Bristol Boy Posted January 5, 2006 Report Share Posted January 5, 2006 We know that Jamie & Grant Smith are surplus to requirements.No real surprise there, although I still don't think Grant's had a fair crack of the whip, GJ doesn't rate him, so that's that.Phillips wants away as I posted a couple of months ago and it's all quiet on the LW Contract front which normally means he's going.He isn't in the side at present, although he's always been a model pro off the field, as far as I know.For me the more interesting decisions rest on the players out on loan like Fortune, Keogh & Gillespie.I reckon that if a new striker comes in, plus a defender or two, MS stays, all of which are likely, then all three will depart AG.I hope we insert the usual clauses because Gillespie & Keogh in particular, could well come back to haunt us!If MS moves then that might mean a reprieve for Gillespie Interesting times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nogbad the Bad Posted January 5, 2006 Report Share Posted January 5, 2006 If the 2 Smiths, Wilkshire and Phillips follow Golbourne and Bridges we may need to hang on to most of the others. I haven't seen one of your squad lists recently but it would surely be very thin if all these went even if we get 2-3 more players ( one a keeper ) in the window. From what GJ has said, he still sees Keogh as one for the future, and Gorman's comments today that he'd like him back for Wycombe must mean he's shown something on loan. Fortune will surely be the other to go if PV want to keep him. As for Gillespie, i'd be very disappointed if City let such a young goalscorer go - he's not had enough chances and the loan situation with recall suits all parties for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTFiGO!?! Posted January 5, 2006 Report Share Posted January 5, 2006 So people don't rate Jamie Smith? also, whats the general oppinion on Keough?+ ever since that goal against Scum and also the record that came with him I've always thought Grant Smith might do something?Opinions.......??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiwicolin Posted January 5, 2006 Report Share Posted January 5, 2006 someone will make a last gasp bid to sign DC.i hope not :@ :@ :@ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB. Posted January 5, 2006 Report Share Posted January 5, 2006 someone will make a last gasp bid to sign DC.i hope not :@ :@ :@That would pi55 me off if we lost him. We can't afford to sell him in my opinion. If we do, then the acadamy really is pointless! Enter Yate(cant remember the second bit)!I'd like it if we gave Keogh a go in the team at some point. Not bothered if we sell Gillespie, he hasn't impressed at all in my opinion.Both Smiths can go too. They won't be missed. Good luck to them in the future if they do go though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 That would pi55 me off if we lost him. We can't afford to sell him in my opinion. If we do, then the acadamy really is pointless! Enter Yate(cant remember the second bit)!So you're saying that if we sold Cotterill for a couple of hundred grand, and that money allowed Johnson to buy the players needed for promotion, then the academy would be pointless?DC is a good player but he's not indispensible. He's only borderline first team at the moment - I'd start Wilkshire in his place for instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedTop Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 We know that Jamie & Grant Smith are surplus to requirements.No real surprise there, although I still don't think Grant's had a fair crack of the whip, GJ doesn't rate him, so that's that.Phillips wants away as I posted a couple of months ago and it's all quiet on the LW Contract front which normally means he's going.He isn't in the side at present, although he's always been a model pro off the field, as far as I know.For me the more interesting decisions rest on the players out on loan like Fortune, Keogh & Gillespie.I reckon that if a new striker comes in, plus a defender or two, MS stays, all of which are likely, then all three will depart AG.I hope we insert the usual clauses because Gillespie & Keogh in particular, could well come back to haunt us!If MS moves then that might mean a reprieve for Gillespie Interesting times Jamie Smith is no great loss.Grant Smith, well it's a pity he's not had a decent crack of the whip but no point keeping him, for his sake as well as ours, if he doesn't figure in GJ's plans.Jamie Smith aside, Clayton Fortune is the player at the club whose talent impresses me least. Despite him turning down the PNE move, I'd have no trouble moving him on.Likewise Gillespie. I just don't think he's got it. I doubt he'll come back to haunt us, unless we get relegated or end up in the conference and he scores against us.Keogh is a different matter. I sincerely hope he stays because his work ethic looks right and he does look very good. He has potential to be a stalwart in the centre of defence for years to come. By all means loan him out to get him games, but make it clear to him he has a future here and definitely don't sell.Marcus Stewart, well I think if an offer comes in we let him go on a free if necessary. I have no idea how true the off-the-field talk is, so I'm not blaming him as such, but on the field he is undeniably showing very poor return for the wages and frankly they could be better spent elsewhere. He's a luxury we can't afford.And if Wilkshire won't sign a contract then we need to offload him for cash if it is in any way possible. Even a few quid. We can't let him walk away for nothing at the end of the season, and given our league status and the fact we've played better without him in the team, it's unlikely that keeping him those few extra months might be the difference between promotion or not (which was the reason given for taking the risk with Thorpe by not selling when we could a few years ago) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NailseaRed Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 we do seem to be offloading players quite easily! I didn't understand why we got rid of golbourne! He's going to be playing in the premiership next season! If reading think they can use him at their level how come we can't make use of him?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 we do seem to be offloading players quite easily! I didn't understand why we got rid of golbourne! He's going to be playing in the premiership next season! If reading think they can use him at their level how come we can't make use of him?!They've signed him for their academy initially. I doubt he'll be playing for the first team very often in the next couple of years.We can at least take some comfort from knowing that our academy must be better than theirs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NailseaRed Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 They've signed him for their academy initially. I doubt he'll be playing for the first team very often in the next couple of years.We can at least take some comfort from knowing that our academy must be better than theirs!why not keep him in our reserves then and as a fringe first teamer and wait to see how his potential develops rather than letting another team take him away for a nominal fee? i do presume it was a very small amount. say he progesses loads in the next year and maybe becomes worth 500k+ then surely that is better that we have him than reading? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 why not keep him in our reserves then and as a fringe first teamer and wait to see how his potential develops rather than letting another team take him away for a nominal fee? i do presume it was a very small amount. say he progesses loads in the next year and maybe becomes worth 500k+ then surely that is better that we have him than reading?Because we can't afford to.We can't afford to stay in this division any longer or we'll have no academy at all.We can't get out of this division without new players.We can't get new players without money.We can't get money without selling.We can't sell players we need to win promotion.If (and I appreciate that it's a big if) selling Golbourne (and the same would apply to Cotterill and Skuse) allows Johnson to sign players who will win us promotion NOW (because good as they are, those 3 won't), then that is worth far more than any of them will ever be, and it will allow us to keep the next generation of stars for longer and receive better fees for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB. Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 So you're saying that if we sold Cotterill for a couple of hundred grand, and that money allowed Johnson to buy the players needed for promotion, then the academy would be pointless?DC is a good player but he's not indispensible. He's only borderline first team at the moment - I'd start Wilkshire in his place for instance.Yeah, your right. But it annoys me that other Clubs get the benefit of the acadamy players' ability and we get a couple of hundred grand for the player (if that!). I suspect they will get a lot more in terms of points and money if they sell the player than us. We don't even get 10 games from a fair few of the players who we have developed to become the player they are. It's because we're in league1 I guess, we don't have much power to keep them. It's just the way it is I suppose. Still gets on my nerves that we don't get to see the players play for BCFC for more than a handful of games before they shoot off. Anyinsah, Golbourne etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swindlered Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 why not keep him in our reserves then and as a fringe first teamer and wait to see how his potential develops rather than letting another team take him away for a nominal fee? i do presume it was a very small amount. say he progesses loads in the next year and maybe becomes worth 500k+ then surely that is better that we have him than reading?I suspect the fee was rather larger than a nominal amount or that a hefty sell-on clause was inserted. Admittedly Golbourne still has a lot to do to establish a professional career but so far he has made a reasonable number of appearances for us for someone so young and has also progressed through the England ranks. It would not make sense to sell one of your best prospects for anything less than a six figure fee plus bonuses plus sell-on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB. Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 It would not make sense to sell one of your best prospects for anything less than a six figure fee plus bonuses plus sell-on.Yeah, but since when has BCFC ever made sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ365 Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 BCFC doesnt make sense BB.Never has done, never will do unfortunatly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surreyred Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 Because we can't afford to.We can't afford to stay in this division any longer or we'll have no academy at all.We can't get out of this division without new players.We can't get new players without money.We can't get money without selling.We can't sell players we need to win promotion.If (and I appreciate that it's a big if) selling Golbourne (and the same would apply to Cotterill and Skuse) allows Johnson to sign players who will win us promotion NOW (because good as they are, those 3 won't), then that is worth far more than any of them will ever be, and it will allow us to keep the next generation of stars for longer and receive better fees for them.Finally, someone else on this forum who understands the reality of being a third division football club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NailseaRed Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 but we're purely speculating about the amount. i'm not being unrealistic I'm saying we really shuold have sold for a decent amount with sell-ons otherwise we are being very short sighted! Of course if we can make revenue from one player in order to fund 3 decent players then i'll all for it. but none of us have any idea what the fee was. why on earth would it be undisclosed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surreyred Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 but we're purely speculating about the amount. i'm not being unrealistic I'm saying we really shuold have sold for a decent amount with sell-ons otherwise we are being very short sighted! Of course if we can make revenue from one player in order to fund 3 decent players then i'll all for it. but none of us have any idea what the fee was. why on earth would it be undisclosed?So other clubs don't know how much we have got in the bank when we go looking for players to buy and put the price up accordingly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyderman Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 . why on earth would it be undisclosed?Because SL's evil plan is to offload our best young talent for pennies and keep it from the fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tunley Legend Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 Reading between the lines I think that Johnson wants to KEEP Clayton Fortune and has sent him to Port Vale to play the best part of a season's football with the aim that he comes back with a more aggressive attitude next season. Comments such as we have let him go to "learn his trade" and with his size/build "you are really willing him to be a good player" suggest to me that Johnson sees something in him that many fans don't (just the same as he does with Orr who is now starting to repay that faith with some good performances). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSR Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 So you're saying that if we sold Cotterill for a couple of hundred grand, and that money allowed Johnson to buy the players needed for promotion, then the academy would be pointless?DC is a good player but he's not indispensible. He's only borderline first team at the moment - I'd start Wilkshire in his place for instance.yes DC is very nieve if that how ya spell it.will do well when older,but you see him around 60 mins and he really fades..Wiltshire is a class act but no right winger. then again that could have been said for murray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Boy Posted January 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 we do seem to be offloading players quite easily! I didn't understand why we got rid of golbourne! He's going to be playing in the premiership next season! If reading think they can use him at their level how come we can't make use of him?!He was sold because he didn't figure in GJ's immediate plans and we need that fee, plus some more for the Directors, to get the three players we'll be bringing in during the window.I think that he'll be a fine player but needs a couple of seasons to develop physically, which at 17, is understandable.Don't be surprised to see him loaned out to a Championship side or two, even to us, before he breaks into the first team in any big way.Reading between the lines I think that Johnson wants to KEEP Clayton FortuneNo.He'll be gone and we'll bring in a replacement. why not keep him in our reserves then and as a fringe first teamer and wait to see how his potential develops rather than letting another team take him away for a nominal fee? i do presume it was a very small amount. say he progesses loads in the next year and maybe becomes worth 500k+ then surely that is better that we have him than reading?It wasn't a nominal fee or a small amount and there are high clauses. The fee, plus clauses, will really add up if SG does develop as we all hope.How will a player develop when we're playing craphead uniteds second team, every three weeks??? Having so few reserve team fixtures must be addressed but, guess what, that costs even more money!We need players to get us out of this Division NOW and without that happening, everything else will just wither on the vine Because we can't afford to.We can't afford to stay in this division any longer or we'll have no academy at all.We can't get out of this division without new players.We can't get new players without money.We can't get money without selling.We can't sell players we need to win promotion.If (and I appreciate that it's a big if) selling Golbourne (and the same would apply to Cotterill and Skuse) allows Johnson to sign players who will win us promotion NOW (because good as they are, those 3 won't), then that is worth far more than any of them will ever be, and it will allow us to keep the next generation of stars for longer and receive better fees for them.BINGO SIR.SPOT ON Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodiesaffer Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Reading between the lines I think that Johnson wants to KEEP Clayton Fortune and has sent him to Port Vale to play the best part of a season's football with the aim that he comes back with a more aggressive attitude next season. Comments such as we have let him go to "learn his trade" and with his size/build "you are really willing him to be a good player" suggest to me that Johnson sees something in him that many fans don't (just the same as he does with Orr who is now starting to repay that faith with some good performances). bradley orr was always a rightback that was his position at nufc clayton fortune is not a center half he's a dmidfielder. that's what they have never been rated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ron Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Yeah, but since when has BCFC ever made sense? Toucheé Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellyred Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 but we're purely speculating about the amount. i'm not being unrealistic I'm saying we really shuold have sold for a decent amount with sell-ons otherwise we are being very short sighted! Of course if we can make revenue from one player in order to fund 3 decent players then i'll all for it. but none of us have any idea what the fee was. why on earth would it be undisclosed?we have to sell to fund gj spending now with our xmas form we have a slight chance of the playoffs and in fairness the board have always provided transfer funds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.