Nicely done, @Alexo . Getting Ingram back on loan would be almost the dictionary definition of bittersweet. Be delighted for us to get a top 'keeper and gutted for him that he had to come back here to get any football. Really hope, for his sake, that QPR do something with him this year, be it playing him or selling him on to another Championship club, or similar, where he can get game time.
@micra , the gist, is since when do middling bottom end keepers earn you a transfer fee. Let alone us at Wycombe, who are hardly the kings of negotiation
I tend not to think of 'keepers as being able to perform only at one level. They are also quite often at their best in their late twenties/early thirties. But what really puzzled me was the assertion that "we only trusted him in the Checkatrade Trophy or when the 'real' 'keeper was injured.",
Scott Brown was out for three months following the injury he sustained in the opening league game at Crawley and was eased back in the Checkatrade match against Coventry. He then went out on loan to Eastleigh for a week to complete his recuperation. He returned to play a blinder at Cheltenham who had already jumped at the opportunity to sign him on loan arising from the commitment which Wycombe had entered into in the meantime to take Jamal Blackman on loan until the end of the season..
I think Scott Brown deserves better than your unreasonably belittling comment @Malone.
My recollection is that we choose a fit Blackman loan extension over a fit Brown around Christmas time.
In truth none of us can possibly know how good a GK Brown is - few of us will have seen him play more than a handful of games if that. (I am more qualified to judge Cameron Dawson). Personally I am little disappointed though if he is to be our Gk next season, I would expect him to be a notch down from Blackman or Ingram.
I am still surprised we expected a fee for a 30+ player moving between average Lg2 teams. Not sure that happens very often. I wonder how much we were talking - perhaps more understandable if the fee was set simply to compensate us for the salary cost of paying him over the close season, rather than a genuine attempt to cash in.
Fixtures out tomorrow, new season then will feel much closer, training starts very soon, before long we may have a signing or two. And the whole thing starts again.
@micra , it's not belittling, it's factual.
When Blackman was fit, the only games Brown got were in the Checkatrade. Is that not correct? Even when Blackman wasn't in good form we didn't drop him.
The only thing that i'd like to know, was when we signed Brown did we ever intend for him to be first choice or not. Did his injury force our hand, or were we always looking to bring a Premier league youngster in before the end of August?
With respect Malone, there is no way that WWFC could afford deliberately a decent quality GK like Brown on the bench. Injuries happen, maybe an unexpected opportunity came up, but IMHO the idea that we intended to pay a 30+ decent keeper to benchwarm is a little unrealistic.
I think it was confirmed that Blackman HAD to play as part of his loan contract. Nothing new there. So Brown was a luxury sub when he was fit. At 'best' once a season a 'keeper gets injured or sent off and needs to be sent off. Last season it didn't happen, season before once? Season before that once?
I don't think Brown would have been that expensive, bearing in mind he was out of contract and had spent a career this level or slightly higher.
Blackman was on a rumoured 13k a week, so surely Chelsea wouldn't have seen much point asking us to contribute?
All guesswork though, the summer's moving on without much news, so this happens!
Can someone explain to me what is actually being debated here? I'm only reading a series of random comments and can't see the thread of what is debate is.
For me Scott Brown is a highly capable number one keeper for us and I'd be more than happy if that was the case this season. If Jamal Blackman or another high quality loan option became available at limited or no cost I don't see why you wouldn't improve the team.
Factual, yes (though it takes quite a leap of faith to infer that the reason was a lack of trust). The whole tone of your pithy comment was belittling.
@micra I follow that if we had kept Brown on to benchwarm but we were able to loan him out, give him games and I presume recoup some of his wages. Sounds like a good plan to me and I don't see why this wouldn't work again.
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
micra I follow that if we had kept Brown on to benchwarm but we were able to loan him out, give him games and I presume recoup some of his wages. Sounds like a good plan to me and I don't see why this wouldn't work again.
Because we'd be reduced to depending on an aged coach for cover. Dev will now come up with a risk analysis to suggest that this would be an acceptable option.i shall bow out of this discussion now; I am happy at the prospect of Scott Brown being our No. 1 'keeper.
@micra Me too. Scott Brown is good keeper. I think we should have a young back up though. I think the investment would outway the risks. We have to be a club that can encourage youth.
I will if you wish, Micra. It is very rare for a substitute GK to be required. The aged coach can get us through the balance of the match. We can then get in a loan replacement for the next one. A second GK would be a poor use of resources IMHO.
It is grammatically incorrect to start a sentence "because" unless you follow up with a main rather than a subordinate clause. Just saying. Also capital I please.
Brown is an interesting case. He's only played about 4 or 5 games for us, but seems to evoke a loyalty from a lot of fans. I'm struggling to think of a permanent player we've had who has played so few games, that is thought of as highly.
If he is to be our main keeper this year, which i'd be very comfy with (in fact, the whole squad without any additions i think will go very well), he's well on the way to being a real favourite.
Where would you expect to finish with the current squad (including Pierre) and where would you hope to finish (assuming you accept there is a difference between those two things)?
I have to disagree with Dev's risk analysis. Look at last season - we finished 1pt below the play offs. Every point that season mattered. Just imagine we were heading for the play offs as the season closed in, then, when we were 1-0 up in one of our later matches, Blackman went off injured and was replaced by Richardson. Yes - he managed to keep a clean sheet the season before, but with an extra year on him and a defence ravaged by injury, most statisticians (Devon) would categorise a similar feat as unlikely on the balance of probabilities. How would we all feel to watch a couple of goals dribble in and us to lose out on a play-off birth as a result?
I'm very happy for Brown to be between the sticks this coming season but I agree with RITM - we need a Horlock-style trainee on the bench. Wages would be cheap, there would be strong potential to take over when Brown comes to the end of the contract next summer, there would also be someone for Brown to train with all week and potentially even challenge for a place in the team. Aren't we meant to have a home-grown player among the 18 every week now under the new rules? Making it a trainee keeper would be a very elegant solution IMHO.
After missing the zone by 1 point, having had a dreadful injury hit first 2 months, and barely turning up for a month after the cups, that doesn't seem a wild suggestion.
That's before you factor in that Saunders only really got going late on, and Kashket wasn't available for most of the season.
Probably not to rehash posts from a week or 2 ago, but clearly some of this needs balance versus injuries this season, which noone can predict
I have no objection to a very low cost trainee GK on the bench. Not sure it would do him any favours however so ability to find one better than Richardson is now maybe limited.
Not a good use of resources to have a full wage GK sitting on the bench though in the vague possibility that the first choice GK will get injured/sent off in a game we woud otherwise win.
@aloysius , does "Home grown" literally mean through our youth system?
It always confuses me, as some of the big clubs seem to be able to wheel in exotic nationalities, and they suddenly count as "Home grown".
And is homegrown distinct from "English" (which again you often hear clubs targeting to hit quotas) or is it the same thing?
If homegrown does literally mean through our system, how will that work when, erm, we don't have a system?
@Malone I'm afraid I'm no expert on the whims of the Football Association (Football League??) rule book. But I took it to mean someone who had not signed a post-18 professional contract with any other club. I'm sure many others on here would be able to advise us both better though!
I'm pretty confident though that home-grown will have to count as anyone from an EU nation (until March 2019 at least...)
The new rules applying from 18/19 mean that one "club-developed player" must be in matchday squads. Club developed means must be registered to club for at least a year prior to his U19 year - nationality is irrelevant.
Meaning we will need to sign at least one young lad to meet this stipulation - requirements - must be young, must be cheap, must like UK travel, must like benches. he will have to be on the bench from 18/19 even if he has broken both legs. Doesn't actually have to play though.
Surely we sign up a 18 year old young keeper and then loan him out to a non-league team with a 24 hour recall. Everyone benefits at very little cost. We are still poor financially but can probably gather together enough for this.
Comments
That's how I guess the correspondence went!!!
Nicely done, @Alexo . Getting Ingram back on loan would be almost the dictionary definition of bittersweet. Be delighted for us to get a top 'keeper and gutted for him that he had to come back here to get any football. Really hope, for his sake, that QPR do something with him this year, be it playing him or selling him on to another Championship club, or similar, where he can get game time.
"A league 2 level keeper in his 30s that we trusted only in the Checkash!T cup or when the real keeper was injured? That'll be a fee".
Me no understand.
@micra , the gist, is since when do middling bottom end keepers earn you a transfer fee. Let alone us at Wycombe, who are hardly the kings of negotiation
Since they're under contract to us for the next year and you want them would be a fair response.
I tend not to think of 'keepers as being able to perform only at one level. They are also quite often at their best in their late twenties/early thirties. But what really puzzled me was the assertion that "we only trusted him in the Checkatrade Trophy or when the 'real' 'keeper was injured.",
Scott Brown was out for three months following the injury he sustained in the opening league game at Crawley and was eased back in the Checkatrade match against Coventry. He then went out on loan to Eastleigh for a week to complete his recuperation. He returned to play a blinder at Cheltenham who had already jumped at the opportunity to sign him on loan arising from the commitment which Wycombe had entered into in the meantime to take Jamal Blackman on loan until the end of the season..
I think Scott Brown deserves better than your unreasonably belittling comment @Malone.
My recollection is that we choose a fit Blackman loan extension over a fit Brown around Christmas time.
In truth none of us can possibly know how good a GK Brown is - few of us will have seen him play more than a handful of games if that. (I am more qualified to judge Cameron Dawson). Personally I am little disappointed though if he is to be our Gk next season, I would expect him to be a notch down from Blackman or Ingram.
I am still surprised we expected a fee for a 30+ player moving between average Lg2 teams. Not sure that happens very often. I wonder how much we were talking - perhaps more understandable if the fee was set simply to compensate us for the salary cost of paying him over the close season, rather than a genuine attempt to cash in.
Fixtures out tomorrow, new season then will feel much closer, training starts very soon, before long we may have a signing or two. And the whole thing starts again.
@micra , it's not belittling, it's factual.
When Blackman was fit, the only games Brown got were in the Checkatrade. Is that not correct? Even when Blackman wasn't in good form we didn't drop him.
The only thing that i'd like to know, was when we signed Brown did we ever intend for him to be first choice or not. Did his injury force our hand, or were we always looking to bring a Premier league youngster in before the end of August?
With respect Malone, there is no way that WWFC could afford deliberately a decent quality GK like Brown on the bench. Injuries happen, maybe an unexpected opportunity came up, but IMHO the idea that we intended to pay a 30+ decent keeper to benchwarm is a little unrealistic.
I think it was confirmed that Blackman HAD to play as part of his loan contract. Nothing new there. So Brown was a luxury sub when he was fit. At 'best' once a season a 'keeper gets injured or sent off and needs to be sent off. Last season it didn't happen, season before once? Season before that once?
I don't think Brown would have been that expensive, bearing in mind he was out of contract and had spent a career this level or slightly higher.
Blackman was on a rumoured 13k a week, so surely Chelsea wouldn't have seen much point asking us to contribute?
All guesswork though, the summer's moving on without much news, so this happens!
Can someone explain to me what is actually being debated here? I'm only reading a series of random comments and can't see the thread of what is debate is.
For me Scott Brown is a highly capable number one keeper for us and I'd be more than happy if that was the case this season. If Jamal Blackman or another high quality loan option became available at limited or no cost I don't see why you wouldn't improve the team.
Re your last sentence Righty - for the reason adduced in Dev's post of 9.56.
Factual, yes (though it takes quite a leap of faith to infer that the reason was a lack of trust). The whole tone of your pithy comment was belittling.
@micra I follow that if we had kept Brown on to benchwarm but we were able to loan him out, give him games and I presume recoup some of his wages. Sounds like a good plan to me and I don't see why this wouldn't work again.
Apologies: that should have been addressed to Malone.
Because we'd be reduced to depending on an aged coach for cover. Dev will now come up with a risk analysis to suggest that this would be an acceptable option.i shall bow out of this discussion now; I am happy at the prospect of Scott Brown being our No. 1 'keeper.
@micra Me too. Scott Brown is good keeper. I think we should have a young back up though. I think the investment would outway the risks. We have to be a club that can encourage youth.
I will if you wish, Micra. It is very rare for a substitute GK to be required. The aged coach can get us through the balance of the match. We can then get in a loan replacement for the next one. A second GK would be a poor use of resources IMHO.
It is grammatically incorrect to start a sentence "because" unless you follow up with a main rather than a subordinate clause. Just saying. Also capital I please.
Brown is an interesting case. He's only played about 4 or 5 games for us, but seems to evoke a loyalty from a lot of fans. I'm struggling to think of a permanent player we've had who has played so few games, that is thought of as highly.
If he is to be our main keeper this year, which i'd be very comfy with (in fact, the whole squad without any additions i think will go very well), he's well on the way to being a real favourite.
Where would you expect to finish with the current squad (including Pierre) and where would you hope to finish (assuming you accept there is a difference between those two things)?
I have to disagree with Dev's risk analysis. Look at last season - we finished 1pt below the play offs. Every point that season mattered. Just imagine we were heading for the play offs as the season closed in, then, when we were 1-0 up in one of our later matches, Blackman went off injured and was replaced by Richardson. Yes - he managed to keep a clean sheet the season before, but with an extra year on him and a defence ravaged by injury, most statisticians (Devon) would categorise a similar feat as unlikely on the balance of probabilities. How would we all feel to watch a couple of goals dribble in and us to lose out on a play-off birth as a result?
I'm very happy for Brown to be between the sticks this coming season but I agree with RITM - we need a Horlock-style trainee on the bench. Wages would be cheap, there would be strong potential to take over when Brown comes to the end of the contract next summer, there would also be someone for Brown to train with all week and potentially even challenge for a place in the team. Aren't we meant to have a home-grown player among the 18 every week now under the new rules? Making it a trainee keeper would be a very elegant solution IMHO.
@DevC , playoffs to both questions.
After missing the zone by 1 point, having had a dreadful injury hit first 2 months, and barely turning up for a month after the cups, that doesn't seem a wild suggestion.
That's before you factor in that Saunders only really got going late on, and Kashket wasn't available for most of the season.
Probably not to rehash posts from a week or 2 ago, but clearly some of this needs balance versus injuries this season, which noone can predict
I have no objection to a very low cost trainee GK on the bench. Not sure it would do him any favours however so ability to find one better than Richardson is now maybe limited.
Not a good use of resources to have a full wage GK sitting on the bench though in the vague possibility that the first choice GK will get injured/sent off in a game we woud otherwise win.
@aloysius , does "Home grown" literally mean through our youth system?
It always confuses me, as some of the big clubs seem to be able to wheel in exotic nationalities, and they suddenly count as "Home grown".
And is homegrown distinct from "English" (which again you often hear clubs targeting to hit quotas) or is it the same thing?
If homegrown does literally mean through our system, how will that work when, erm, we don't have a system?
@Malone I'm afraid I'm no expert on the whims of the Football Association (Football League??) rule book. But I took it to mean someone who had not signed a post-18 professional contract with any other club. I'm sure many others on here would be able to advise us both better though!
I'm pretty confident though that home-grown will have to count as anyone from an EU nation (until March 2019 at least...)
I regard Scott highly because I've only heard great things about his performances for Cheltenham last season.
The new rules applying from 18/19 mean that one "club-developed player" must be in matchday squads. Club developed means must be registered to club for at least a year prior to his U19 year - nationality is irrelevant.
Meaning we will need to sign at least one young lad to meet this stipulation - requirements - must be young, must be cheap, must like UK travel, must like benches. he will have to be on the bench from 18/19 even if he has broken both legs. Doesn't actually have to play though.
Surely we sign up a 18 year old young keeper and then loan him out to a non-league team with a 24 hour recall. Everyone benefits at very little cost. We are still poor financially but can probably gather together enough for this.