Is no signing better than a bad signing?

[Yorkshire Blue]

Everyone wants us to sign another striker, but we are having trouble signing the right man. What will be worse for the club: rushing in and making a bad signing - another Ricketts, who wasn't interested; or maybe a Paynter, who for whatever reasons didn't work out - or not making another signing this transfer window?

 

[davewebbsbrain]

Don't think Paynter was a bad signing..He was managed badly and never got a chance!!!

 

[Interpol Shrimper]

That's why I am advocating a loan!

 

[Jam_Man]

Kind of a daft question as we arent going to go out and deliberately sign a bad player.

Even Ricketts wasnt a bad signing at the time we got him, a gamble certainly but you dont have the power of hindsight when signing them.

 

[Jam_Man]

Don't think Paynter was a bad signing..He was managed badly and never got a chance!!!

He has been given a chance at Swindon and has failed to score in 19 out of 22 games.

 

[Holy Joe]

The more times you throw the dice the more likely you are to turn up a gem. If a signing is good or bad will only be evident after a period of time - so it must be better to sign someone and give it a go than make no signing and have no chance.

 

[fredheim_holm]

I'm shocked some people want a bad signing over no signing.

Maybe they are confused by way the question is worded?

 

[sufcintheprem]

Why would anyone want a bad signing? We have two fit players who title themselves as strikers so no need to panic massively. Walker should be desperate to prove himself on debut and Hooper is running out of chances to convert potential in to match-winning performances.

 

[Mr. Benedict]

What would the point be in wasting our money for the sake of signing someone we don't really want? It's better to survive on what we have if we can't get anyone better.

 

[Einstein]

He has been given a chance at Swindon and has failed to score in 19 out of 22 games.

6 goals in 15 starts is a little more accurate stat....

 

[Jam_Man]

6 goals in 15 starts is a little more accurate stat....

Its a different stat, no more accurate.

He has only scored in 3 games, a one off hatrick makes his record sound a lot better.

He hasnt scored in his last 11 appearances, hardly showing that Tilly was wrong about letting him go.

 

[cockles is back]

how do you tell if its a wrong signing??? scannell £5000 doesnt cut the mustard after 15 games etc etc etc that would nt make it a wrong signing. Signing Jamie Cureton (for example) for £500 000 and he scores 4 goals in 60 appearances wouldnt make it a 'wrong signing' would it, because lets face it you would all be creaming your knickers if that was to happen. It would be in hindsight we shouldnt have signed him, its all about timing. Signing Charlie Mcdonald as a replacement for Eastwood well its pretty obviouse for all to see that he was never going to be a replacement. However signing Charlie Mcdonald for £30 000 and trying to work his way into the team, would that be a bad signing?? would it?? Matt Harrold as a 4th place targetman brought for £30 000 would that be a bad signing?? probably not it all depends on the situation. For me at the present time and state of the squad , I find it unexceptable that we havent brought anyone in, especially after RM made it his buisness to let us know he was going to have a spend up. Obviously Tilly and Brushy arent 'Not' trying to sign players it just feking annoyes me that lesser teams and teams we should be competing with arent finding it any problem to dip into the transfer market, evan when we were really **** we still signed quality centre backs richard jobson, barry hunter what we would give to see them at the club now??????lastly james walker good signing or bad???

well £200 000 is alot of money for a player (striker) who has a pretty dull scoring record, but hes young and got bags of talent and pace etc etc so if he has been signed as the answer to our woefull foreward line, I would say thats a pretty crap signing, if however he is hear to learn and progress and turns into a pretty decent striker a couple of years down the line then we will all say what a top signing he was

 

[Jam_Man]

I'm shocked some people want a bad signing over no signing.

Maybe they are confused by way the question is worded?

The question doesnt really make it easy to answer though.

If it was "would you rather take a chance on an unproven player or nothing which would you choose?" it would make more sense.

eg Walker could be a bad buy in the long run but at the moment he sounds like a promising youngster.

 

[Jam_Man]

how do you tell if its a wrong signing??? scannell £5000 doesnt cut the mustard after 15 games etc etc etc that would nt make it a wrong signing. Signing Jamie Cureton (for example) for £500 000 and he scores 4 goals in 60 appearances wouldnt make it a 'wrong signing' would it, because lets face it you would all be creaming your knickers if that was to happen. It would be in hindsight we shouldnt have signed him, its all about timing. Signing Charlie Mcdonald as a replacement for Eastwood well its pretty obviouse for all to see that he was never going to be a replacement. However signing Charlie Mcdonald for £30 000 and trying to work his way into the team, would that be a bad signing?? would it?? Matt Harrold as a 4th place targetman brought for £30 000 would that be a bad signing?? probably not it all depends on the situation. For me at the present time and state of the squad ,

Agree with all of that.

I find it unexceptable that we havent brought anyone in, especially after RM made it his buisness to let us know he was going to have a spend up. Obviously Tilly and Brushy arent 'Not' trying to sign players it just feking annoyes me that lesser teams and teams we should be competing with arent finding it any problem to dip into the transfer market,

We have brought in walker already and as you say we are still trying to get another one in at least. Its as frustrating for them as it is us.

These lesser teams, who are they buying that we would want by the way ?

lastly james walker good signing or bad???

well £200 000 is alot of money for a player (striker) who has a pretty dull scoring record, but hes young and got bags of talent and pace etc etc so if he has been signed as the answer to our woefull foreward line, I would say thats a pretty crap signing, if however he is hear to learn and progress and turns into a pretty decent striker a couple of years down the line then we will all say what a top signing he was

Walker cant be expected to have a great scoring record he is still a young player. If he did have a good one he wouldnt have cost £200k and we wouldnt have got him.

Importantly Yeovil, his last club, rated him.

Im sure he is one we want to develop but if he was playing well for Yeovil he can hopefully do well for us immediately.

 

[Interpol Shrimper]

These lesser teams, who are they buying that we would want by the way ?

Is that not a commentary on Swindon's signings today? Hopefully doesn't cover the Andy Kirk to Yeovil move!

 

[Mr. Benedict]

Is that not a commentary on Swindon's signings today? Hopefully doesn't cover the Andy Kirk to Yeovil move!

Who have Swindon signed today then?!?

 

[Jam_Man]

A couple of Watford youngsters one of which is a striker. Dont know anything about him but he is another unproven guy recovering from a broken leg.

 

[Interpol Shrimper]

Who have Swindon signed today then?!?

Moses Ashikodi (rumoured to be a Southend target in the summer) & Anthony MacNamee

 

[Holy Joe]

Walker cant be expected to have a great scoring record he is still a young player. If he did have a good one he wouldnt have cost £200k and we wouldnt have got him.

QUOTE]

Isn't he in his 20's??? Plenty of time to get a good scoring record. On paper he seems the type of player you would've got on a free a few years ago.

The question is badly worded - I would rather we take a punt and it turns out, in hindsight, to a bad signing - than make no signing.

 

[jimmyshrimp]

Paynter is cack get over him. Please!