Confirmed Transfer Danns to Huddersfield - Loan until end of season

Log in to stop seeing adverts

Status
Not open for further replies.
M17TT C said:
Its's fairly obvious that both have been moved on, rightly or wrongly, for personal reasons rather than professional. If you can't come to that conclusion without being spoon-fed everything then you're a moron.

This isn't me crying or wanking about the situation before it gets taken to one extreme or another, but purely an observation.
Click to expand...
I'm a moron!
 
I don't think it is worth agonising over Danns and Beckford. They were not significant enough players, Beckford arguably has been woeful most of time. But even if we argue over that point, better replacements are in the team and on the bench.

Incidentally in terms of whether 'personal' factors have come into Pearson's decision to drop or move any players... has anybody stopped to consider if sometimes these can be legitimate reasons for for doing so? 'Personal reasons' isn't always blind prejudice or bullying (those are obviously unacceptable personal reasons). Players who ar bad influences in the dressing room or bad influences off the field can be very bad for a team. If someone undermines the manager in the dressing room during team talks, or doesn't listen to advice or instructions, or if someone is out boozing and gambling too much or doing drugs off the field - these are legitimate reasons to drop a player and depending on the extent of these issues, to move them out as quickly as possible.

We don't know what personal issues Pearson has with these two players (if any) but even if none of the above factors are present, I think on performance terms and value for money, there are very sound reasons for getting rid of those two. Hazzman has given an excellent view on how Danns is a player who is not as good as some people think he is, whilst with Beckford it is even easier to make this case in my opinion. In my view the return on investment for Beckford has not been good enough. If I were manager any player who took a big slice of my transfer budget and a very big slice of my wages budget would have to be performing as one of the best players week in week out. Beckford has been one of the worst performing players week in week out with the odd good game here and there. That's not good enough; the return on investment has not been in evidence. Beckford will have to ply his trade elsewhere.
Moreover if any of the 'personal reasons' mentioned above are at play, they have to go. But the case for moving them on in playing terms alone seems well justified in my view.
 
Last edited:
consty said:
I don't think it is worth agonising over Danns and Beckford. They were not significant enough players, Beckford arguably has been woeful most of time. But even if we argue over that point, better replacements are in the team and on the bench.

Incidentally in terms of whether 'personal' factors have come into Pearson's decision to drop or move any players... has anybody stopped to consider if sometimes these can be legitimate reasons for for doing so? 'Personal reasons' isn't always blind prejudice or bullying (those are obviously unacceptable personal reasons). Players who ar bad influences in the dressing room or bad influences off the field can be very bad for a team. If someone undermines the manager in the dressing room during team talks, or doesn't listen to advice or instructions, or if someone is out boozing and gambling too much or doing drugs off the field - these are legitimate reasons to drop a player and depending on the extent of these issues, to move them out as quickly as possible.

We don't know what personal issues Pearson has with these two players (if any) but even if none of the above factors are present, I think on performance terms and value for money, there are very sound reasons for getting rid of those two. Hazzman has given an excellent view on how Danns is a player who is not as good as some people think he is, whilst with Beckford it is even easier to make this case in my opinion. In my view the return on investment for Beckford has not been good enough. If I were manager any player who took a big slice of my transfer budget and a very big slice of my wages budget would have to be performing as one of the best players week in week out. Beckford has been one of the worst performing players week in week out with the odd good game here and there. That's not good enough; the return on investment has not been in evidence. Beckford will have to ply his trade elsewhere.
Moreover if any of the 'personal reasons' mentioned above are at play, they have to go. But the case for moving them on in playing terms alone seems well justified in my view.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that if someone signs for free, they should be in the team however poor they may be because it's a realistic return on investment?

I don't think decisions should be made on this basis. Whether Beckford proved to be worth the money or not, he was still much better than our alternatives at the time and should have been given more of a chance in my opinion. Now though it seems the problem has been solved with the signing of Wood.
 
The comment regarding personal reasons is what I think, however, the idiot part was tongue in cheek as I though that was the latest in-joke.

Anyway it's all been and gone now so was just stating my opinion and none of this would have happened had we never sold Matty Fryatt and in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Durham Fox said:
He wasnt mystified when pressed on twitter for the reason why he wasnt in the side. He simply said that some things could not be discussed and had to remain private.
Click to expand...

In fairness he's not likely to say "other than 5 or 6 average performances in games I was a pretty shite player for Leicester"
 
fitz said:
In fairness he's not likely to say "other than 5 or 6 average performances in games I was a pretty shite player for Leicester"
Click to expand...

His statement then clearly indicated that he was aware of the reason he wasn't being selected. He now says hes 'mystified'
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Log in to stop seeing adverts

P Pld Pts
1Liverpool1128
2Manchester C  1123
3Chelsea1119
4Arsenal1119
5Nottm F1119
6Brighton1119
7Fulham1118
8Newcastle1118
9Aston Villa1118
10Tottenham 1116
11Brentford1116
12Bournemouth1115
13Manchester U1115
14West Ham1112
15Leicester1110
16Everton1110
17Ipswich118
18Palace117
19Wolves116
20Southampton114

Latest posts

Back
Top