• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

January transfer window

Forums New posts
Wonder if, with 10 days to go we will splash a bit of the alleged fairly recent £1.8m income to bring in a few. Following the Peterborough model, have we got a) the will and b) the skill, to invest in 3 for an outlay of say. £250,000 it might not guarantee promotion but I note the Posh made £13.5m in sales ( 4 players costing only £370.000 contributing) and such success would virtually wipe out our total debt. Now would I swop that for just missing out on going up this time round? Or will it be the usual freebies approach?
 
I'm favouring the latter and using the profit from the sales to go towards making us a solvent club.

Particularly as we appear to be above Peterborough in the league, so their plan hasn't guaranteed much success on the field.
 
AndyT said:
I'm favouring the latter and using the profit from the sales to go towards making us a solvent club.

Particularly as we appear to be above Peterborough in the league, so their plan hasn't guaranteed much success on the field.
Click to expand...

Now that would be nice and a huge ask. I think we would need considerably more dosh to even scratch the surface. Maybe appearance payments will help make up the difference.:nope:
 
Taters123 said:
any further news on who the other players are apart from Nouble? Is there any progress being
made?
Click to expand...

The latest I heard is that it is down to 2. We were looking at a loan but no one above is loaning out at the moment. Or certainly not anyone who could improve on what we have.

By the way, Ranger is not finished yet. Depends what the FA come up with.
 
Barry.C said:
Wonder if, with 10 days to go we will splash a bit of the alleged fairly recent £1.8m income to bring in a few. Following the Peterborough model, have we got a) the will and b) the skill, to invest in 3 for an outlay of say. £250,000 it might not guarantee promotion but I note the Posh made £13.5m in sales ( 4 players costing only £370.000 contributing) and such success would virtually wipe out our total debt. Now would I swop that for just missing out on going up this time round? Or will it be the usual freebies approach?
Click to expand...

Probably best to stick with the system that has been working well for us in the last few seasons.......The Southend United way
 
rigsby said:
The latest I heard is that it is down to 2. We were looking at a loan but no one above is loaning out at the moment. Or certainly not anyone who could improve on what we have.

By the way, Ranger is not finished yet. Depends what the FA come up with.
Click to expand...

Loan for a defender I guess? Do you know if there is interest from the 2 players to join ??
 
Barry.C said:
Wonder if, with 10 days to go we will splash a bit of the alleged fairly recent £1.8m income to bring in a few. Following the Peterborough model, have we got a) the will and b) the skill, to invest in 3 for an outlay of say. £250,000 it might not guarantee promotion but I note the Posh made £13.5m in sales ( 4 players costing only £370.000 contributing) and such success would virtually wipe out our total debt. Now would I swop that for just missing out on going up this time round? Or will it be the usual freebies approach?
Click to expand...

At the beginning of the season you were advocating the Gillingham model and buying players in early. Well that does not seem to have worked for them. And now you want us to adopt the Peterborough model who despite their far greater superior spending power are below us in the league.

Here's a thought as we are Southend United why don't we continue with the Southend model. There is always room for improvement but it seems to be working. If looking for ways to improve I would be inclined to look up the league rather than down it
 
Feathers said:
At the beginning of the season you were advocating the Gillingham model and buying players in early. Well that does not seem to have worked for them. And now you want us to adopt the Peterborough model who despite their far greater superior spending power are below us in the league.

Here's a thought as we are Southend United why don't we continue with the Southend model. There is always room for improvement but it seems to be working. If looking for ways to improve I would be inclined to look up the league rather than down it
Click to expand...

Regardless of the model other teams choose it would, in my opinion, always be better if we brought players in earlier rather than later. Players should have long identified as per the want list. Ok some players become available without a lot of prior notice but generally we should, and probably do, have a list of who we want and when. For me it is all about the players having the maximum time getting to know each and to hit the ground running as the season starts.

Gillingham may be struggling but is it the model or the particular recruits that have failed? As for Peterborough, well, they may not at this moment be high fliers but they have a solid financial state that allows them to push on, maybe this season, but most likely in the future. Solvency is more important than success.
 
I would prefer that money goes towards wages and some put aside for PB to use next season,in a push for promotion,be nice to figure in the playoffs this season ,but i really dont think promotion at this time would be a great thing for the club,we have consolidated both seasons in league 1 ,that s great ,asfrom next season i think we should push for playoffs or promotion., or both ,Wembley would be great again.
 
I'm pushing on a bit in terms of years so I would prefer the money to be spent in either providing a nice seat cushion and a blanket to those who want it ........... or restoring the old paddocks so that we can stand and shuffle around to keep warm.

Thanks.
 
Indeed, they need to continue the development of the under-seat heating currently available in the East Bank, so that the entire ground can enjoy it, except the away end, where they will be given benches to sit on!
 
onceknownasrab said:
Regardless of the model other teams choose it would, in my opinion, always be better if we brought players in earlier rather than later. Players should have long identified as per the want list. Ok some players become available without a lot of prior notice but generally we should, and probably do, have a list of who we want and when. For me it is all about the players having the maximum time getting to know each and to hit the ground running as the season starts.

Gillingham may be struggling but is it the model or the particular recruits that have failed? As for Peterborough, well, they may not at this moment be high fliers but they have a solid financial state that allows them to push on, maybe this season, but most likely in the future. Solvency is more important than success.
Click to expand...

I agree that it is preferable to get players in earlier than later. It is also important to keep player turnover as low as possible We did have early targets (eg Novak) but were unsuccessful in getting them in. Demetriou and McGlashen were both signed in June and Simon Cox was signed on 16th July so not that late.

My feeling with Gillingham (and some other clubs) was that whilst they did get players in they went for quantity rather than quality. Our signings this season have all been good and we have benefited from holding out to get the right player rather than just getting bodies in.

I also agree that solvency is more important than success and for that reason we will never be able to pay the transfers that Peterborough do.
 
Feathers said:
I agree that it is preferable to get players in earlier than later. It is also important to keep player turnover as low as possible We did have early targets (eg Novak) but were unsuccessful in getting them in. Demetriou and McGlashen were both signed in June and Simon Cox was signed on 16th July so not that late.

My feeling with Gillingham (and some other clubs) was that whilst they did get players in they went for quantity rather than quality. Our signings this season have all been good and we have benefited from holding out to get the right player rather than just getting bodies in.

I also agree that solvency is more important than success and for that reason we will never be able to pay the transfers that Peterborough do.
Click to expand...

You say Cox was not that late but it meant he was behind on pre-season - on the other hand I suspect knowing what we know now he should have been top of that target list so it was an piece of luck we didn't get Novak for example..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

.



Club News
Fixtures and Results
League Table
SUFC Ticket Stats
Shrimpers Trust
SoccerBase
SUEPA (Ex Players)
Shrimperzone on Facebook
Shrimperzone on Twitter
Shrimperzone on Instagram


ShrimperZone Sponsors

FFM MSPFX Foreign Exchange Services
Estuary MFF2
Zone Advertisers Zone Advertisers

ShrimperZone - SUFC Player Sponsorship

Southend United Away Travel


All At Sea Fanzine


Back
Top