No.33 your time is up....

[Southend Elvis]

My whole point is game time, you seem to be intent on disproving my question about clubs doing deals on exactly what I said, are some of you lawyers, would one of our fringe players get the amount game time that some of the loanees get

 

[Jam_Man]

My whole point is game time, you seem to be intent on disproving my question about clubs doing deals on exactly what I said, are some of you lawyers, would one of our fringe players get the amount game time that some of the loanees get

You whole point was he has to start, he obviously doesnt. So now he has to 'play at some point'.

Thompson isnt getting any game time. Your excuse is because this is because he is Championship and not Premiership. Why does that make any difference?

There may well be times when clubs insist on players playing but that clearly isnt the case in either of our loans. Woodrow will certainly get game time every match because thats how it works. You very rarely have two strikers last a full game so we are always going to put a sub on. What frginee player are you suggesting should play more than Woodrow? Reid ? I dont think anyone would put him on instead of Woodrow.

Some of you seem to doubt any secret clauses exist whether the bloke must have pitch time in every game.

He has featured in every game,
He must be on a decent wage at Fulham which Southend are unable to contribute toward,
Fulham want him to have 1st team experience that is a given,

Most of us do not care if he plays or is on the bench or even slices the oranges at half time,Would it not be wiser if the doubters thought "yeah maybe Phil has to play him"?,regardless of what the manager has stated in public.

Wouldnt it be wiser to think maybe as strikers get subbed EVERY game he is the best option to put on rather than believe in conspiracies that are not only being denied are shown to be wrong.

 

[Southend Elvis]

Difference could be 2k per week compared to possibly 10k that might change things, or do you think prem strikers get by on 500 pound per week?

 

[OldBlueLady]

Quite simple to me, wouldn't you rather have Woodrow on as sub than Reid???!!!

 

[Jam_Man]

Difference could be 2k per week compared to possibly 10k that might change things, or do you think prem strikers get by on 500 pound per week?

Doesnt matter how much he earns at the club, we would never agree to pay his wages in full. Even when Premiership players go to other Pemiership players the loaning club often pays part of the wages.

 

[Jam_Man]

Quite simple to me, wouldn't you rather have Woodrow on as sub than Reid???!!!

Exactly, even if there was a clause saying he had to come on as a sub then thats fine in my book, we will always bring someone on and he is the best option we have.

 

[mrsblue]

Quite simple to me, wouldn't you rather have Woodrow on as sub than Reid???!!!

With 20 left on the clock and leading 1 0 would it have been wiser to bolster the midfield instead of trying to increase the lead?

 

[Jam_Man]

With 20 left on the clock and leading 1 0 would it have been wiser to bolster the midfield instead of trying to increase the lead?

Not for me, maybe if you are two up you can the try to close the game off, but not with a one goal lead.

Trying to sit on a one nil lead would have annoyed most people as well, and if we had done so and conceded then Brown would have got absolutlely slaughtered for being too defensive.

After all it was a set piece that cost us not the midfield being overrun.

 

[Southend Elvis]

Who was it who gave away the free kick for their goal?

 

[Jam_Man]

Who was it who gave away the free kick for their goal?

Havent seen it so assume it was Woodrow, in which case, really ? Is that what you are having to resort to ? :hilarious:

Youve gone from an unfounded complaint about the loan system to some sort of vendetta against Woodrow now. Wow he made a mistake, whats that got to do with the point of this thread?

If you dont like Woodrow and dont think he should play then thats fine, we all have our opinions about players. Lets not confuse that with what this thread is about, us having to play him due to contractual issues.

 

[chapperzUK]

Who was it who gave away the free kick for their goal?

According to BBC commentary it was Woodrow, so he gives away a freekick therefore he must have a clause in his loan agreement saying he must play?

 

[Southend Elvis]

No not against him, but if one of our own Players didn't produce he wouldn't play. Why can't we have a loan that improve's us not hinder us. You don't believe deals are done I do, I'm only trying to back up what I'm saying.

 

[South Bank Hank]

According to BBC commentary it was Woodrow, so he gives away a freekick therefore he must have a clause in his loan agreement saying he must play?

Ben Coker's contract must be REALLY interesting!

:smile:

Perhaps he's misreading the 'bonus for goals and assists' clause?

 

[Jam_Man]

No not against him, but if one of our own Players didn't produce he wouldn't play. Why can't we have a loan that improve's us not hinder us. You don't believe deals are done I do, I'm only trying to back up what I'm saying.

Woodrow is better than Reid, so he improves us.

I also dont deny that some loan deals are done with specific expectations, but its clearly not the case here.

Your whole point was that him starting was hindering Corr. Fair enough I certainly agree with that, I felt the same (despite not believing it was due to a clause).

However him "having to start" has now been blown out of the water and for some reason you are still sticking with it. As Ive said numerous times, every single game a striker will get subbed to bring on fresh legs and it was always going to happen on Saturday. So therefore either Woodrow or Reid were going to get on the pitch at some point, would you really want Reid on instead of Woodrow?

Would you rather Woodrow was just sent back as it appears you dont think he even warrants being on the pitch?

 

[mrsblue]

Not for me, maybe if you are two up you can the try to close the game off, but not with a one goal lead.

Trying to sit on a one nil lead would have annoyed most people as well, and if we had done so and conceded then Brown would have got absolutlely slaughtered for being too defensive.

After all it was a set piece that cost us not the midfield being overrun.

Sending on an 18 year old kid who has zero league experience with the team leading 1 0 was a gamble or Phil had to send him on,The conceding of the free kick was by an 18 year old inexperienced kid committing the foul ,No I am not knit picking because at this level can this club gamble on points won or lost by inexperience.

 

[Jam_Man]

Sending on an 18 year old kid who has zero league experience with the team leading 1 0 was a gamble or Phil had to send him on,The conceding of the free kick was by an 18 year old inexperienced kid committing the foul ,No I am not knit picking because at this level can this club gamble on points won or lost by inexperience.

Any substitution is a gamble, we based our whole season on an 18 year old last year. If he cant be brought on out of choice what is the point in having a loan in the first place?

If having an inexperienced kid is that much of an issue what on earth is Bentley allowed to be in goal for?!

Focusing on the foul is as nit picking as you can get. Completely ignores the fact we had 10 men so he was probably forced to defend more than he should be, and the fact we didn't defend the set piece.

 

[mrsblue]

Any substitution is a gamble, we based our whole season on an 18 year old last year. If he cant be brought on out of choice what is the point in having a loan in the first place?

If having an inexperienced kid is that much of an issue what on earth is Bentley allowed to be in goal for?!

Focusing on the foul is as nit picking as you can get. Completely ignores the fact we had 10 men so he was probably forced to defend more than he should be, and the fact we didn't defend the set piece.

Inexperienced outfield players can either be a instant star or a hindrance,Having seen the kid play twice IMO he is out of his depth at this stage of his career and playing against bruising league 2 defenders will erase his confidence.

Maybe Fulham are actually paying us ?

 

[Jam_Man]

Inexperienced outfield players can either be a instant star or a hindrance,Having seen the kid play twice IMO he is out of his depth at this stage of his career and playing against bruising league 2 defenders will erase his confidence.

Maybe Fulham are actually paying us ?

He looked fine when I've seen him, the only issue I had was he was too like Freddy and we missed Corr. I have no problem with people questioning whether he is good enough, its the claims we have to play him that make no sense.

As to make him out as a liability when Coker has cost us a point vs Scunthorpe and got send off and contributed to us losing 2 more against Bury is a bit harsh.

 

[Southend Elvis]

Starting or coming on for 20 mins is difficult to take if you have to, I want us to win games as you do, but if we are hampered by agreements that cost us I would rather those agreements not happen. Can you see us wanting the lad for a further month, well going by how much time he's had on the pitch should indicate that brown likes him, and we will get him for another, but shouldn't think that'll happen?

 

[Jam_Man]

Starting or coming on for 20 mins is difficult to take if you have to, I want us to win games as you do, but if we are hampered by agreements that cost us I would rather those agreements not happen. Can you see us wanting the lad for a further month, well going by how much time he's had on the pitch should indicate that brown likes him, and we will get him for another, but shouldn't think that'll happen?

Do you not accept that a striker will always be subbed so we were always going to make a change?

If so do you think Reid should have been used instead?

Im sure when his loan comes to an end we will evaluate whether we want him, the fact he has been dropped to the bench wouldnt indicate we would be desperate to extend it though.

You seem to be reading into everything to fit into your theory. If we dont extend it you will no doubt say oh but he was playing and we obviously didnt want him so we must have been forced to, well that makes no sense as if we really dont want him here we would send him back now.