Speculation Steve Howard leaves

[Jeff]

If there aren't many takers for Vassell why offer big wages?

Who said there won't be many takers?

 

[Matt_B]

You're quite an angry person sometimes arent you? :icon_lol:

He's played Football Manager, it's how they roll on there.

 

[gregs_y2k]

You're quite an angry person sometimes arent you? :icon_lol:

How does that make me angry? apart from the words ridiculous comment, which for this forum I think is very mild, there's nothing there that's abusive or angry.

 

[gregs_y2k]

Who said there won't be many takers?

I think there will be plenty of takers, most clubs won't offer him a deal up front because of his injury but I'm sure he'll be offered plenty of trials.

 

[Biffa Bacon]

Who said there won't be many takers?

He's 32 and spent the last 6 months injured, he was hardly playing for a Turkish team when we signed him. I can't see loads of clubs offering him big money but if he's too expensive we move on, I personally don't think he'll get a big contract anywhere.

 

[Cate Fox]

How does that make me angry? apart from the words ridiculous comment, which for this forum I think is very mild, there's nothing there that's abusive or angry.

ok... I didnt call you abusive; I wont comment again :icon_roll

 

[Matt_B]

I think there will be plenty of takers, most clubs won't offer him a deal up front because of his injury but I'm sure he'll be offered plenty of trials.

Will they be able to judge him though in trials? Surely it's not competitive enough to really get to grips with what he can do?

 

[The Major]

He's 32 and spent the last 6 months injured, he was hardly playing for a Turkish team when we signed him.

You're making a really good argument for keeping him on.

I always preferred him when he was played as a striker, never really impressed me on the wing.

 

[gregs_y2k]

Will they be able to judge him though in trials? Surely it's not competitive enough to really get to grips with what he can do?

I was waiting for that comment.

It's not going to be the best way to gauge it, but it's all they have available to them if they haven't got any friendlies lined up. Offering him a contract would still be a fair punt until the season kicks off and they see how he performs. We had the opportunity to gauge whether he could offer us anything and we turned it down. It's been documented that Wellens doesn't do full training any more yet he still plays in week in week out, so your argument kinda contradicts itself there because if it went on training alone he wouldn't figure at all for us.

 

[gregs_y2k]

ok... I didnt call you abusive; I wont comment again :icon_roll

I'm not having a go, I think you're taking my posts out of context that's all. I'm just saying in order for it to be an angry comment surely, I'd have to say something that suggested I was angry with Matt_B. I just said his comment was ridiculous and then proceeded to explain why I thought so. I don't particularly see that disagreeing with someone makes me angry, especially when I haven't resorted to abusive language which a lot of people on here do, which Ithink would be a reasonable marker for anger.

 

[Biffa Bacon]

You're making a really good argument for keeping him on.

I always preferred him when he was played as a striker, never really impressed me on the wing.

Like when we signed Cottee, great bit of business.

 

[Matt_B]

I was waiting for that comment.

It's not going to be the best way to gauge it, but it's all they have available to them if they haven't got any friendlies lined up. Offering him a contract would still be a fair punt until the season kicks off and they see how he performs. We had the opportunity to gauge whether he could offer us anything and we turned it down. It's been documented that Wellens doesn't do full training any more yet he still plays in week in week out, so your argument kinda contradicts itself there because if it went on training alone he wouldn't figure at all for us.

My argument is that Pearson will learn very little from him in one end of season game that he won't have seen on the training ground.

 

[gregs_y2k]

My argument is that Pearson will learn very little from him in one end of season game that he won't have seen on the training ground.

First of all there were 2 games he was on the bench for and he could have learned a lot. If there is any potential he could last 90 minutes would be the big one. Failing that, whether he can make a valuable contribution over a period of the game. If he's still got his pace, and i'm not just talking about a one off sprint but whether he can continue stopping and starting throughout a competitive game, his recovery time between games etc. There was plenty to learn. You cannot replicate competitive match conditions on a training ground, you can't even do it in friendlies. This was the best way to ascertain if he had anything to offer. If it was that clear he wasn't up to it in training, he wouldn't have made the bench in the last two games and would have been released before now. I think it was an opportunity missed to get a very good insight into these questions.

 

[Matt_B]

First of all there were 2 games he was on the bench for and he could have learned a lot. If there is any potential he could last 90 minutes would be the big one. Failing that, whether he can make a valuable contribution over a period of the game. If he's still got his pace, and i'm not just talking about a one off sprint but whether he can continue stopping and starting throughout a competitive game, his recovery time between games etc. There was plenty to learn. You cannot replicate competitive match conditions on a training ground, you can't even do it in friendlies. This was the best way to ascertain if he had anything to offer. If it was that clear he wasn't up to it in training, he wouldn't have made the bench in the last two games and would have been released before now. I think it was an opportunity missed to get a very good insight into these questions.

First, why would we release and pay off a player who is out of contract in a few months.
Secondly, who else would you put on the bench? We have no other strikers.

I really can't understand how you can think that the manager and his team of professional coaches and trainers would be unable to determine a player's fitness from the training sessions.

Finally, how would he know that Waghorn has come back from his injury in any kind of shape to be of value next season if he hadn't played him? How would he know if Waghorn and Beckford are a viable partnership for next season? If he sees Waghorn as more a part of his team than Vassell, then it makes perfect sense to try him with the other likely strike partners.

 

[FryattFox]

First, why would we release and pay off a player who is out of contract in a few months.

To save money?

If it was clear he would be available for very few games, and wasn't even going to feature anyway, then why not offer him 80% of his remaining contract.

 

[Jeff]

To save money?

If it was clear he would be available for very few games, and wasn't even going to feature anyway, then why not offer him 80% of his remaining contract.

Why would he accept that?

He couldn't go to another club until the summer anyway, and by staying he would get the training and physio facilities he needs to get fit.

 

[gregs_y2k]

First, why would we release and pay off a player who is out of contract in a few months.
Secondly, who else would you put on the bench? We have no other strikers.

I really can't understand how you can think that the manager and his team of professional coaches and trainers would be unable to determine a player's fitness from the training sessions.

Finally, how would he know that Waghorn has come back from his injury in any kind of shape to be of value next season if he hadn't played him? How would he know if Waghorn and Beckford are a viable partnership for next season? If he sees Waghorn as more a part of his team than Vassell, then it makes perfect sense to try him with the other likely strike partners.

Because you only pay up to the end of his contract, you're not losing out. It gives him the opportunity to quickly find a new employer and move on. Why waste your training resources and medical resources trying to recuperate a player if you're not going to give him ample opportunity to prove his worth.

Secondly, we had 3 'strikers' on the bench on Saturday, if he wasn't on the bench we weren't in desperate need to fill it with another striker. You do not need 5 strikers in a match day squad.

I don't doubt he sees Waghorn as more of an option, after all he took him to Hull. The fact remains that whether we like it or not Waghorn will be on our books next season. I very much doubt anyone is going to try and buy him off of us and so Pearson has all of pre season to see whether Waghorn can complement our other strikers in the friendlies. Waghorn was also absolute garbage (like the rest of the team) when he came on against West Ham, so I don't know how he merited a start at the weekend. He scored though so I can't be too critical there.

 

[Jeff]

Because you only pay up to the end of his contract, you're not losing out.

But he is.

It gives him the opportunity to quickly find a new employer and move on.

He's been able to talk to other clubs since January, but since he's been fit wouldn't have been able to play for anyone else anyway.

Why waste your training resources and medical resources trying to recuperate a player if you're not going to give him ample opportunity to prove his worth.

Are you suggesting we should have denied him the medical attention he needed because we didn't want to keep him?

 

[gregs_y2k]

But he is.




He's been able to talk to other clubs since January, but since he's been fit wouldn't have been able to play for anyone else anyway.




Are you suggesting we should have denied him the medical attention he needed because we didn't want to keep him?

Not really? I wasn't for a second suggesting that we should have ended his contract as soon as he picked up the injury, but once he had recovered he could have been released and then he could have used that opportunity to go on trial elsewhere and whilst he couldn't play competitively he could have featured in friendlies during that time. The club have kept him but it looks to me as though he does not feature in Pearson's plans for whatever reason.

I'm not suggesting at all we should have denied him treatment, I am just saying that it seems pretty stupid to fork out that money on treatment, physiotherapy etc and then not give him the chance to prove himself in the first team once the play off hopes were gone. He should have ad more of a run out to assess how his recovery has gone and whether he would be worth a contract extension, whether it be a one year deal, pay as you play etc.

Waghorn getting in front of him smells like Pearson favouritism to me.

 

[Jeff]

Not really? I wasn't for a second suggesting that we should have ended his contract as soon as he picked up the injury, but once he had recovered he could have been released and then he could have used that opportunity to go on trial elsewhere and whilst he couldn't play competitively he could have featured in friendlies during that time. The club have kept him but it looks to me as though he does not feature in Pearson's plans for whatever reason.

When did he recover from his injury?

Even a month ago he wasn't in full training.

If we'd offered to end his contract a month ago, there was only four weeks of "work" left, with the final two months of his contract being holiday. If he doesn't stay here he's got plenty of time to find another club, I don't think leaving a couple of weeks before the end of the season would have helped him.