Current Player #10 Sam Baldock

[Swaby39]

There’s still room for a ‘forward’ as Tyler Smith hasn’t been replaced.

Seddon, Taylor and Jones left in January and were replaced by Fleming, Smith and Konate. There was no overlap as January was one in, one out, so we let go of three players this summer, not six. To claim that all six just left would be to double count.

Konate has been replaced with Rodrigues. Fleming and Smith haven’t been replaced, so that’s a left back and a forward that are still missing.

Of the others who departed, Bate has been replaced with McEachran and Joseph has been replaced with Harris.

Gorrin technically hasn’t left despite his previous contract ending - he’s merely been moved to a rolling monthly deal. Until that is no longer the case there’s nobody to replace.

Beadle is technically an additional body as Stevens was already out of the building at Vale before he went to Cambridge, so until Eastwood or McGinty goes then the squad is heavier as we’ve gone from two available keepers to three.

Findlay has been replaced with Thorniley.

Anderson has been replaced with Fin Stevens.

Baldock hasn’t been replaced because he hasn’t actually left.

A few youngsters had technically already left before this summer as they’d gone on loan before their deals ended (Spasov, Davis etc) but Manning might be able to make a case to sign a better and more advanced youngster, such as Woltman, in lieu of having a development side littered with garbage like Yoav Sade.

However, the development squad being scrapped means that Mfuni is now classed as a fully fledged first teamer regardless of the size of his pay packet, and the likes of O’Donkor, Golding and Johnson are no longer youth team players regardless of whether or not they had also been appearing for the first team, and are therefore full senior pros like Mfuni, which they technically weren’t before.

Welcome to Tim’s World. I hope you like Microsoft Excel and hiding under your desk.

For my own knowledge, I assume this changes depending on chosen shape and gets a bit more tricky when moving to a new one? I.e. if Manning had gone to a back 3 this year which looks unlikely now, we’d have needed a larger/smaller budget for different positions than the season before? Or is it just a flat budget split almost like attackers, midfielders, defenders?

 

[Scotchegg]

For my own knowledge, I assume this changes depending on chosen shape and gets a bit more tricky when moving to a new one? I.e. if Manning had gone to a back 3 this year which looks unlikely now, we’d have needed a larger/smaller budget for different positions than the season before? Or is it just a flat budget split almost like attackers, midfielders, defenders?

There is no positional budget!

 

[Mad Dog]

If he is still on the pay roll and will never kick a ball for us again, surely it would be beneficial to use his vast experience to coach the youth about the correct way of hopping on and off the physio treatment table?

He'd only injure himself whilst hopping onto the table, and they wouldn't see him for months, then he'd hop off the table, injure himself, and they wouldn't see him for months, then he'd hop back on the table...

 

[RyanioBirdio]

I don't accept the premise of a "positional budget".

Do you honestly think that we'd turn down the chance to sign a quality striker because it would mean we're over a few quid in our "goal scorers" pot whilst saving £5k a week in our left back fund?

If we had three senior centre forwards or three senior right wingers and the manager wanted a fourth, the CEO would want one of the existing three to move on to make room. Budgeting is not solely about the amount of money being spent, but about the number of bodies being carried to do the same job.

 

[Scotchegg]

If we had three senior centre forwards or three senior right wingers and the manager wanted a fourth, the CEO would want one of the existing three to move on to make room. Budgeting is not solely about the amount of money being spent, but about the number of bodies being carried to do the same job.

I accept that it's about balancing the squad, and I completely agree with that. It's the concept that we have a maximum spend in any position that is wrong.

Baldock's position at the club doesn't prevent us from recruiting a centre forward, and our overall budget means that we still have very healthy funds available if the right player is available.

 

[RyanioBirdio]

I accept that it's about balancing the squad, and I completely agree with that. It's the concept that we have a maximum spend in any position that is wrong.

Correct. It’s about budget and space in certain areas aligning. We agree.

Jot down the date.

 

[Scotchegg]

Correct. It’s about budget and space in certain areas aligning. We agree.

Jot down the date.

Screenshot x

 

[RyanioBirdio]

Screenshot x

Stop it you’re going to cause an argument.

 

[mooro]

I'm confused - you started off completely disagreeing, yet now, without either of you shifting position in the slightest, you now agree

 

[holdsteady]

I'm confused - you started off completely disagreeing, yet now, without either of you shifting position in the slightest, you now agree

That’s why their marriage is so strong after all these years.

 

[RyanioBirdio]

I'm confused - you started off completely disagreeing, yet now, without either of you shifting position in the slightest, you now agree

I’ve always said that we will only have room for x amount of players in certain positions, regardless of spend and overall budget that might be remaining, which I reiterated by saying that if we already had three strikers then we wouldn’t be allowed a fourth unless one of the existing three moved on. Remaining budget becomes irrelevant in that scenario as the position is ‘full’. Whether those three players are on 12k a week between them or 20k a week between them is neither here nor there, so long as both amounts fit into the overall budget.

This tallies with what Manning recently said in the Oxford Mail, when he said that he wanted to add a player in a certain area (in reference to Watkins being on trial) but that it couldn’t happen at the expense of an existing player in the same position. Essentially: I can’t carry more than X number of players to cover one role, even if I can ‘afford’ to. A budget (space) within a budget (spend).

My husband then said that he agreed. My position has never changed.

And that’s why he’s getting a special dinner tonight.

 

[IsleofWightYellow]

I’ve always said that we will only have room for x amount of players in certain positions, regardless of spend and overall budget that might be remaining, which I reiterated by saying that if we already had three strikers then we wouldn’t be allowed a fourth unless one of the existing three moved on. Remaining budget becomes irrelevant in that scenario as the position is ‘full’. This tallies with what Manning recently said in the Oxford Mail, when he said that he wanted to add a player in a certain area (in reference to Watkins being on trial) but that it couldn’t happen at the expense of an existing player in the same position. Essentially: I can’t carry more than X number of players to cover one role, even if I can ‘afford’ to. A budget (space) within a budget (spend).

My husband then said that he agreed. My position has never changed.

And that’s why he’s getting a special dinner tonight.

TL;DR

So who was right?

 

[RyanioBirdio]

TL;DR

So who was right?

The secret to a happy relationship is to keep that answer to yourself.

 

[Chippy]

I’ve always said that we will only have room for x amount of players in certain positions, regardless of spend and overall budget that might be remaining, which I reiterated by saying that if we already had three strikers then we wouldn’t be allowed a fourth unless one of the existing three moved on. Remaining budget becomes irrelevant in that scenario as the position is ‘full’. This tallies with what Manning recently said in the Oxford Mail, when he said that he wanted to add a player in a certain area (in reference to Watkins being on trial) but that it couldn’t happen at the expense of an existing player in the same position. Essentially: I can’t carry more than X number of players to cover one role, even if I can ‘afford’ to. A budget (space) within a budget (spend).

My husband then said that he agreed. My position has never changed.

And that’s why he’s getting a special dinner tonight.

I think I can now see how KR had so many wingers and no left back. He told TW that some of the wingers were actually left backs so he could sign even more of them. TW then wouldn’t let him sign a real left back as we already had the quota. Repeat over several positions and hey presto we had a totally messed up squad!

 

[MJB]

TL;DR

So who was right?

It was me.

 

[RyanioBirdio]

I think I can now see how KR had so many wingers and no left back. He told TW that some of the wingers were actually left backs so he could sign even more of them. TW then wouldn’t let him sign a real left back as we already had the quota. Repeat over several positions and hey presto we had a totally messed up squad!

Ironically, in the one transfer window TW had overseen before this summer, we did actually sign a left back.

Basically, there will be a maximum amount of money that can be spent overall (‘The Playing Budget’) but also a maximum number of players that can be carried in each position within that. That is what a ‘Positional Budget’ is. It isn’t monetary.

But I’m going blind at this point, so I’m off to make sure that Sam hasn’t done his ACL while walking the dog.

 

[Marked Ox]

There’s still room for a ‘forward’ as Tyler Smith hasn’t been replaced.

Seddon, Taylor and Jones left in January and were replaced by Fleming, Smith and Konate. There was no overlap as January was one in, one out, so we let go of three players this summer, not six. To claim that all six just left would be to double count.

Konate has been replaced with Rodrigues. Fleming and Smith haven’t been replaced, so that’s a left back and a forward that are still missing.

Of the others who departed, Bate has been replaced with McEachran and Joseph has been replaced with Harris.

Gorrin technically hasn’t left despite his previous contract ending - he’s merely been moved to a rolling monthly deal. Until that is no longer the case there’s nobody to replace.

Beadle is technically an additional body as Stevens was already out of the building at Vale before he went to Cambridge, so until Eastwood or McGinty goes then the squad is heavier as we’ve gone from two available keepers to three.

Findlay has been replaced with Thorniley.

Anderson has been replaced with Fin Stevens.

Baldock hasn’t been replaced because he hasn’t actually left.

A few youngsters had technically already left before this summer as they’d gone on loan before their deals ended (Spasov, Davis etc) but Manning might be able to make a case to sign a better and more advanced youngster, such as Woltman, in lieu of having a development side littered with garbage like Yoav Sade.

However, the development squad being scrapped means that Mfuni is now classed as a fully fledged first teamer regardless of the size of his pay packet, and the likes of O’Donkor, Golding and Johnson are no longer youth team players regardless of whether or not they had also been appearing for the first team, and are therefore full senior pros like Mfuni, which they technically weren’t before.

Welcome to Tim’s World. I hope you like Microsoft Excel and hiding under your desk.

I have no trouble with that or including the likes of GO'D, Golding, Mfuni or Johnson as part of the first team squad. They don't count to the squad numbers so it is really a change of name for their position. The Development squad wasn't exactly busy playing games considering most players seemed to go out on loan anyway and that won't stop.

 

[Osei Yaw]

At this point it might be worth seeing if a club in Saudi Arabia want to take him on a pay as you play deal. If he can get himself the same rate as Mbappe will then he'll earn himself well over £100k. All he needs to do is replicate the 107 minutes he managed for us last season.

 

[greatunclekip]

I accept that it's about balancing the squad, and I completely agree with that. It's the concept that we have a maximum spend in any position that is wrong.

Baldock's position at the club doesn't prevent us from recruiting a centre forward, and our overall budget means that we still have very healthy funds available if the right player is available.

We've had these healthy funds since at least 2019 Scotchers. Each window we come SO close to spending them.

Have they gone up with inflation, or down with the cost of living?

 

[Scotchegg]

We've had these healthy funds since at least 2019 Scotchers. Each window we come SO close to spending them.

Have they gone up with inflation, or down with the cost of living?

The reality is that even with changes within our recruitment team, finding the right player at the right price isn't easy.

Let's look at strikers that have come in over the summer across the league.

Max Watters - previously at Barnsley.
Kyle Joseph - part of a bigger deal.
Dan Nlundulu - previously at Bolton
Jervani Brown - 1 in 5 goals per game
Cole Stockton - 1 in 4 (and only one outstanding season)
Alfie May - decent signing
Conor Washington - on his last legs
Joe Piggot - not done much for a few years
Dan Ageyi - unlikely to return, step too far?
Tyler Walker - one season with Lincoln, nothing since
Tshimanga - gamble at this level
Sam Smith - decent signing

I'm not sure that we would have wanted, or would have got many of them. And Mark Harris has the potential to be up there with many of these.

Max Watters was at Barnsley last season and Kyle Joseph was a make weight in the Jerry Yates deal so neither were on the cards. Even Cole Stockton, Alfie May and Sam Smith have split opinions, and they're the best of a pretty average bunch.

So you can have all the money in the world and the best people working night and day, but you can't magic a decent striker out of thin air.

With your extensive knowledge of football, who do you think that we should have signed by now for the elusive goal machine?