Talbot Recalled by Chesterfield

Brill, get a player fit and firing, just in time fer his parent club's run-in.

argyl3 wrote:

what happened to actually assembling a coherent SQUAD of players rather than a part time bunch of loanee's.

I remember when we last got promoted from this hell hole, we had a coherent core of players that could perform week in, week out, we had backup, we had subs that could perform..

these days we seem to be making do with loanee's and ebay knock off's and it p*sses me off.

it didnt cost that much! wtf is the problem? u will NEVER get promoted if your squad is owned by other teams

Great post, Brent is totaly reliant on loan players, no money is invested in the team despite getting over 7000 every week.

GreenSam wrote:

Disappointing but the advantage of having strength is depth is that we have Cox, Blizzard, Norburn or Lee to pick from all of whom have something useful about them. That said, massive pain in the arse that he went just as he'd found his best position (I was never completely wild about him as a wing-back). But then I guess if not for the recall clause we'd never have got him to begin with.

A week and a bit to find an adequate replacement on loan.

The more I think about your comment, the more I'm appalled.

You're amongst the first to attack our manager when a string of results don't go our way yet you expect him to overachieve with a squad reliant on loanees.

With the chair of our Trust playing to respective crowds on both websites and at least 2 other Trust board members waiting to stick the proverbial knife into our Manager's back, it's fooking bleak.

argyl3 wrote:

out of interest - how many of our first team squad do we actually own? been so many ins and outs ive lost track

All but 3

Angry wrote:

argyl3 wrote:

out of interest - how many of our first team squad do we actually own? been so many ins and outs ive lost track

All but 3

Now perhaps

THD, Talbot, Reid and Lee made 4. Given the length of O'Connors contract? Not to mention Kellet whom we previously relied on.

Whoever is in charge of negotiating loanee contracts hasn't been helpful, to be polite.

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

argyl3 wrote:

what happened to actually assembling a coherent SQUAD of players rather than a part time bunch of loanee's.

I remember when we last got promoted from this hell hole, we had a coherent core of players that could perform week in, week out, we had backup, we had subs that could perform..

these days we seem to be making do with loanee's and ebay knock off's and it p*sses me off.

it didnt cost that much! wtf is the problem? u will NEVER get promoted if your squad is owned by other teams

Great post, Brent is totaly reliant on loan players, no money is invested in the team despite getting over 7000 every week.

Indeed. One reason I've not got as much interest as before. Not Argyle's fault although just because a system is there doesn't mean you have to exploit it. There are some players we come up against who belong to a Championship club and yet we play against them 2-3 times in one season playing for different clubs.

If your core squad is not good enough then you run the risk of this happening. It is management strategy gone wrong whether that be financial management, loan terms not negotiated properly or a strategy pursued by the football manager.

More buckets than building blocks at HP these days.

Coxside_Green wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Disappointing but the advantage of having strength is depth is that we have Cox, Blizzard, Norburn or Lee to pick from all of whom have something useful about them. That said, massive pain in the arse that he went just as he'd found his best position (I was never completely wild about him as a wing-back). But then I guess if not for the recall clause we'd never have got him to begin with.

A week and a bit to find an adequate replacement on loan.

We've only just replaced Tynan ffs, even that 's questionable.

When you next speak to Brent, tell him our Manager needs a squad of players for a whole season, not a month here and there.  

Genuinely funny. What can I add other than what me Skinny and Suffs (amoung others) have been banging on about all season?

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

argyl3 wrote:

what happened to actually assembling a coherent SQUAD of players rather than a part time bunch of loanee's.

I remember when we last got promoted from this hell hole, we had a coherent core of players that could perform week in, week out, we had backup, we had subs that could perform..

these days we seem to be making do with loanee's and ebay knock off's and it p*sses me off.

it didnt cost that much! wtf is the problem? u will NEVER get promoted if your squad is owned by other teams

Great post, Brent is totaly reliant on loan players, no money is invested in the team despite getting over 7000 every week.

Are you actually blaming Brent for the fact we're signing people on loan? Struggling to comprehend this one.

Josh Pope wrote:

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

argyl3 wrote:

what happened to actually assembling a coherent SQUAD of players rather than a part time bunch of loanee's.

I remember when we last got promoted from this hell hole, we had a coherent core of players that could perform week in, week out, we had backup, we had subs that could perform..

these days we seem to be making do with loanee's and ebay knock off's and it p*sses me off.

it didnt cost that much! wtf is the problem? u will NEVER get promoted if your squad is owned by other teams

Great post, Brent is totaly reliant on loan players, no money is invested in the team despite getting over 7000 every week.

Are you actually blaming Brent for the fact we're signing people on loan? Struggling to comprehend this one.

Do you seriously think that it would be Sheridan's choice to sign people on loan rather than on a permanent basis?

He's done it at his two other clubs?

He had the chance to build a squad in the Summer, it's his fault the ones he signed he doesn't rate and is now signing loan players in a desperate attempt to salvage the season.

Josh Pope wrote:

He's done it at his two other clubs?

He had the chance to build a squad in the Summer, it's his fault the ones he signed he doesn't rate and is now signing loan players in a desperate attempt to salvage the season.

Who did he sign last summer that he doesn't rate? Norburn possibly-the free transfer from a conference club as a replacement for a £200k goal scoring midfielder and I don't think that anyone could possibly suggest that was a decision purely made by the management. I don't know what you're talking about actually-Mellor, Hartley, McHugh, Cox have all been pretty regular, Smalley got injured-who else was there? Bittner I suppose but that isn't really of relevance given McCormick's form.

The quality of the players we're getting on lean are much better than the ones we'd be able to afford. If they get recalled, that's the downside to signing good loan players.

Greenskin wrote:

Josh Pope wrote:

He's done it at his two other clubs?

He had the chance to build a squad in the Summer, it's his fault the ones he signed he doesn't rate and is now signing loan players in a desperate attempt to salvage the season.

Who did he sign last summer that he doesn't rate? Norburn possibly-the free transfer from a conference club as a replacement for a £200k goal scoring midfielder and I don't think that anyone could possibly suggest that was a decision purely made by the management. I don't know what you're talking about actually-Mellor, Hartley, McHugh, Cox have all been pretty regular, Smalley got injured-who else was there? Bittner I suppose but that isn't really of relevance given McCormick's form.

Ok so maybe he didn't sign enough in the Summer? Either way, if the funds are there now in order to pay the wages of loan players, then they will have been there since Summer for him to get players in full time.

So what does it come down to? Well, whatever it is I don't think this is one to pin as Brent's fault.. Not that I actually have much of an issue with the loan market, some of our best players have come on loan not just this season but in the past as well. Loads of teams use it, there aren't always the high quality of free transfers around I suppose.

Coxside_Green wrote:

Angry wrote:

argyl3 wrote:

out of interest - how many of our first team squad do we actually own? been so many ins and outs ive lost track

All but 3

Now perhaps

THD, Talbot, Reid and Lee made 4.  Given the length of O'Connors contract?  Not to mention Kellet whom we previously relied on.

Whoever is in charge of negotiating loanee contracts hasn't been helpful, to be polite.

of the squad only 3 are not our players. oconnor is.

Loan players are cheap and cheerful so obviously brent wants sheridan to build a squad around these rather than build an actual squad.

brent would rather pay for prawn sandwiches than pay for a proper squad as cloughie would say.

ejh wrote:

Shite. He looked handy in midfield,  always seemed to get to the ball first with great reactions, nippy feet and willingness to stick his boot in. He was also a better wing back than the currently ineffectual Mellor. Big loss.

It is a big loss.

Angry wrote:

Coxside_Green wrote:

Angry wrote:

argyl3 wrote:

out of interest - how many of our first team squad do we actually own? been so many ins and outs ive lost track

All but 3

Now perhaps

THD, Talbot, Reid and Lee made 4.  Given the length of O'Connors contract?  Not to mention Kellet whom we previously relied on.

Whoever is in charge of negotiating loanee contracts hasn't been helpful, to be polite.

of the squad only 3 are not our players. oconnor is.

Loan players are cheap and cheerful so obviously brent wants sheridan to build a squad around these rather than build an actual squad.

brent would rather pay for prawn sandwiches than pay for a proper squad as cloughie would say.

Having only three loanees isn't necessarily a bad thing, it allows us access to players beyond our financial boundary and also can entice players of better quality to drop a level for football on the guarantee that its a temporary basis. O'Connor is a good example of this, happy to come short term loan or permanent, but wants options for next season - a reasonable and logical move. Would we be able to get a player like Bobby Reid without the loan system? It has its advantages for sure and having 3 or 4 in the team at once shouldn't be an issue.

The issue comes from the fact that they all play in the same area of the park, our midfield is totally reliant on loanees. The back 6 (inc McCormick) are signed on till next season at least and our strikers have been part of the side together for 2 seasons. Its the midfield where we really falter, which I find utterly bizarre given that it should theoretically be Sheridan's area of expertise. Partly the boards fault for feckin him over and selling Hourihane, partly Sheridan's fault for not recruiting strongly enough in this area in the first place - that or not giving the players he recruit a fair run out. Harvey for example is supposed to be a midfielder, yet he's not given him much opportunity to shine there this season. He impressed tremendously against Exeter, but disappointed against Stevenage. Other players have been treated with far greater trust and respect than Tyler has been. Norburn too, he's the latest to become retrospectively overrated due to lack of game time, but its a fair criticism of Sheridan to say that he hasn't given him an amble enough run out in a consistent 11 to justify his total emission from the squad. Blizzard, well he came to us with an injury plagued career and he's continued to have an injury plagued career with us - Sheridan knew that when signing him. There's a good player in there, although was for too long misused, but he's been inconsistent and too often unfit.

I like Sheridan, but he's not immune to mistakes and criticism. He did fluff his recruitment for the midfield in the summer and he's not given enough faith in players permanently contracted at the club, but the circumstances under which he had to build his midfield were tough given the board's interference and sale of the central player in which the team was being built around. Everyone's partly to blame in this cock up, mish-mash of a promotion campaign (from the minimal promotion competitive budget, to the misuse of that budget) - yet somehow we still might fluke it.

spowell92 wrote:

Angry wrote:

Coxside_Green wrote:

Angry wrote:

argyl3 wrote:

out of interest - how many of our first team squad do we actually own? been so many ins and outs ive lost track

All but 3

Now perhaps

THD, Talbot, Reid and Lee made 4.  Given the length of O'Connors contract?  Not to mention Kellet whom we previously relied on.

Whoever is in charge of negotiating loanee contracts hasn't been helpful, to be polite.

of the squad only 3 are not our players. oconnor is.

Loan players are cheap and cheerful so obviously brent wants sheridan to build a squad around these rather than build an actual squad.

brent would rather pay for prawn sandwiches than pay for a proper squad as cloughie would say.

Having only three loanees isn't necessarily a bad thing, it allows us access to players beyond our financial boundary and also can entice players of better quality to drop a level for football on the guarantee that its a temporary basis. O'Connor is a good example of this, happy to come short term loan or permanent, but wants options for next season - a reasonable and logical move. Would we be able to get a player like Bobby Reid without the loan system? It has its advantages for sure and having 3 or 4 in the team at once shouldn't be an issue.

The issue comes from the fact that they all play in the same area of the park, our midfield is totally reliant on loanees. The back 6 (inc McCormick) are signed on till next season at least and our strikers have been part of the side together for 2 seasons. Its the midfield where we really falter, which I find utterly bizarre given that it should theoretically be Sheridan's area of expertise. Partly the boards fault for feckin him over and selling Hourihane, partly Sheridan's fault for not recruiting strongly enough in this area in the first place - that or not giving the players he recruit a fair run out. Harvey for example is supposed to be a midfielder, yet he's not given him much opportunity to shine there this season. He impressed tremendously against Exeter, but disappointed against Stevenage. Other players have been treated with far greater trust and respect than Tyler has been. Norburn too, he's the latest to become retrospectively overrated due to lack of game time, but its a fair criticism of Sheridan to say that he hasn't given him an amble enough run out in a consistent 11 to justify his total emission from the squad. Blizzard, well he came to us with an injury plagued career and he's continued to have an injury plagued career with us - Sheridan knew that when signing him. There's a good player in there, although was for too long misused, but he's been inconsistent and too often unfit.

I like Sheridan, but he's not immune to mistakes and criticism. He did fluff his recruitment for the midfield in the summer and he's not given enough faith in players permanently contracted at the club, but the circumstances under which he had to build his midfield were tough given the board's interference and sale of the central player in which the team was being built around. Everyone's partly to blame in this cock up, mish-mash of a promotion campaign (from the minimal promotion competitive budget, to the misuse of that budget) - yet somehow we still might fluke it.

So whats your point about being over reliant on loan signings?

To have three or four loan players in the squad or starting 11 isn't necessarily a bad thing, to have all of them in one particular area (in our case the midfield) is. That's down to Sheridan's recruitment rather than a budgetary issue. Although I acknowledge that Sheridan had a clear plan that centred around Hourihane and board interference cocked this up.

Josh Pope wrote:

Greenskin wrote:

Josh Pope wrote:

He's done it at his two other clubs?

He had the chance to build a squad in the Summer, it's his fault the ones he signed he doesn't rate and is now signing loan players in a desperate attempt to salvage the season.

Who did he sign last summer that he doesn't rate? Norburn possibly-the free transfer from a conference club as a replacement for a £200k goal scoring midfielder and I don't think that anyone could possibly suggest that was a decision purely made by the management. I don't know what you're talking about actually-Mellor, Hartley, McHugh, Cox have all been pretty regular, Smalley got injured-who else was there? Bittner I suppose but that isn't really of relevance given McCormick's form.

Ok so maybe he didn't sign enough in the Summer? Either way, if the funds are there now in order to pay the wages of loan players, then they will have been there since Summer for him to get players in full time.

So what does it come down to? Well, whatever it is I don't think this is one to pin as Brent's fault.. Not that I actually have much of an issue with the loan market, some of our best players have come on loan not just this season but in the past as well. Loads of teams use it, there aren't always the high quality of free transfers around I suppose.

What it boils down to is that Argyle are operating on between the 7th-9th biggest budget in the division-not my words, they came from James Brent himself. Any manager would need to take that into account when deciding his needs for the coming season-maybe the fact that parent clubs tend to pay a fair slice of a loan players wages was influential in the decision not to sign more players on a permanent basis. I would also imagine that signing players like Hartley, McHugh, Reuben Reid and Mellor, whose quality and contribution this season surely can't be doubted, would have taken up a reasonable amount of the total allocated money. I'm not disputing that in some ways the loan system has been very beneficial but there are also drawbacks, as has been clearly seen in the debacle at Christmas and the loss of Talbot. Lets hope that Argyle are not left to rue them at seasons end.

Coxside_Green wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Disappointing but the advantage of having strength is depth is that we have Cox, Blizzard, Norburn or Lee to pick from all of whom have something useful about them. That said, massive pain in the arse that he went just as he'd found his best position (I was never completely wild about him as a wing-back). But then I guess if not for the recall clause we'd never have got him to begin with.

A week and a bit to find an adequate replacement on loan.

The more I think about your comment, the more I'm appalled.

You're amongst the first to attack our manager when a string of results don't go our way yet you expect him to overachieve with a squad reliant on loanees.

With the chair of our Trust playing to respective crowds on both websites and at least 2 other Trust board members waiting to stick the proverbial knife into our Manager's back, it's fooking bleak.

In the nicest possible way, get over yourself.

'Appalled'.

It's a personal opinion, not that of the Trust. All League Two squads have a few loanees in. Just use google if you don't believe me. However, you're never gonna agree with me on this one and I'm never gonna agree with you on it. I've given my reasons as to why in a billion different posts and I dare say I'll be roped into giving it in a billion more. Equally, you and people similar to you have given your reasons in reverse a billion times such is the nature of debate. I think I'm right and you think you're right. It really is bordering on the dramatic to be using words such as 'appalled' for having a different opinion to yours.

Ps. If you think those opinions are so unpalatable for a Trust board member to have then that's your prerogative. If you're a member, stand against me for election next time. If you're not a member, why not become one and do the same thing. I don't mean to sound too severe with you but there seems to be a sort of thoughtcrime punishment by some people on here (and yes, on the other site as well) that if you think something too unsuitable or differing from the groupthink mentality it gets personal.

GreenSam wrote:

Coxside_Green wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Disappointing but the advantage of having strength is depth is that we have Cox, Blizzard, Norburn or Lee to pick from all of whom have something useful about them. That said, massive pain in the arse that he went just as he'd found his best position (I was never completely wild about him as a wing-back). But then I guess if not for the recall clause we'd never have got him to begin with.

A week and a bit to find an adequate replacement on loan.

The more I think about your comment, the more I'm appalled.

You're amongst the first to attack our manager when a string of results don't go our way yet you expect him to overachieve with a squad reliant on loanees.

With the chair of our Trust playing to respective crowds on both websites and at least 2 other Trust board members waiting to stick the proverbial knife into our Manager's back, it's fooking bleak.

In the nicest possible way, get over yourself.

'Appalled'.

It's a personal opinion, not that of the Trust. All League Two squads have a few loanees in. Just use google if you don't believe me. However, you're never gonna agree with me on this one and I'm never gonna agree with you on it. I've given my reasons as to why in a billion different posts and I dare say I'll be roped into giving it in a billion more. Equally, you and people similar to you have given your reasons in reverse a billion times such is the nature of debate. I think I'm right and you think you're right. It really is bordering on the dramatic to be using words such as 'appalled' for having a different opinion to yours.

Ps. If you think those opinions are so unpalatable for a Trust board member to have then that's your prerogative. If you're a member, stand against me for election next time. If you're not a member, why not become one and do the same thing. I don't mean to sound too severe with you but there seems to be a sort of thoughtcrime punishment by some people on here (and yes, on the other site as well) that if you think something too unsuitable or differing from the groupthink mentality it gets personal.

And you tell him to "get over himself"

Tbf Sam does have a point I just don't think he put it that well, Sam is posting as Greensam not as a representative of the trust, they (trust members) are entitled to a view on the squad, team, manager without posting on behalf of the trust.

Angry wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Coxside_Green wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Disappointing but the advantage of having strength is depth is that we have Cox, Blizzard, Norburn or Lee to pick from all of whom have something useful about them. That said, massive pain in the arse that he went just as he'd found his best position (I was never completely wild about him as a wing-back). But then I guess if not for the recall clause we'd never have got him to begin with.

A week and a bit to find an adequate replacement on loan.

The more I think about your comment, the more I'm appalled.

You're amongst the first to attack our manager when a string of results don't go our way yet you expect him to overachieve with a squad reliant on loanees.

With the chair of our Trust playing to respective crowds on both websites and at least 2 other Trust board members waiting to stick the proverbial knife into our Manager's back, it's fooking bleak.

In the nicest possible way, get over yourself.

'Appalled'.

It's a personal opinion, not that of the Trust. All League Two squads have a few loanees in. Just use google if you don't believe me. However, you're never gonna agree with me on this one and I'm never gonna agree with you on it. I've given my reasons as to why in a billion different posts and I dare say I'll be roped into giving it in a billion more. Equally, you and people similar to you have given your reasons in reverse a billion times such is the nature of debate. I think I'm right and you think you're right. It really is bordering on the dramatic to be using words such as 'appalled' for having a different opinion to yours.

Ps. If you think those opinions are so unpalatable for a Trust board member to have then that's your prerogative. If you're a member, stand against me for election next time. If you're not a member, why not become one and do the same thing. I don't mean to sound too severe with you but there seems to be a sort of thoughtcrime punishment by some people on here (and yes, on the other site as well) that if you think something too unsuitable or differing from the groupthink mentality it gets personal.

And you tell him to "get over himself"

That's tame to what I'd have told him. Coxside was clearly being a total knob head who was baiting for a reaction. Very sad.

Looks like Sam got then!