Transfer News and Gossip Transfer Rumours Thread 2023-24 (Part 2 - Back in Business. Oh no we’re not)

[Ricey]

I thought it was mentioned somewhere that the McCallum ship had sailed last year and not being pursued this

Chris Phillips has also said McCallum is not our top target

 

[Linda Loan Shark]

He will be 31 in July and we would probably tie him down to at least a 2 year contract. Do we really want to go back to older players? His legs might go during those 2 years and we are left with a player who used to be good on a big long contract.

 

[Danshrimper]

He will be 31 in July and we would probably tie him down to at least a 2 year contract. Do we really want to go back to older players? His legs might go during those 2 years and we are left with a player who used to be good on a big long contract.

Chesterfield’s top scorer, by a big margin, was 32 year old Will Grigg. Same goes for Bromley, with 32 year old Michael Cheek.

That’s both promoted teams, relying heavily on a 32 year old striker.

So as long as there isn’t a history of injury issues, what exactly is wrong with signing an experienced striker who scores goals? McCallum should have another 2 years in him at least.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Chesterfield’s top scorer, by a big margin, was 32 year old Will Grigg. Same goes for Bromley, with 32 year old Michael Cheek.

That’s both promoted teams, relying heavily on a 32 year old striker.

So as long as there isn’t a history of injury issues, what exactly is wrong with signing an experienced striker who scores goals? McCallum should have another 2 years in him at least.

Yeah I would agree with this, unusually.

I just think getting one of only two NL promotion spots is so hard to do that if we can have an absolute banker for 20-25 goals up front (probably more given all the chances we create) then we should absolutely go for it.

The only hesitation would be if either the player wanted wages that we shouldn’t be agreeing to (relative to our budget, or if our other players would be unhappy their wages were much lower) or if the player came with some attitude or other baggage that might disrupt a tight squad.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

On Waldron and Dackers, lots of folks are saying ‘we could do better.’ Arguably the players might be able to say the same at the moment, with us still in turmoil. However the main thing is that both players have much, much more to show.

Our coaches have proven that they can help improve players in our squad, if those players stay fit and put the work in.

If they want Dackers, then for me that means our coaching team agree with me that they can really help him push on. He’s very young, and I do think he’s going to have a decent career.

Waldron is the real deal already, he just needs a proper full time pre-season and he’s going to be a really important player for us next season.

Perhaps posters saying we can do better are thinking of more ‘proven’ players at this level? McCallum being one clearly, and Cheek another. Fair enough, but players like these (let’s call them players who have scored around 25 goals in the NL at some point in the past couple of seasons, preferably more than once) are very few in number. Outside that small group Cards, Waldron and Dackers are three of the best bets there are IMO.

 

[BoyWonder2]

Yeah I would agree with this, unusually.

I just think getting one of only two NL promotion spots is so hard to do that if we can have an absolute banker for 20-25 goals up front (probably more given all the chances we create) then we should absolutely go for it.

The only hesitation would be if either the player wanted wages that we shouldn’t be agreeing to (relative to our budget, or if our other players would be unhappy their wages were much lower) or if the player came with some attitude or other baggage that might disrupt a tight squad.

IF McCallum was to arrive, he would have to take a significant pay cut from what I’m told he is on at Eastleigh (assuming that figure is correct).

He is on big, big money (for this level) there, and part of the reason they are considering letting him go. He will not be getting the same, or more, here. No chance whatsoever.

The consortium, assuming the takeover happens as it should, WILL NOT be paying those types of figures. The days of players, on their last legs, coming here for their last payday will be LONG gone.

 

[BoyWonder2]

Chris Phillips has also said McCallum is not our top target

There is another striker who we are seriously looking into who would be considerably cheaper than McCallum.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I also think Cards could do with another season with us. If he can stay fit then he should be looking to get himself 25 goals next year.

I’m a bit concerned he’ll join the very long line of players who has a decent season then moves on only to either never be heard from again, or turn up at this level again in a season or two (initially on loan)…

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

IF McCallum was to arrive, he would have to take a significant pay cut from what I’m told he is on at Eastleigh (assuming that figure is correct).

He is on big, big money (for this level) there, and part of the reason they are considering letting him go. He will not be getting the same, or more, here. No chance whatsoever.

The consortium, assuming the takeover happens as it should, WILL NOT be paying those types of figures. The days of players, on their last legs, coming here for their last payday will be LONG gone.

All of which are good reasons to not sign him IMO. Unless…. Just thinking out loud here, but maybe a decent-ish signing on fee and a big goal bonus might work well for everyone?

 

[BoyWonder2]

All of which are good reasons to not sign him IMO. Unless…. Just thinking out loud here, but maybe a decent-ish signing on fee and a big goal bonus might work well for everyone?

I don’t think the consortium will be paying big sign on fees.

We will be a well run ship, assuming we actually manage to get out of the docks.

Budgets will be in play, and will be adhered too.

Not saying we will or won’t sign him, but he wouldn’t be getting a like for like contract at us as he is on currently (again, assuming what I’m told he is on is correct).

 

[Blues4LifeDan]

There is another striker who we are seriously looking into who would be considerably cheaper than McCallum.

Playing at this level or levels below?

 

[CorkShrimper]

Dallas could maybe still be an option, even on loan. A couple of tough spells last year but seemed keen to join previously and could be revitalised under our system.

 

[BoyWonder2]

Playing at this level of levels below?

This level.

There are plenty of names being banded about, we won’t sign them all, we might not sign any of the ones I’ve heard.

The one I’m talking about played at this level last season, and played against us too.

Names have been mentioned from levels above, and levels below too. One name that was heavily linked to us previously, would have been a loan from the top flight, but has found himself on the bench in the top flight. I imagine their plans with him have changed from a loan to a National League club unfortunately.

 

[BoyWonder2]

I don’t think the consortium will be paying big sign on fees.

We will be a well run ship, assuming we actually manage to get out of the docks.

Budgets will be in play, and will be adhered too.

Not saying we will or won’t sign him, but he wouldn’t be getting a like for like contract at us as he is on currently (again, assuming what I’m told he is on is correct).

What I will say, that won’t come as any shock to people on here is that we HAVE paid over the odds for players in the past (not under Maher it must be said).

Our name was in the gutter for a very, very long time with other Clubs, agents and players. We all know about Devonshire not wanting to sell Josh Kelly to us previously for example.

The removal of RM will open doors which have been shut for a long time. We’ve attracted certain players by offering more money, or being convenient for players as opposed to “selling the club and our future” like you would normally do. I spoke with David Lee who was given a presentation by RM when he signed about FF and the plans etc. this is what normally happens, and we convince a player to sign regardless of the figure quoted.

We’ve been shopping in a much smaller pool. We’ve basically been doing our “big shop” in a petrol station garage, but once RM is removed, we can go to any supermarket to get our shop, but we will be sticking to budgets. We might pick up a dessert from Waitrose, drinks from Aldi, meats from Asda/Tesco etc.

We won’t have to pay over the odds, we won’t be seen as a soft touch.

Obviously, if the takeover doesn’t happen, and I think it will, then this is all nonsense and pie in the sky.

Lets hope we can continue this thread, and actually bring people in and we can moan about players again like a “normal” club as opposed to the off the field nonsense that we really shouldn’t have to concern ourselves with as fans.

 

[Magnum PI]

Whilst Mcullum wasn't a big target this season I'm reliably informed that Pearce was.

Goals get you out of this division but my priority position is attacking CM. Another prolific striker would be nice though.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I don’t think either of Pearce or McCullum were good fits for our style of play.

With the exception of the disaster of Hyde, who was somewhat forced upon Maher, Maher wants mobile forwards. Look who he has signed: the pacy Cardwell; Powell, who might not be able to trap a big of cement but could run and chase; Waldron; Cosgrave on loan; Kanu on loan. The closest to an exception has been Dackers who isn’t is pacy but is incredibly mobile for a man of his size and is more of a plan B player. McCullum and Pearce wouldn’t be Plan B signings. They are players who we would need to build the team around to get the most out of.

So much about getting forwards to score is about playing to their strengths. Signing players on big wages who don’t play to your strengths is asking for trouble.

Find someone who plays the way you want to play rather than forcing square pegs into round holes. Waldron was a good fit for the way we try and play. He has the pace and the workrate to get in behind teams or down the channels, he can hold the ball up, he can finish, he’s a nuisance to play against. I think he’s a better fit for us than either McCallum or Pearce.

 

[Pak Power]

What I will say, that won’t come as any shock to people on here is that we HAVE paid over the odds for players in the past (not under Maher it must be said).

Our name was in the gutter for a very, very long time with other Clubs, agents and players. We all know about Devonshire not wanting to sell Josh Kelly to us previously for example.

The removal of RM will open doors which have been shut for a long time. We’ve attracted certain players by offering more money, or being convenient for players as opposed to “selling the club and our future” like you would normally do. I spoke with David Lee who was given a presentation by RM when he signed about FF and the plans etc. this is what normally happens, and we convince a player to sign regardless of the figure quoted.

We’ve been shopping in a much smaller pool. We’ve basically been doing our “big shop” in a petrol station garage, but once RM is removed, we can go to any supermarket to get our shop, but we will be sticking to budgets. We might pick up a dessert from Waitrose, drinks from Aldi, meats from Asda/Tesco etc.

We won’t have to pay over the odds, we won’t be seen as a soft touch.

Obviously, if the takeover doesn’t happen, and I think it will, then this is all nonsense and pie in the sky.

Lets hope we can continue this thread, and actually bring people in and we can moan about players again like a “normal” club as opposed to the off the field nonsense that we really shouldn’t have to concern ourselves with as fans.

Thanks for the info, and analogy, every little helps......

 

[fbm]

When you have a Rat who (****ing loves the club) but is tantamount to distroying us at the same time through greed, we just have to hope we do have a new season to look forward to.

Please don't misquote him Cricko.

He ****ing loves the club you idiot.

 

[Strykr]

What I will say, that won’t come as any shock to people on here is that we HAVE paid over the odds for players in the past (not under Maher it must be said).

Our name was in the gutter for a very, very long time with other Clubs, agents and players. We all know about Devonshire not wanting to sell Josh Kelly to us previously for example.

The removal of RM will open doors which have been shut for a long time. We’ve attracted certain players by offering more money, or being convenient for players as opposed to “selling the club and our future” like you would normally do. I spoke with David Lee who was given a presentation by RM when he signed about FF and the plans etc. this is what normally happens, and we convince a player to sign regardless of the figure quoted.

We’ve been shopping in a much smaller pool. We’ve basically been doing our “big shop” in a petrol station garage, but once RM is removed, we can go to any supermarket to get our shop, but we will be sticking to budgets. We might pick up a dessert from Waitrose, drinks from Aldi, meats from Asda/Tesco etc.

We won’t have to pay over the odds, we won’t be seen as a soft touch.

Obviously, if the takeover doesn’t happen, and I think it will, then this is all nonsense and pie in the sky.

Lets hope we can continue this thread, and actually bring people in and we can moan about players again like a “normal” club as opposed to the off the field nonsense that we really shouldn’t have to concern ourselves with as fans.

Supermarket analogy ftw

 

[Lincoln Shrimp]

There is another striker who we are seriously looking into who would be considerably cheaper than McCallum.

I'm hoping that could be Wealdstone's Sean Adarkwa. Under contract for 24-25 but paying a modest fee now could prove to be a shrewd longer term investment.