Jump to content

Da Cruz Could Be On His Way Back?


Recommended Posts

This thread and a few others sums up Owlstalk for me. You have to build a squad of 25-26 players on a budget of about £18M a year salaries going by the Salary Cap recommendations and our history shows we spend in excess of £20M previously. So working to the £18M figure that is an average of £13.3K per player per week for 26 players.

 

You can't have a team/squad of stars on £20-25k per week, we tried that.... it didn't work and now we are up a creek, selling our stadium etc.  So you need a blend of players some of which are lessor players, on lessor salaries. Yet we as fans criticise without factoring in cost or value. 

 

Borner is judged vs Tom Lees, despite Lees costing twice as much per week. Atdhe was always judged vs Hooper, Fletcher etc despite those players being on two to three times as much. Westwood on eight to ten times Wildsmith salary yet judged identically. 

 

If the average squad player is earning £13.3 for every Bannan on £20K+ you need a Da Cruz on £5K or so. Luckily I think the penny has dropped with the club, as we seamingly have been bringing in lower average salary players for past two/three windows but fans still don't appear to have caught on. Bemoaning every lessor player we are linked with, with a sense of entitlement that is very odd considering the vast majority of last 20 or so years where we haven't had two pennies to rub together.

 

I think Da Cruz would be a useful player. I don't think he's finished article nor do I think he'll bag 15 goals but I think he'll deliver value for money with potential to improve. For all of the neh sayers - who else do you get for free costing less than 5K a month that has power and pace?

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a large part of the worry is that he would be 1 if only 2 strikers we have.

 

If he’s 4th choice maybe even 5th at a cheap price on low wages and we can develop him then it doesn’t seem much of a problem.

 

The problem is we have no strikers bar Rhodes and with pre season already underway we need players who will improve the first 11 or improve the starting line up of last season.

 

This signing to lots of fans doesn’t show an improvement. I think that’s where some of the frustration and criticism has come from. Added to the fact he didn’t look up to it last season. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Philb125 said:

This thread and a few others sums up Owlstalk for me. You have to build a squad of 25-26 players on a budget of about £18M a year salaries going by the Salary Cap recommendations and our history shows we spend in excess of £20M previously. So working to the £18M figure that is an average of £13.3K per player per week for 26 players.

 

You can't have a team/squad of stars on £20-25k per week, we tried that.... it didn't work and now we are up a creek, selling our stadium etc.  So you need a blend of players some of which are lessor players, on lessor salaries. Yet we as fans criticise without factoring in cost or value. 

 

Borner is judged vs Tom Lees, despite Lees costing twice as much per week. Atdhe was always judged vs Hooper, Fletcher etc despite those players being on two to three times as much. Westwood on eight to ten times Wildsmith salary yet judged identically. 

 

If the average squad player is earning £13.3 for every Bannan on £20K+ you need a Da Cruz on £5K or so. Luckily I think the penny has dropped with the club, as we seamingly have been bringing in lower average salary players for past two/three windows but fans still don't appear to have caught on. Bemoaning every lessor player we are linked with, with a sense of entitlement that is very odd considering the vast majority of last 20 or so years where we haven't had two pennies to rub together.

 

I think Da Cruz would be a useful player. I don't think he's finished article nor do I think he'll bag 15 goals but I think he'll deliver value for money with potential to improve. For all of the neh sayers - who else do you get for free costing less than 5K a month that has power and pace?

I understand what you say, and a lot of it I agree with, but it doesn't take away the fact that Da Cruz is absolute bobbins. It is not our job to scout or recommend players, that is the clubs job.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Philb125 said:

This thread and a few others sums up Owlstalk for me. You have to build a squad of 25-26 players on a budget of about £18M a year salaries going by the Salary Cap recommendations and our history shows we spend in excess of £20M previously. So working to the £18M figure that is an average of £13.3K per player per week for 26 players.

 

You can't have a team/squad of stars on £20-25k per week, we tried that.... it didn't work and now we are up a creek, selling our stadium etc.  So you need a blend of players some of which are lessor players, on lessor salaries. Yet we as fans criticise without factoring in cost or value. 

 

Borner is judged vs Tom Lees, despite Lees costing twice as much per week. Atdhe was always judged vs Hooper, Fletcher etc despite those players being on two to three times as much. Westwood on eight to ten times Wildsmith salary yet judged identically. 

 

If the average squad player is earning £13.3 for every Bannan on £20K+ you need a Da Cruz on £5K or so. Luckily I think the penny has dropped with the club, as we seamingly have been bringing in lower average salary players for past two/three windows but fans still don't appear to have caught on. Bemoaning every lessor player we are linked with, with a sense of entitlement that is very odd considering the vast majority of last 20 or so years where we haven't had two pennies to rub together.

 

I think Da Cruz would be a useful player. I don't think he's finished article nor do I think he'll bag 15 goals but I think he'll deliver value for money with potential to improve. For all of the neh sayers - who else do you get for free costing less than 5K a month that has power and pace?


For free? Are you sure he will be free. When we signed him on loan the fee quoted in the media for signing him permanently was 2 million I believe. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Philb125 said:

This thread and a few others sums up Owlstalk for me. You have to build a squad of 25-26 players on a budget of about £18M a year salaries going by the Salary Cap recommendations and our history shows we spend in excess of £20M previously. So working to the £18M figure that is an average of £13.3K per player per week for 26 players.

 

You can't have a team/squad of stars on £20-25k per week, we tried that.... it didn't work and now we are up a creek, selling our stadium etc.  So you need a blend of players some of which are lessor players, on lessor salaries. Yet we as fans criticise without factoring in cost or value. 

 

Borner is judged vs Tom Lees, despite Lees costing twice as much per week. Atdhe was always judged vs Hooper, Fletcher etc despite those players being on two to three times as much. Westwood on eight to ten times Wildsmith salary yet judged identically. 

 

If the average squad player is earning £13.3 for every Bannan on £20K+ you need a Da Cruz on £5K or so. Luckily I think the penny has dropped with the club, as we seamingly have been bringing in lower average salary players for past two/three windows but fans still don't appear to have caught on. Bemoaning every lessor player we are linked with, with a sense of entitlement that is very odd considering the vast majority of last 20 or so years where we haven't had two pennies to rub together.

 

I think Da Cruz would be a useful player. I don't think he's finished article nor do I think he'll bag 15 goals but I think he'll deliver value for money with potential to improve. For all of the neh sayers - who else do you get for free costing less than 5K a month that has power and pace?

Exactly, whilst we still have players like lees, Westwood, Rhodes on the books earning £1million and above each year and in return giving us lower mid table performances in return we are still screwed. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, royalowlisback said:

I understand what you say, and a lot of it I agree with, but it doesn't take away the fact that Da Cruz is absolute bobbins. It is not our job to scout or recommend players, that is the clubs job.


the only quality he has is his pace. He doesn’t score, doesn’t assist, doesn’t hold the ball up, jobs a striker should do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, WalthamOwl said:


For free? Are you sure he will be free. When we signed him on loan the fee quoted in the media for signing him permanently was 2 million I believe. 

 

That was correct, then he came here and played 'meh', then there was a global pandemic and subsequent global recessions... if you think we are spending £2m on any player this window, I think you may be disappointed. If you think we are on Da Cruz.... well I don't know what to say to you. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Philb125 said:

 

That was correct, then he came here and played 'meh', then there was a global pandemic and subsequent global recessions... if you think we are spending £2m on any player this window, I think you may be disappointed. If you think we are on Da Cruz.... well I don't know what to say to you. 


im sure we won’t spend 2 million on him but I don’t think he will be free either and imo any money on him is to much money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WalthamOwl said:


im sure we won’t spend 2 million on him but I don’t think he will be free either and imo any money on him is to much money. 

 

Everyone's entitled to an opinion. Mine is that if he comes in it will be for next to nothing, as will be his salary. So if he delivers marginally more than next to nothing it's a good return on investment. 

 

I do fear for some of you as supporters though as doom, doom and more doom to come before we are back on a level playing field again and able to offer better players a go. Westwood, Lees, Reach, Bannan, Rhodes suck about a third of our salary budget alone I reckon. Until they are gone (or delivering value for the huge investment) we are unfortunately screwed! 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/08/2020 at 08:46, Philb125 said:

This thread and a few others sums up Owlstalk for me. You have to build a squad of 25-26 players on a budget of about £18M a year salaries going by the Salary Cap recommendations and our history shows we spend in excess of £20M previously. So working to the £18M figure that is an average of £13.3K per player per week for 26 players.

 

You can't have a team/squad of stars on £20-25k per week, we tried that.... it didn't work and now we are up a creek, selling our stadium etc.  So you need a blend of players some of which are lessor players, on lessor salaries. Yet we as fans criticise without factoring in cost or value. 

 

Borner is judged vs Tom Lees, despite Lees costing twice as much per week. Atdhe was always judged vs Hooper, Fletcher etc despite those players being on two to three times as much. Westwood on eight to ten times Wildsmith salary yet judged identically. 

 

If the average squad player is earning £13.3 for every Bannan on £20K+ you need a Da Cruz on £5K or so. Luckily I think the penny has dropped with the club, as we seamingly have been bringing in lower average salary players for past two/three windows but fans still don't appear to have caught on. Bemoaning every lessor player we are linked with, with a sense of entitlement that is very odd considering the vast majority of last 20 or so years where we haven't had two pennies to rub together.

 

I think Da Cruz would be a useful player. I don't think he's finished article nor do I think he'll bag 15 goals but I think he'll deliver value for money with potential to improve. For all of the neh sayers - who else do you get for free costing less than 5K a month that has power and pace?

If a playet isn't good enough it doesn't matter that he is a cheap option. The bottom line is still that he isn't good enough. There is no value in bringing in players of league 1/2 standard who can't do the job they are being paid to do.

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/08/2020 at 08:26, sheriwozgod said:

 

To be honest ... yes , I was.

 

If we cant sign better than these two lads then our problems run much, much deeper than we thought.

 

 

Let's be realistic now.. we've got a -12 point start this coming season, we're not able to throw the cash as we simply haven't got it. As much as we like to think Chanseri has bottomless pockets, he doesn't. Otherwise he'd have improved the ground whilst we were unable to get in the stadium. Take the owls tinted specs off, we're not a great prospect for someone with ambitions of promotion. As much as I'd love us to get promoted to join the pigs next season, I can't see it.. consolidation for the next season or two is the best bet. Slow and steady. We've tried spunking cash up the wall before and got nothing to show for it apart from a deduction.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hillsboromassive said:

Let's be realistic now.. we've got a -12 point start this coming season, we're not able to throw the cash as we simply haven't got it. As much as we like to think Chanseri has bottomless pockets, he doesn't. Otherwise he'd have improved the ground whilst we were unable to get in the stadium. Take the owls tinted specs off, we're not a great prospect for someone with ambitions of promotion. As much as I'd love us to get promoted to join the pigs next season, I can't see it.. consolidation for the next season or two is the best bet. Slow and steady. We've tried spunking cash up the wall before and got nothing to show for it apart from a deduction.

So because Chansiri has not re developed Hillsborough over the last 6 months you think he is borasic ? 
 

Wow 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hugeowl said:

So because Chansiri has not re developed Hillsborough over the last 6 months you think he is borasic ? 
 

Wow 

Nothing about re developing, more renovating, sprucing up if you like. I'm not expecting him to knock it down and develop a new 100k stadium.. renewing the seats that are faded would be nice imo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Da Cruz reminds me of one of those players you had in your Sunday league side? Turned up every week would do a job wherever you asked him but simply not good enough? Runs down blind channels always seems to take wrong option missed the chances he has had and just never looks like scoring, I’m sure they’d be someone in lower leagues that would offer more for the wages he’ll want .

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/08/2020 at 08:53, jonesy87shef said:

I think a large part of the worry is that he would be 1 if only 2 strikers we have.

 

If he’s 4th choice maybe even 5th at a cheap price on low wages and we can develop him then it doesn’t seem much of a problem.

 

The problem is we have no strikers bar Rhodes and with pre season already underway we need players who will improve the first 11 or improve the starting line up of last season.

 

This signing to lots of fans doesn’t show an improvement. I think that’s where some of the frustration and criticism has come from. Added to the fact he didn’t look up to it last season. 

Out of interest how do you expect him to develop if he's 4th or 5th choice? What's the point of signing someone to be back up?

 

"We really want you to sign for us, lad. We intend to stick you on the bench and only use you if everyone else is injured. Sound good? Sign here."

 

Like others have said, if this is who we're after it tells you everything you need to know about swfc moving forward. We can't afford or attract top quality so we're going for younger players offering them first team football and a chance to develop. If Da Cruz is coming, he'll be playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, vulture_squadron said:

Out of interest how do you expect him to develop if he's 4th or 5th choice? What's the point of signing someone to be back up?

 

"We really want you to sign for us, lad. We intend to stick you on the bench and only use you if everyone else is injured. Sound good? Sign here."

 

Like others have said, if this is who we're after it tells you everything you need to know about swfc moving forward. We can't afford or attract top quality so we're going for younger players offering them first team football and a chance to develop. If Da Cruz is coming, he'll be playing.

 

We play with 2 strikers. If you’re 4th choice you still start games. Think Nuhiu, Rhodes, Winnall etc. At some point being 4th choice you do get game time. Also means he should be coming off the bench.

 

Also like you said there are injuries too. Then there’s the idea he should be developing daily in training surrounded by what should be better players and coaches compared to Serie B.

 

Then it’s up to the player to take his chance when he gets it.

 

The point in signing someone as backup is we don’t have any strikers bar Rhodes. You need a squad. It’s pretty simple really. You do know plenty of players do sign for clubs knowing they will be backup players and need to force their way in?

 

I’m always for the idea unless it’s a young prospect we should be signing players to improve the first team. However when we don’t even have a first team you also need to sign backup players.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...