Obviously any loan agreement includes a provision for the payment of the players wages or a contribution thereof. To "encourage" the loanee club to play the loaned player, that wage contribution is reduced and vice versa greatly increased if he doesn't get minutes on the pitch. Could that be the case here?
He knows the environment at Wycombe, he’s played there and did well there. Matt Bloomfield was very focused on wanting to bring him in to help the team and almost guaranteed him playing every game. With that guarantee, it just felt right, and Chem wanted to do it as well.
It was beginning to worry me, here's what I was referring to. Posted by @Gary on 16th Jan on the Chem Campbell thread
From the Wolves website:
”He knows the environment at Wycombe, he’s played there and did well there. Matt Bloomfield was very focused on wanting to bring him in to help the team and almost guaranteed him playing every game. With that guarantee, it just felt right, and Chem wanted to do it as well.”
I'd be amazed if that's written into the loan agreement, but it's bad enough if it's just an informal verbal thing. You shouldn't be making 'promises' like that to unproven loanees, let alone letting them get out in the open.
It’s open to a lot of interpretation. Almost - so long as he’s not injured. Almost - so long as he’s not worse than arguably our best attacker of recent weeks.
So he’s made an assumption? You don’t think, based on what the ‘Pathways manager’ said, that it’s something that came up during conversations between us and them? “He wasn’t played as much as we would have liked at Charlton - can you guarantee him regular football?”
An informal conversation along the lines of “We know what Chem can do, he was here last season and he played plenty of games. We’re short a few bodies in his position so chances are he’ll be playing most weeks” could be easily be rephrased clumsily as “almost guaranteed first team football”. In fact, I’d say something like that is much more likely than a contractual arrangement guaranteeing first team football.
I may be part of a diminishing group but I'm still with Matt. I know the results have been tosh and that we are in a relegation battle - who doesn't like a good old survival scrap - but I still believe that he has the support and backing of the players. That is evident from recent interviews with Jack and GMac, unless they are frauds! Micra's Maidstone beat Ipswich today so drawing at home to a team in the same division is possibly not so appalling. I have been critical of certain aspects of the new regime - programmes, chips and away fans in the Frank Adams - and don't start me on the withdrawal from the B&B cup, but I do admire their level-headedness when it comes to potentially firing an under pressure manager. Blooms will turn it around. We will lift silverware this season. We will be playing league one football next year and the gasroom will once again be buoyant. Cheers, everyone!!
Fair point. I don’t think there’s any sort of contractual agreement either, likely just an ‘understanding’ or a good old fashioned gentleman’s agreement.
So what went wrong today? It’s hard to pick on one thing. First half we were back to the lethargic tempo of earlier in the season. Fleetwood were in our face and we were pre-season friendly mode. Which was odd for a relegation battle game, and odd being the team not up for the fight.
We were overloaded down the wings again. Campbell not effective in defence, Leahey not having the best of days. If they hadn’t shot themselves in the foot it would have been the same in the second half. We didn’t improve by much.
Taylor had reverted to deep playing Taylor and therefore was not getting on the end of anything from Vokes. Was this to counter the loss of Josh? Wheeler and Potts doesn’t work for me. It seems messy.
As a whole the team looked a nervous mess in the first half and reminded me, as others have said, of the final days of Smith.
This is now a relegation battle. The owners are committed to the battle and the manager. The damage of relegation will be staggering. The fans are already turning their backs on the club reflected in the attendances. Had 2 spare tickets today and couldn’t give them away. We are where we are. Matt has got us where we are and I hope in a decade he will be recounting how out of his depth he was in his first season like Gaz did. I hope he isn’t telling this story on the eve of our game with Thame though.
And in any event surely the correct answer when Wolverhampton Wanderers’ Pathways Manager (whatever that is) suggests that he can join Wycombe on loan if we’ll play him almost every week is to tell him that he’ll get a game if he’s good enough otherwise we’ll go and find someone else.
Anything less than that is completely unfair on our own players with terrible consequences for dressing room spirit. It’s also unfair on the club’s supporters who would like to think Wycombe are going out on a Saturday afternoon to win rather than to improve other clubs’ players.
I wonder what effect loan players have in terms of actually giving a shit if the team gets promoted or relegated? Likewise players in the last year of their professional careers. Do they have any passion or is it just a matter of turning up and trying to get something on the highlights reel?
I have no idea but when Kone comes on and repeatedly puts the ball in the net is it just natural talent or somebody who thinks that we are his home for the forseeable future and is playing for the club?
Just a late night post-match theory but when people are wondering why the team turned up in their pyjamas today maybe it's natural when you have no long term interest in the club. If it turns out Fleetwood are mostly loan players then that's my theory fucked!
I said that if by March the team were playing a coherent style of football with commitment and we were looking safe then that would be a good enough season for Blooms.
We’re a month from then, we are incoherent, looked completely uncommitted for the first half and look very unsafe. I’m in the he should, very sadly, go camp now.
He is, of course, going nowhere. I think Rob C telling us all that sending Matt to manage another club with the promise that he’d be invited back when Gaz went was said to make himself look like a great man manager and talent spotter. When things hadn’t taken off like Rob imagined, he doubled down with the extension and I don’t think he can afford to pay him off. Even if he could I don’t think Rob is the guy to say he got something wrong.
Two reasons. One being that March is close enough to the end of the season that looking safe means almost certainly safe. I never thought this was a promotion season, nor did I think a relegation battle was on the cards.
The second. I was hoping we’d work through the culture change and have the bones of a new one in place. I thought around year to do that seemed about right after the departure of such a long serving and unique management team.
My biggest concern is next season, not this one. I dare say I think we will stay up, but next season looks worrying with all the loans going back and many of our players verging on "past it" or not worthy of new contracts.
Comments
Obviously any loan agreement includes a provision for the payment of the players wages or a contribution thereof. To "encourage" the loanee club to play the loaned player, that wage contribution is reduced and vice versa greatly increased if he doesn't get minutes on the pitch. Could that be the case here?
Wolves did
He knows the environment at Wycombe, he’s played there and did well there. Matt Bloomfield was very focused on wanting to bring him in to help the team and almost guaranteed him playing every game. With that guarantee, it just felt right, and Chem wanted to do it as well.
https://www.wolves.co.uk/news/loan-watch/20240116-campbell-returns-to-wycombe/
It was beginning to worry me, here's what I was referring to. Posted by @Gary on 16th Jan on the Chem Campbell thread
From the Wolves website:
”He knows the environment at Wycombe, he’s played there and did well there. Matt Bloomfield was very focused on wanting to bring him in to help the team and almost guaranteed him playing every game. With that guarantee, it just felt right, and Chem wanted to do it as well.”
Delusional - he has lost it altogether. Did he actually watch that first half when they had 11 men?
I'd be amazed if that's written into the loan agreement, but it's bad enough if it's just an informal verbal thing. You shouldn't be making 'promises' like that to unproven loanees, let alone letting them get out in the open.
"Almost" is doing a lot of work in that sentence.
It’s open to a lot of interpretation. Almost - so long as he’s not injured. Almost - so long as he’s not worse than arguably our best attacker of recent weeks.
It would be a bizarre thing for the Wolves coach to say though, if it wasn’t without basis.
It wouldn’t
And most likely a winger from a prem club will play every week for a league 1 side. Especially now you can bring 5 subs on.
So that's "almost" guaranteed in a way.
Quite different to he's guaranteed to start every game, which people seem to be taking it as.
If that was really the case, we'd have broken it already away to Wigan.
Indeed, here is the link:
https://www.wolves.co.uk/news/loan-watch/20240116-campbell-returns-to-wycombe/
So he’s made an assumption? You don’t think, based on what the ‘Pathways manager’ said, that it’s something that came up during conversations between us and them? “He wasn’t played as much as we would have liked at Charlton - can you guarantee him regular football?”
I reckon that's exactly what's happened
It’s not when we leave out one of our best players to give him a game.
We’re supposed to be a professional football club, it’s not the Boys Brigade.
Spot on!!!
An informal conversation along the lines of “We know what Chem can do, he was here last season and he played plenty of games. We’re short a few bodies in his position so chances are he’ll be playing most weeks” could be easily be rephrased clumsily as “almost guaranteed first team football”. In fact, I’d say something like that is much more likely than a contractual arrangement guaranteeing first team football.
I may be part of a diminishing group but I'm still with Matt. I know the results have been tosh and that we are in a relegation battle - who doesn't like a good old survival scrap - but I still believe that he has the support and backing of the players. That is evident from recent interviews with Jack and GMac, unless they are frauds! Micra's Maidstone beat Ipswich today so drawing at home to a team in the same division is possibly not so appalling. I have been critical of certain aspects of the new regime - programmes, chips and away fans in the Frank Adams - and don't start me on the withdrawal from the B&B cup, but I do admire their level-headedness when it comes to potentially firing an under pressure manager. Blooms will turn it around. We will lift silverware this season. We will be playing league one football next year and the gasroom will once again be buoyant. Cheers, everyone!!
Fair point. I don’t think there’s any sort of contractual agreement either, likely just an ‘understanding’ or a good old fashioned gentleman’s agreement.
That could be correct but still doesn’t explain why on earth he played instead of Sadlier who is one of best performers.
So what went wrong today? It’s hard to pick on one thing. First half we were back to the lethargic tempo of earlier in the season. Fleetwood were in our face and we were pre-season friendly mode. Which was odd for a relegation battle game, and odd being the team not up for the fight.
We were overloaded down the wings again. Campbell not effective in defence, Leahey not having the best of days. If they hadn’t shot themselves in the foot it would have been the same in the second half. We didn’t improve by much.
Taylor had reverted to deep playing Taylor and therefore was not getting on the end of anything from Vokes. Was this to counter the loss of Josh? Wheeler and Potts doesn’t work for me. It seems messy.
As a whole the team looked a nervous mess in the first half and reminded me, as others have said, of the final days of Smith.
This is now a relegation battle. The owners are committed to the battle and the manager. The damage of relegation will be staggering. The fans are already turning their backs on the club reflected in the attendances. Had 2 spare tickets today and couldn’t give them away. We are where we are. Matt has got us where we are and I hope in a decade he will be recounting how out of his depth he was in his first season like Gaz did. I hope he isn’t telling this story on the eve of our game with Thame though.
If Bobby C is running the club as sustainably as he preached then relegation won't hurt us, will it? Will it...?
Pre-season friendly mode? Bloomfield said we were too fired up 😂😂.
And in any event surely the correct answer when Wolverhampton Wanderers’ Pathways Manager (whatever that is) suggests that he can join Wycombe on loan if we’ll play him almost every week is to tell him that he’ll get a game if he’s good enough otherwise we’ll go and find someone else.
Anything less than that is completely unfair on our own players with terrible consequences for dressing room spirit. It’s also unfair on the club’s supporters who would like to think Wycombe are going out on a Saturday afternoon to win rather than to improve other clubs’ players.
I wonder what effect loan players have in terms of actually giving a shit if the team gets promoted or relegated? Likewise players in the last year of their professional careers. Do they have any passion or is it just a matter of turning up and trying to get something on the highlights reel?
I have no idea but when Kone comes on and repeatedly puts the ball in the net is it just natural talent or somebody who thinks that we are his home for the forseeable future and is playing for the club?
Just a late night post-match theory but when people are wondering why the team turned up in their pyjamas today maybe it's natural when you have no long term interest in the club. If it turns out Fleetwood are mostly loan players then that's my theory fucked!
Yeah that’s a mental thing to say. We were so far off the pace it was laughable.
I said that if by March the team were playing a coherent style of football with commitment and we were looking safe then that would be a good enough season for Blooms.
We’re a month from then, we are incoherent, looked completely uncommitted for the first half and look very unsafe. I’m in the he should, very sadly, go camp now.
He is, of course, going nowhere. I think Rob C telling us all that sending Matt to manage another club with the promise that he’d be invited back when Gaz went was said to make himself look like a great man manager and talent spotter. When things hadn’t taken off like Rob imagined, he doubled down with the extension and I don’t think he can afford to pay him off. Even if he could I don’t think Rob is the guy to say he got something wrong.
I fear for us now.
Why March?
The Ides
Two reasons. One being that March is close enough to the end of the season that looking safe means almost certainly safe. I never thought this was a promotion season, nor did I think a relegation battle was on the cards.
The second. I was hoping we’d work through the culture change and have the bones of a new one in place. I thought around year to do that seemed about right after the departure of such a long serving and unique management team.
I was wrong.
My biggest concern is next season, not this one. I dare say I think we will stay up, but next season looks worrying with all the loans going back and many of our players verging on "past it" or not worthy of new contracts.