

8 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

If someone had set me "which seven Bristol City players don't count as homegrown under league requirements?", I'd have failed to get at least three of them correct! 

Hahaha, crazy innit.

[Port Said Red]

11 hours ago, Son of Fred said:

 

Crackpot logic - imo.

Football is played on grass(mostly!)

I think you are misunderstanding what Richard Gould is saying. He doesn't mean you should be playing your most expensive players, he means the players on the pitch should be your best earners.

In other words, not having players coming in on a good wage just to pick up the money. Even on a home grown level we seem to have made mistakes, we have players like Morton, Moore and maybe even Edwards, whom we seem to have put on such good contracts that they don't want to sign for other clubs. They are happy taking our shilling, until their contract runs out.

It's about value for money, we never got it from Palmer, and many others so I don't think it's crackpot logic at all.

[ExiledAjax]

12 hours ago, Son of Fred said:

 

Crackpot logic - imo.

Football is played on grass(mostly!)

It's financed on paper though. There's a relationship between the two things, and that's what "get your £ on the pitch" describes.