exit2 Posted 18 September, 2008 Share Posted 18 September, 2008 Why oh Why! I know he scored a great goal last night but he should not be at left back. He got skinned loads of times last night and looked out of his depth. I would much prefer Rudi there and push up Surman to midfield. I heard last night that one of the reasons Skacel isnt playing is because of his appearance money being to much? His wages are believed to be £12k but his match fees etc are approx £4k? I dont know if true but if it is this surely has to be addressed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr X Posted 18 September, 2008 Share Posted 18 September, 2008 Why oh Why! I know he scored a great goal last night but he should not be at left back. He got skinned loads of times last night and looked out of his depth. I would much prefer Rudi there and push up Surman to midfield. I heard last night that one of the reasons Skacel isnt playing is because of his appearance money being to much? His wages are believed to be £12k but his match fees etc are approx £4k? I dont know if true but if it is this surely has to be addressed? Agree 1000% we are not playing surman in his best position, skacel is way over-rated but I would play him if he wasn't on the supposed appearance bonus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 18 September, 2008 Share Posted 18 September, 2008 Trouble is both our full backs are not great defensivly and having 2 attacking winger type players in front of them is leaving them exposed. We will always be bombarded with crosses when set up like this and as we know from last season we dont deal with crosses and corners very well at all!!! Would 3 at the back work? With Drew and James moving a bit futher forward and wooton in the middle? ---------------KD--------------- --------Cork--Perry--Killer------- James------Wooton------Surman Dyer--------Morgan-------Lallana ----------McGoldrick------------ Formation is proably not right but it might stem the flow in the midfield a bit which means less crosses. Morgan is good enough to spread the ball to DM, Dyer and Lallana anywhere up front so we would still have the attacking option and the overlap from Drew and James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Shango Posted 18 September, 2008 Share Posted 18 September, 2008 Surman should be left back in the dressing room Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 18 September, 2008 Share Posted 18 September, 2008 Surman should be left back in the dressing room What a shame Saints have the negativity of "supporters" like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 18 September, 2008 Share Posted 18 September, 2008 Problem is that it is a double-edged sword. By not bringing in a proper LB (or RB for that matter) we have been left using a MF as an emergency LB. On top of that Drew is one of our best MF options but we have lost that. We need Drew in MF, probably in preference to Gillett, and a proper LB. personally I think Rudi is a better LB anyway. This nonsense about his appearance money should be addressed. After all, even he must see that he is not playing therefore not earning any appearance money, so renegotiate the contract to get less app money and he might actually get played. Surely Lord Lowe is supposed to be good at this sort of financial stuff, so Lowe, get your finger out and get the job done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BotleySaint Posted 18 September, 2008 Share Posted 18 September, 2008 I presume Vignal is just kicking his heels back at Lens? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%A9gory_Vignal We ought to get him back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 18 September, 2008 Share Posted 18 September, 2008 This nonsense about his appearance money should be addressed. After all, even he must see that he is not playing therefore not earning any appearance money, so renegotiate the contract to get less app money and he might actually get played. Surely Lord Lowe is supposed to be good at this sort of financial stuff, so Lowe, get your finger out and get the job done. I would imagine any such conversation would go as follows: RL: "Mr Agent, we'd like to renegotiate Rudi's contract so we can afford to actually play him. We would like to remove the appearance bonus." Mr Agent: :lol: While I'd love to think that Rudi's the sort of bloke who'd rather be playing if it meant taking a small hit in the pocket, something tells me he (and particularly his agent) is probably not like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 18 September, 2008 Share Posted 18 September, 2008 Completely wasted at LB and a liability there as well due to lack of pace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 18 September, 2008 Share Posted 18 September, 2008 As for who should be playing left-back, I would like to see a "proper" left-back. Both Surman and Skacel are makeshift full-backs at best. Looking at the Premier League squads, there are quite a few defenders who are not playing for their clubs at the moment and might be available for loan: Arsenal: Gavin Hoyte (hopefully not as rubbish as his older brother!) Aston Villa: Stephen O'Halloran (been there, done that, realised he was crap) Blackburn: Tony Kane Bolton: Jaroslaw Fojut Chelsea: Wayne Bridge Fulham: Frederik Stoor, Chris Baird Hull: Matt Plummer, Liam Cooper Man City: Shaleum Logan, Sam Williamson, Ryan McGivern Man United: David Gray Middlesbrough: Seb Hines, Rhys Williams Newcastle: Ben Tozer Skates: Richard Duffy, Djimi Traore, Mark Wilson Stoke: Dominic Matteo, Ritchie de Laet, Lewis Buxton Sunderland: Michael Kay, Peter Hartley, Jean-Yves Mvoto Tottenham: Dorian Dervitte, Ricardo Rocha, Paul Stalteri West Brom: Pele , Neil Clement West Ham: James Tomkins, Orn Eyjolfsson, Joe Widdowson, Bondz Ngala Obviously some of those are more realistic than others, but they're all players who either haven't played at all for their clubs so far this season or who have played one game but in a weakened Carling Cup team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BotleySaint Posted 18 September, 2008 Share Posted 18 September, 2008 Obviously some of those are more realistic than others, but they're all players who either haven't played at all for their clubs so far this season or who have played one game but in a weakened Carling Cup team. Steve, please email the club with the list Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 18 September, 2008 Share Posted 18 September, 2008 I would imagine any such conversation would go as follows: RL: "Mr Agent, we'd like to renegotiate Rudi's contract so we can afford to actually play him. We would like to remove the appearance bonus." Mr Agent: :lol: While I'd love to think that Rudi's the sort of bloke who'd rather be playing if it meant taking a small hit in the pocket, something tells me he (and particularly his agent) is probably not like that. Depends, if he is intelligent eough to realise that he would actually earn more by taking a cut in the appearance money (I never suggested no appearance money at all) then it would make sense all round. If on the other hand he is content to earn less money than he could then he must be more stupid than I thought. Conversation could go like this: RL: "Mr Scumbag (sorry I mean Mr Agent") would your player like to earn more money than he currently is?" Agent: "Mr Scumbag (sorry I mean Mr Lowe), of course my money-grabbing football mercenary would, thats what its all about these days" RL: "Good, then sign here to agree that appearance money is reduced by 50% and your man will be in the team on Saturday. I will square that with our Head Coach as I am also Director of Football. I will also inform the poodle Football Club Chairman next time he is over from Jersey". Agent: "Right sir, you are so gracious your Lordship" By the way has he signed yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 18 September, 2008 Share Posted 18 September, 2008 As for who should be playing left-back, I would like to see a "proper" left-back. Both Surman and Skacel are makeshift full-backs at best. Looking at the Premier League squads, there are quite a few defenders who are not playing for their clubs at the moment and might be available for loan: Arsenal: Gavin Hoyte (hopefully not as rubbish as his older brother!) Aston Villa: Stephen O'Halloran (been there, done that, realised he was crap) Blackburn: Tony Kane Bolton: Jaroslaw Fojut Chelsea: Wayne Bridge Fulham: Frederik Stoor, Chris Baird Hull: Matt Plummer, Liam Cooper Man City: Shaleum Logan, Sam Williamson, Ryan McGivern Man United: David Gray Middlesbrough: Seb Hines, Rhys Williams Newcastle: Ben Tozer Skates: Richard Duffy, Djimi Traore, Mark Wilson Stoke: Dominic Matteo, Ritchie de Laet, Lewis Buxton Sunderland: Michael Kay, Peter Hartley, Jean-Yves Mvoto Tottenham: Dorian Dervitte, Ricardo Rocha, Paul Stalteri West Brom: Pele , Neil Clement West Ham: James Tomkins, Orn Eyjolfsson, Joe Widdowson, Bondz Ngala Obviously some of those are more realistic than others, but they're all players who either haven't played at all for their clubs so far this season or who have played one game but in a weakened Carling Cup team. Vignal was and probably still is available, we don't need any of the premiership mercenaries, we had a perfectly good LB last season (at least he came good at the end after a mixed start). He would also have some Frenchy mates these days with Spiderman and Gosmi (or whatever his name is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 18 September, 2008 Share Posted 18 September, 2008 Depends, if he is intelligent eough to realise that he would actually earn more by taking a cut in the appearance money (I never suggested no appearance money at all) then it would make sense all round. If on the other hand he is content to earn less money than he could then he must be more stupid than I thought. Conversation could go like this: RL: "Mr Scumbag (sorry I mean Mr Agent") would your player like to earn more money than he currently is?" Agent: "Mr Scumbag (sorry I mean Mr Lowe), of course my money-grabbing football mercenary would, thats what its all about these days" RL: "Good, then sign here to agree that appearance money is reduced by 50% and your man will be in the team on Saturday. I will square that with our Head Coach as I am also Director of Football. I will also inform the poodle Football Club Chairman next time he is over from Jersey". Agent: "Right sir, you are so gracious your Lordship" By the way has he signed yet? Fair point. One way of getting around the issue would be to have a performance-related deferral agreement. We've seen in the past that Lowe is decent at contingency planning (re 50% wage reduction on relegation clauses), so perhaps they could draw up an agreement whereby Rudi's appearance fee is deferred until the end of the season. If we sell him for a set fee (or more) either in January or next summer, he gets all that deferred money from the transfer fee. If the company finances recover to the extent that we can afford to pay that money (25 games at £4k per game is £100k, so it would be a tough one to justify) at the end of the season if we don't sell him (based on an agreed reduction of company debt), he also gets the money - or a percentage of it, depending on how well/badly the finances recover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 18 September, 2008 Share Posted 18 September, 2008 Vignal was and probably still is available, we don't need any of the premiership mercenaries, we had a perfectly good LB last season (at least he came good at the end after a mixed start). He would also have some Frenchy mates these days with Spiderman and Gosmi (or whatever his name is). He's certainly an option, but I was under the impression that his salary was quite high. If he was prepared to take a pay cut to join us, I'd be more than happy to see him back here. As you rightly say, after a sticky start he was playing pretty well towards the end of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint_ed Posted 18 September, 2008 Share Posted 18 September, 2008 Surman should be left back in the dressing room Shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 18 September, 2008 Share Posted 18 September, 2008 I think the team management, do not want the team spirit damaged by unhappy players. I understand Surman plays at left back because he realises there aren't many options for that position. Prefers midfield but doing it for the club. He is doing his best and unproductive moaning won't change things. I think it would be better to forget about Skacel altogether, until the club indicate they are going to include him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 18 September, 2008 Share Posted 18 September, 2008 unfortunately Surman has been a weakness at LB. I thought he would do better and was worth a go but accept those who stated his lack of either pace or strength would be a problem were probably right. JP has said that he is only covering there, out of position and it won't be all season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 18 September, 2008 Share Posted 18 September, 2008 Skacel's injured though, isn't he? I agree it would be nice to have some full-backs though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 18 September, 2008 Share Posted 18 September, 2008 Skacel's injured though, isn't he? I agree it would be nice to have some full-backs though. No, he's not injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 18 September, 2008 Share Posted 18 September, 2008 No, he's not injured. Oh - ok, cheers. Has he signed yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Posted 18 September, 2008 Share Posted 18 September, 2008 Agree with the need for specialist FBs, and that Surman, good player that he is, playing as a midfielder without a LB behind him is not the answer. But there is no transfer window open until January and only emergency loans are possible now, so we have what we have for the next 3 months at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Shango Posted 18 September, 2008 Share Posted 18 September, 2008 Shut up. Why? tw*t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Shango Posted 18 September, 2008 Share Posted 18 September, 2008 What a shame Saints have the negativity of "supporters" like you. Not my fault Surman isn't very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now