| Covered or not? on 21:13 - Jan 16 with 935 views | blueconscience |
| Covered or not? on 14:31 - Jan 16 by BLUEBEAT |
I find this one odd
The perfect person for the vacant left-footed defensive space
Can only assume he wants a higher salary than we can offer
Lambert and co will obviously have seen a lot of him over the past few weeks and I find it hard to believe that they didn’t see him as a suitable option |
Evans can’t afford him, quite simple really. |  |
|  |
| Covered or not? on 21:25 - Jan 16 with 923 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Covered or not? on 15:22 - Jan 16 by MrTown |
So you have never seen him yourself, ok.
That will be all. |
In your extensive watching of Earl that has made you decide that Smith (you have also seen how he looks in training aver the past month or so I presume) is better, did you watch the same games as the ITFC scouts or different ones?
Of course, there may be a financial element to it but if he does join Portsmouth I would assume we would have been able to compete had Lambert decided he is the better option. |  |
| |
| Covered or not? on 23:47 - Jan 16 with 893 views | rosseden |
| Covered or not? on 21:13 - Jan 16 by blueconscience |
Evans can’t afford him, quite simple really. |
He can. But hes choosing not to..... |  |
| |
| Covered or not? on 07:54 - Jan 17 with 859 views | Herbivore |
| Covered or not? on 23:47 - Jan 16 by rosseden |
He can. But hes choosing not to..... |
I imagine we're already at or very close to our wage cap for the season. There are regulations on wage spend at this level, and although we get leniency this year I expect we're still very close to overspending given the size of our squad. Evans can't just endlessly throw money at contracts for players. |  |
| |
| Covered or not? on 09:38 - Jan 17 with 839 views | SouperJim |
My thoughts are, we're building for the future and Earl only has a year left on his contract at Preston. I think it's a fair argument to say Earl stands a better chance of being an important player for us over the next few years than Tommy Smith would and I'm happy to trust Lambert's judgement. He's also doubtless much cheaper and a far lower risk signing than a player about to hit his 30s who will want a lucrative 3+ year deal. Do we really want to tie up a good chunk of our resources in a defender who will only decline while he's with us and leave us with no asset at the end? We have enough well paid players like that as it is. |  |
| |
| Covered or not? on 10:10 - Jan 17 with 825 views | Herbivore |
| Covered or not? on 09:38 - Jan 17 by SouperJim |
My thoughts are, we're building for the future and Earl only has a year left on his contract at Preston. I think it's a fair argument to say Earl stands a better chance of being an important player for us over the next few years than Tommy Smith would and I'm happy to trust Lambert's judgement. He's also doubtless much cheaper and a far lower risk signing than a player about to hit his 30s who will want a lucrative 3+ year deal. Do we really want to tie up a good chunk of our resources in a defender who will only decline while he's with us and leave us with no asset at the end? We have enough well paid players like that as it is. |
Agreed. We also need to factor in with Tommy that he had a lot of injury problems in his last couple of years here and that the general consensus towards the end of his time here was that he wasn't really up to being a regular starter in the Championship anymore. I'm not sure he is one for the future and I suspect the issue with is signing him is as much about the length of contract he wants as about his actual wage. | |
| |
| Covered or not? on 10:12 - Jan 17 with 824 views | itfcjoe |
| Covered or not? on 09:38 - Jan 17 by SouperJim |
My thoughts are, we're building for the future and Earl only has a year left on his contract at Preston. I think it's a fair argument to say Earl stands a better chance of being an important player for us over the next few years than Tommy Smith would and I'm happy to trust Lambert's judgement. He's also doubtless much cheaper and a far lower risk signing than a player about to hit his 30s who will want a lucrative 3+ year deal. Do we really want to tie up a good chunk of our resources in a defender who will only decline while he's with us and leave us with no asset at the end? We have enough well paid players like that as it is. |
I don't see that Earl will have any future here after this season, if he does well he will go back and if he doesn't we won't want him.
I don't think it is either/or anyway, think Smith is in addition if a deal is to be done |  |
| |
| Covered or not? on 10:30 - Jan 17 with 813 views | Herbivore |
| Covered or not? on 10:12 - Jan 17 by itfcjoe |
I don't see that Earl will have any future here after this season, if he does well he will go back and if he doesn't we won't want him.
I don't think it is either/or anyway, think Smith is in addition if a deal is to be done |
Said before I'd see Smith more as a Wilson replacement, as in he'd be slated to play/cover the central position in the back three or left CB in a back four. He's not really like for like with Earl, the idea of Tommy Smith at left back is actually a bit scary. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Covered or not? on 14:53 - Jan 17 with 789 views | SouperJim |
| Covered or not? on 10:12 - Jan 17 by itfcjoe |
I don't see that Earl will have any future here after this season, if he does well he will go back and if he doesn't we won't want him.
I don't think it is either/or anyway, think Smith is in addition if a deal is to be done |
That's a very simplistic view and I think the situation is likely to be a bit more nuanced than that. If he does ok, likes it here and we think there's more to come having worked with him for half a season, Preston may well take a low fee for him going into the final year of his deal. Besides, you could say what's the point in us having Garbutt - he'll only move on at the end of the season, but if we're promoted I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that we could sign him. Sure, the better they do the harder it is for us to sign them as other clubs will be interested, their parent club may want to hang on etc. But in the meantime, if they're performing well and making our side better, worst case scenario we've had good value for money out of them.
Smith is comparatively expensive so has a much higher risk factor attached and has zero chance of being the next big thing for ITFC. He's far more likely than Earl to end up representing poor value for money and whether we like it or not, low risk signings is where we are at. A championship club may be able to afford to splash some cash on a player like Tommy, we can't. | |
| |
| Covered or not? on 15:59 - Jan 17 with 769 views | itfcjoe |
| Covered or not? on 14:53 - Jan 17 by SouperJim |
That's a very simplistic view and I think the situation is likely to be a bit more nuanced than that. If he does ok, likes it here and we think there's more to come having worked with him for half a season, Preston may well take a low fee for him going into the final year of his deal. Besides, you could say what's the point in us having Garbutt - he'll only move on at the end of the season, but if we're promoted I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that we could sign him. Sure, the better they do the harder it is for us to sign them as other clubs will be interested, their parent club may want to hang on etc. But in the meantime, if they're performing well and making our side better, worst case scenario we've had good value for money out of them.
Smith is comparatively expensive so has a much higher risk factor attached and has zero chance of being the next big thing for ITFC. He's far more likely than Earl to end up representing poor value for money and whether we like it or not, low risk signings is where we are at. A championship club may be able to afford to splash some cash on a player like Tommy, we can't. |
I think there is a big difference between Garbutt who is out of contract and over 24 than Earl. If Earl does well there is no need for PNE to sell him as he has value even if his contract runs down due to his age - he seems to be seen as one for the future with them also. | |
| |
| Covered or not? on 16:27 - Jan 17 with 755 views | SouperJim |
| Covered or not? on 15:59 - Jan 17 by itfcjoe |
I think there is a big difference between Garbutt who is out of contract and over 24 than Earl. If Earl does well there is no need for PNE to sell him as he has value even if his contract runs down due to his age - he seems to be seen as one for the future with them also. |
I take your point, but I don't think too many clubs rely on tribunals as we've seen how low the compensation tends to be. | |
| |
| Covered or not? on 17:12 - Jan 17 with 738 views | Herbivore |
| Covered or not? on 16:27 - Jan 17 by SouperJim |
I take your point, but I don't think too many clubs rely on tribunals as we've seen how low the compensation tends to be. |
Tribunals tend to be poor for very young players but not so much more established ones. Apparently we were looking at a seven figure compensation deal for KVY when Hurst took him on loan. We ultimately signed him for half that. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
