Colin's clearout

[eric olthwaite]

The decision as to whether or not to transfer list him depends, among other things, on his value to the club, which is determined by how good he is relative to our requirements.

Of course it isn't. Our requirements aren't worth a piss in the wind. What are they? To sign a dozen players carefully selected from the Barcelona and Madrid first teams?

You keep spouting this Wilko thing about only expecting a certain proportion of signings to be successful. So, from the very outset, the possibility that Clayton's replacement will be better is an unquantifiable risk.

Please tell me the last time LUFC sold a player for money and used that money to buy a better player. That is the only reality we have to consider at this point.

[LSD&2Es]

Colin in the YEP:

Clayton's availability surprised many fans, but the boss explained: "I'm looking to sign midfield players, and the contract Adam's representatives were looking for, we weren't prepared to go to that extent.
"Coming into the last year it makes sense to see if they can get that offer somewhere else and if we can get an appropriate figure it's the sort of money I can use to improve the squad.
"But if he hasn't gone, he'll come back and it's up to him to show us he can get in the team, get his position, and then he's in the driving seat going up to Christmas.

In the context of that, it's fair enough that he's effectively (not officially) rejected a contract offer, is on a year left, so we transfer list him now to play the contract bluff game or get some money in. Makes sense really (and unusually for our club!)

[Colin]

Yeah yeah, when Pughy and Browny are pulling the strings in the middle of the park next season, it'll be like Xavi & Iniesta for you Barca loving cunts. You mark my words, I fucking know!

[gazurtoids]

A bit simplistic to be spot on.

For a start, how can whether he was "good" be irrelevant? If we had a team of 10 utter shithouses and Billy Paynter, Billy would probably be "one of the better players" (just). Would that make him worth hanging on to? No, we'd want shut of all 11 of them.

The key calculation in Clayton's case is how valuable he is to us versus how much another club might want to pay for him. And the wages he may or may not be asking for. Compare to Beckford: he was worth keeping even though his contract was running down because he was worth far more to us than the money anyone would pay us.

Clayton isn't anywhere near as valuable to us. If (a) he wants to much in wages to extend his contract and (b) another club is willing to pay a reasonable amount of money for him and (c) a better player can be brought in, it makes sense to sell. It's not guaranteed to work, as we saw with Schmeichel, but it doesn't say the same things about our recruitment policy that other sales have.

But my whole point is that the Batesreality is that we should all fucking know by now that we're going to get very few of the signings we want / need. For a start, all those contracted players that we have supposedly got shut of - eg Billy Paynter - are still being paid.

There is every likelihood that we could sign a better striker than Billy P, and much less likelihood that we could sign a better midfielder than Clayton.

And the context of my comments is also that I see no reason to believe a fucking word of what has been reported about his wage negotiations. He could have been asking for an extra £10k a week, and he could have been asking for an extra £1k. Who knows?

Based on past experience we should also all recognise that any transfer fee received is more likely to be spent on debt, pipework or carpets than another player. What evidence is there to believe anything else?

It's not guaranteed to work, as we saw with Schmeichel

Mind giving me a quick list of the examples where it has worked over the last few seasons then? No need to go to more than one side of A4...

Well, you'll note the key word in my reasoning is "if".

If Clayton is sold but the team is improved, it's a good deal.
If Clayton is sold but an inferior player takes his place, it's a bad deal.

Obviously, you could have said the same about the Gradel or Howson deals, but:
a) this isn't being done right before the window closes, strongly suggesting that the idea is to recruit a replacement, a la Schmeichel, rather than pocket the cash.
b) Clayton is not so good, in my opinion, that an adequate replacement is unlikely. This is where I dispute your "irrelevant" assessment.

It was unlikely that Howson/Gradel replacements could be found, even if we had the time, so you could identity them as bad deals immediately.
It seemed/seems far more likely that replacements for Schmeichel/Clayton could/can be found, so I can't judge this decision fully just yet.

[AndyPaul]

Yeah yeah, when Pughy and Browny are pulling the strings in the middle of the park next season

[Mustafaster]

As I have said before, you maybe taking for granted that he was after 15k a week, who said he was after 15k a week, was it a reliable source? I'm not so sure.

It maybe true, it may not be. Sadly I can't believe much coming out of the club nowadays. As Chubby says did he ask for that as a starting point for negotiation? Or is it a load of propaganda as we need to sell a player to bring more in?

Is Clayton one of our better players? For me yes and we should be keeping him. From my point of view is if we had any chance to keep Snoddy, it may have gone up in smoke as he has seen Howson go and now possibly Clayton, doesn't look to be much ambition there. Colin may bring some great players in, but I don't think so.

Obviously Bates is the last person you'd believe in this kind of situation, especially as he never does business in public (ahem). But in his end of season Address to The Nation he went banging on about a player demanding a 15k contract. How much truth there is in this we'll never know, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was, say, asking for parity with Snodgrass.
For me he's a fair to middling central mid at this level, good enough but not likely to set many games alight. Colin obviously feels the same, he can get better for that kind of money. Also could well be that Clayton has a massively inflated view of his ability and worth, that nobody is prepared to meet his "demands" and he's still with us come the start of the season.
We'll see.

[gazurtoids]

The decision as to whether or not to transfer list him depends, among other things, on his value to the club, which is determined by how good he is relative to our requirements.

Of course it isn't. Our requirements aren't worth a piss in the wind. What are they? To sign a dozen players carefully selected from the Barcelona and Madrid first teams?

Our requirements? "Good enough for promotion", obviously. Come on, there's no need to play silly buggers.

You keep spouting this Wilko thing about only expecting a certain proportion of signings to be successful. So, from the very outset, the possibility that Clayton's replacement will be better is an unquantifiable risk.

No, it's a risk, but it's certainly quantifiable. Hence the "certain proportion".

[eric olthwaite]

Please tell me the last time LUFC sold a player for money and used that money to buy a better player. That is the only reality we have to consider at this point.

I notice you chose not to answer this bit, Gaz.

[AndyPaul]

Please tell me the last time LUFC sold a player for money and used that money to buy a better player. That is the only reality we have to consider at this point.

I notice you chose not to answer this bit, Gaz.

I got one, I think. We sold Matthew Jones to Leicester and we bought Oliver Dacourt in 2000. I think that's right?

[Blackwhite]

Yeah yeah, when Pughy and Browny are pulling the strings in the middle of the park next season, it'll be like Xavi & Iniesta for you Barca loving cunts. You mark my words, I fucking know!

I didn't know who this was before. Thick aren't I?

[eric olthwaite]

I got one, I think. We sold Matthew Jones to Leicester and we bought Oliver Dacourt in 2000. I think that's right?

Seriously; I'm impressed

[gazurtoids]

Please tell me the last time LUFC sold a player for money and used that money to buy a better player. That is the only reality we have to consider at this point.

I notice you chose not to answer this bit, Gaz.

I've been on my phone, so I had to be a bit more selective.

But, really, the point's not that relevant. In recent years, LUFC haven't "sold" all that many players for cash ( the likes of Beckford, Johnson, Kilkenny all went on frees, for instance) and when we have (Delph, Gradel, Howson), it's obviously been for the money rather than the team. However, as I pointed out previously, the timing of this one appears to put it firmly in the Schmeichel category rather than the Gradel one. It looks like the idea is to obtain a replacement, by whatever means. The success of that replacement will largely determine the success of the deal.

However, if you really want an example, in Jan '11 Neil Collins was sold for 250k or so and Andy O'Brien was signed up permenantly, his wages no doubt being somewhat higher than Collins'. It might not have been a roaring success, but it's an example of the club being willing to attempt to trade up.

[Blackwhite]

Don't remember seeing it posted, but Colin admits he's not sure if Snoddy will stay: in fact

it depends who comes in and the telephone money they talk about. But they'd still have to agree a fee with us.
For us to let him go this summer, the fee would have to be very big. There'll be no getting away from that. I've said to the chairman (Ken Bates) 'if we have to keep him until Christmas, we keep him until Christmas'. If I get six months out of him with the team I've got and he wants to stay here on the same money then good luck to him. I'd like to keep Rob until at least Christmas. What I've said to him is 'sign your contract. If we're nowhere near by Christmas then I'll sell you at Christmas.

Ambitious cunt.

Contract not acceptable. Details to emerge but my money's on a not huge increase requested, but denied.

[Ponte]

Please tell me the last time LUFC sold a player for money and used that money to buy a better player. That is the only reality we have to consider at this point.

I notice you chose not to answer this bit, Gaz.

I got one, I think. We sold Matthew Jones to Leicester and we bought Oliver Dacourt in 2000. I think that's right?

Not long before that we sold Wetherall and bought Michael Duber.....oh.

[BARE-NAKED-LADY]

God, this is all rather depressing isn't it? Except for the trash that will hopefully leave. Frankly it's got to the stage where I just don't care anymore. I don't even care if Snodgrass leaves.

Obviously it's my prerogative to change my mind, and tomorrow I might be asking 'Why God. Why?!' Tonight, I just don't fucking care.

[tommydski]

The thing about Clayton is he's young and that was literally his first season playing first team football and his first taste of Championship football. By those standards, he had a terrific year - especially since lots of people (me included) thought he was awful early on. He's a creative, skilful player who can also strike the ball well. He's also the best we have in a position in which we are woefully short of players.

Frankly I think it's a ridiculous decision but it continues the cycle of being unable to sign good players to a new contract. The fact that we're getting rid of Clayton, who was a decent passer and a skilful sort and keeping Brown on suggests we really are going down the route of slogging the shit out of opposing teams in the false belief that it will get us somewhere. What kind of team do you think Snodgrass is more likely to want to play in? I think he'll be off now, citing this as another example of the lack of ambition he spoke of before.

Since we're probably going to be losing Snodgrass, White and Clayton it looks like we're getting a head start on our usual end of season tradition of ridding ourselves of our best and most promising players. If you lift those three out, look at the retained list again. Some kids, a couple of decent players who don't play particularly well together and a handful of badly injured players. Not a very good start for Warnock's reported promotion push.

[BC]

Getting rid of Clayton is foolish, got to be down to money. He's no world beater and he faded badly but it was his first full season in a pretty demanding league, he had to contend with a change in manager and the demoralising effect of the sale of Howson plus all the other crap this club contends with. He was always going to lose form especially when his settled partner was sold. Offering a shit clogger like Brown an extension and bailing on promise (in the form of Clayton) makes no sense unless you look at it as the latest in a line of us being unable to negotiate contracts (Beckford, Gradel, Howson, Kilkenny and Johnson - soon to be White and Snods?).

Clayton is no world beater and he's never going to be but as a member of a squad that's likely to occasionally play 3 in the middle over a long season I'd of kept him. One season is no real amount of time to prove his worth anyway but I'd rather have him over Brown (and certainly Pugh but he's not much of a direct comparison position wise) he's also used to the club and would've required no bedding in period unlike his replacement.

[eric olthwaite]

The thing about Clayton is he's young and that was literally his first season playing first team football and his first taste of Championship football. By those standards, he had a terrific year - especially since lots of people (me included) thought he was awful early on. He's a creative, skilful player who can also strike the ball well. He's also the best we have in a position in which we are woefully short of players.

Frankly I think it's a ridiculous decision but it continues the cycle of being unable to sign good players to a new contract. The fact that we're getting rid of Clayton, who was a decent passer and a skilful sort and keeping Brown on suggests we really are going down the route of slogging the shit out of opposing teams in the false belief that it will get us somewhere. What kind of team do you think Snodgrass is more likely to want to play in? I think he'll be off now, citing this as another example of the lack of ambition he spoke of before.

Since we're probably going to be losing Snodgrass, White and Clayton it looks like we're getting a head start on our usual end of season tradition of ridding ourselves of our best and most promising players. If you lift those three out, look at the retained list again. Some kids, a couple of decent players who don't play particularly well together and a handful of badly injured players. Not a very good start for Warnock's reported promotion push.

Yes.

[eric olthwaite]

it was his first full season in a pretty demanding league, he had to contend with a change in manager and the demoralising effect of the sale of Howson plus all the other crap this club contends with. He was always going to lose form especially when his settled partner was sold.

And that.

In summary, it appears that Gaz believes that it is possible that the sale of Clayton will contribute to us having a better squad next year.

I do not believe that the sale of Clayton will contribute to us having a better squad next year.

[Quiffy]

If Clayton is sold but the team is improved, it's a good deal.
If Clayton is sold but an inferior player takes his place, it's a bad deal.

that sums it up. based on recent history....

p (If Clayton is sold but the team is improved, it's a good deal.) = 0.01
p (If Clayton is sold but an inferior player takes his place, it's a bad deal.) = 0.99

my opinion of clayton is that he could be even better than johnny and i'm a big fan of johnny. he's got a good engine and can tackle better and he takes the ball forward more often, but then again what do i know.

i bet the old fucker would pay 15k for an experienced prem midfielder. this is fucking stupid business. i only hope there's a proper reason for it, such as being tapped up or being an arsehole in training.