Shodipos debut was against Leeds in August 2016. He was so good that day that Gary Monk actually subbed off his first choice rightback in the 30th minute (of the opening game of the season!!)
He was really good under JFH, and progressing very well, but fell out of favor when Ollie came in in November. Ollie bizarrely brought him on as a sub in his first match in charge against Norwich (where Norwich had a man sent off in the 1st minute of the match). He fell asleep defensively and was partially responsible for the goal we conceded (we still won). Ollie criticized him in the press, and we really havent seen much of him since. He's had a few bad injuries though
The biggest travesty of the Clarke signing is how it has hampered Shodipo. He literally scratched and clawed his way back into the first team- he got a few sub appearances and made the bench in January. Since Clarke was signed, Shodipo has basically been dropped from even the bench.
What a shame- a young player overcomes adversity to earn back his spot in the first team only to lose it to another club's academy player... does not make sense and sends the wrong message
Brentford has made a lot of poor signings, too. You just don't know them, just as a Brentford fan probably doesnt know who Sean Goss or David Wheeler is.
A lot of the players you also mentioned below were hardly failures and many of them accomplished their remit. Citing Perch, for instance, is silly, as he was signed as a short term signing, rather than a young player we scouted for future sell on value. Are you going to also say Cameron (signed on a free) is a failed signing b/c we didn't make a profit on him when he likely leaves this summer?
In any event, failure is inherently part of the model. By citing past failures, you're really missing the point.
When suitable, both sides attribute positive or negative economic indicators to Brexit. When its not suitable, they attribute it to some external factor like global macroeconomic trends, coronavirus, trade war, etc.
Clive- agre that MW has done a good job of rotating players, but he is going to need to be more careful with Hugill.
Because I am an absolutely miserable OCD with a tendency to see the negative in everything, I was slightly annoyed with MW's substitution of Hugill against Stoke. When Chair scored the 4th goal to put us up 2 in stoppage time, MW should have immediately subbed Hugill off. Hugill stayed on for another 90 seconds, before MW took him off and brought on Oteh. Right before he was subbed off, Hugill sprinted to close down a speculative long ball from Stoke's left back in Stoke's defensive half. For all the criticism of Hugill, by the way, everyone should acknowledge how hard he works for the entire 90 minutes
But that work rate may be an issue given our lack of striker depth. It is not sustainable for a player to play with his level of physicality and effort for 90 minutes a match from here on out. And unlike a veteran striker (eg Ronaldo now, Glen Murray, etc) who manages his sprints and tries to limit his expenditure of energy to certain high probability situations, Hugill plays at full tilt for basically the entire match. He only has one gear, and he's not going to manage his own work rate- so the job is going to have fall with MW.
MW has two approaches to managing Hugill's minutes. First, he can absolutely flog Hugill now to try to accumulate as many points as early as possible to secure us safety, at which point he can start to rest Hugill/provide Oteh with longer spells. Alternatively, he can start proactively managing Hugill's minutes now, perhaps sacrifice a few points by subbing off Hugill/starting Oteh to ensure Hugill is fit and fresh enough to play in matches in April and beyond.
It appears that MW is opting for the former- and given how close we are to securing our position in the league, this may be the optimal approach.
Separately, and not totally unrelated, MW has failed to use all 3 subs in each of the last 3 matches (which is probably my biggest manager pet peeve). While I can't complain with the results, he should be figuring out how to use his subs better.
Shots on target ratio is a pretty useless stat. Mark Pugh has taken multiple shots that are glorified back passes to the opposition keeper. This would reflect well in shots on target ratio but it doesn’t really mean much.
Also, presenting a random stat like shots on target without reference to what an average or good strikers ratio would be is not particularly helpful
you are aware that there are other countries out there which have their own currencies? You know, all those countries that the uk is now free to trade with. The pound has depreciated massively against all of them- just as an ecample the pound is down 25% against the dollar from the period prior to the referendum
But I’m glad you believe, based off your boundless economic training, that the pound will appreciate to the magically round number of 1.50
Agreed, although for so long as were in the championship, our issue isnt a capacity issue as much as it is a utilization issue. we're currently only filling up ~70% of the stadium on average.
if we ever do get back to the prem, i suspect we'll have a capacity issue rather than a utilization issue. but then by that point, we'd be so awash with broadcasting money that it wouldnt matter much
i'm leaving aside the issue of other events (like how spurs uses their stadium for nfl, concerts, etc). i dont know much about this or how it affects the bottom line/ffp, so i cant really speak to it. but logically, it seems that this doesnt help us.
Clive, id argue that stadium size is overrated from a revenue perspective.
Take a look at qprs accounts from the last two years: gate receipts were £4.9m last year and £5.2m the year before.
Even if we doubled our attendances (let’s assume capacity permitted at loftus road), it would barely move the needle for us
The only way to make money in this division is through player trading
This is a bit oversimplified, but Our Luke freeman sale will provide comparable revenues to ticket sales for 23 home matches! Selling Eze for 20m would be the equivalent of selling 48k tickets to every home match.
It is mostly a myth that length of contract remaining affects transfer values.
Length remaining on contract is irrelevant for purposes of transfer fee if the player is going to sign a new contract with the new club, as bright will likely do when he moves on.
The benefit of a longer contract for the new club is that they get to lock down a player under a fixed wage by assuming the terms of the prior contract. However, in most transfers, the player just ends up tearing up the old contract and signing a new one (see nakhi Wells, who tore up his Burnley contract which was assigned to Bristol city and reentered a new one w new terms). Therefore it’s irrelevant whether that player has 1 year or 10 years left on his contract.
As a separate point, it’s arguably irrational for a club to ever exercise an option until the last possible moment. If ryan Manning or BOS, god forbid, suffer a career ending injury between now and seasons end, we’ve guaranteed their wages for another year. We gain nothing from exercising our option earlier than we need to. However, it’s more complex than that bc clubs have to manage PR, sell season tickets, etc
Ultimately this isn’t really a big deal
Edit: I will caveat the above to state one, of a few situations, where length of contract affects transfer value: if you’re at the last window you can sell a player before his contract expires (eg if we’re having this conversation abt BOSnext January window) and there is only one bidder for the player, then the selling club will likely get a lower transfer fee bc the acquiring club knows they can just wait until the summer and get the player on a free, therefore affecting the selling clubs bargaining power.The player also has an incentive to block any such transfers bc they will get a higher wage as a free agent in the open market