Bailey Cadamarteri

[Etchesketch]

8 hours ago, Smackavolley said:

 

Not sure it was that straightforward. I guess that Borukov and his agent wanted too much money + he was hardly setting the world on fire.

 

Bit puzzled by Cadamarteri Snr's comments in the article. His lad has always been rated as a top prospect by anyone who's seen him. Parents and coaches alike. It's good to see all our age groups playing 2 up front now. Be interesting to see what happens to the goals for column for the remainder of the season. There's a lot of U23's coming to the end of their contract. Any who will be definitely been released should go. I'd like to see four or five of the U18's given a run in the U23's now.

 

It would also free up places in the U18's for Cadamarteri and other promising U16's to play U18 football. Neither side is playing for anything so fast track development when the opportunity is there.

Surely Borukov was let go because he wasn't good enough.  He expressed surprise in an article with The Star as he had been training quite a bit with the first team. Why would we have offered a contract to someone who had not developed, scored a handful of goals in two seasons and was in and out of U23's?I don't think it will have been anything to do with not offering enough.  I think it was a case of not offering anything as was the case with Stobbs, Kirby, Preston etc.

[Guest Smackavolley]

42 minutes ago, Etchesketch said:

Surely Borukov was let go because he wasn't good enough.  He expressed surprise in an article with The Star as he had been training quite a bit with the first team. Why would we have offered a contract to someone who had not developed, scored a handful of goals in two seasons and was in and out of U23's?I don't think it will have been anything to do with not offering enough.  I think it was a case of not offering anything as was the case with Stobbs, Kirby, Preston etc.

Most likely the case. I thought he had a poor attitude. I merely pointed out he and his agent might have been offered something and they turned it down.

 

it happens more than people think at that level.

[Ian]

9 hours ago, room0035 said:

Ah that old chestnut - if they haven't gone on to be world beaters then its good business.

 

We have players who if developed properly could have developed into our first team saving us millions in wasted salaries on players.

 

Presumable if Shaw goes on to play in Celtic reserves then that will be more good business by DC under your eyes, but most fans can clearly see that if he was to stay in a season or two we would have a very god player on our hands.

 

If Hirst was still here and been allowed to play and develop over the last 2 or 3 season instead of being sent home like a naught school for 12 months we probably would have saved money that we wasted on Windass, he could even be the reason we say in the division instead of being relegated which in tv money allow will be worth about £7m a season. You forget Hirst in the season before he left scored 40 goals in 40 games at youth level.

 

If Clare or Kirby had been given a chance we would have wasted the money on squad fillers like Kachunga and Pelupessy. If Thorniley had stayed we wouldn't have wasted all the money on Dunkley who basically never plays.

 

IF IF IF - the simple fact of it is we don't value youth under Dc - we instead waste £20-30m a year on salaries for players who either are not good enough, are unfit and never play or players who when they do play saunter around the pitch and don't give a poo about the shirt they are wearing 

 

Something you would not get with an Owl who has grown up with the club and would be an honour to wear the shirt week in week out.

You are arguing with yourself here. You reckon our academy is rubbish and yet at the same time saying that if we had kept them they would have developed in to first team players. Yet the clubs they have gone to haven't developed them in to first team players?

 

How does that work then?....do you think our academy is better than others (including Leicesters) or have we actually been proved right to have let these players go?

[Inspector Lestrade]

16 minutes ago, Ian said:

You are arguing with yourself here. You reckon our academy is rubbish and yet at the same time saying that if we had kept them they would have developed in to first team players. Yet the clubs they have gone to haven't developed them in to first team players?

 

How does that work then?....do you think our academy is better than others (including Leicesters) or have we actually been proved right to have let these players go?

 

Nice logic

[Guest LondonOwl313]

5 hours ago, timrud said:

DC played a blinder with Clare and Hirst

 

They both tried to hold the club to random and were nowhere near the required standard.

Not sure about Clare but Hirst was a very good prospect which is why everyone was so p*ssed about it. The fact that he’s not good enough now that he’s at Rotherham doesn’t necessarily mean he couldn’t have been good enough. It’s just that he sat out for a year, then went to a pointless league for a year, then went to play under 23s football again. He’d have stood a better chance if he’d just signed the contract with us in August 2017 and gone out on loan for the season. Might have even made it had he done that

[room0035]

9 hours ago, Ian said:

You are arguing with yourself here. You reckon our academy is rubbish and yet at the same time saying that if we had kept them they would have developed in to first team players. Yet the clubs they have gone to haven't developed them in to first team players?

 

How does that work then?....do you think our academy is better than others (including Leicesters) or have we actually been proved right to have let these players go?

I don't think the academy is rubbish I don't think I ever said that, but equally what's the point of having one of we don't develop first team players then if we do we have a chairman who values old and worthless over young and promising.

[Guest timrud]

18 hours ago, LondonOwl313 said:

Not sure about Clare but Hirst was a very good prospect which is why everyone was so p*ssed about it. The fact that he’s not good enough now that he’s at Rotherham doesn’t necessarily mean he couldn’t have been good enough. It’s just that he sat out for a year, then went to a pointless league for a year, then went to play under 23s football again. He’d have stood a better chance if he’d just signed the contract with us in August 2017 and gone out on loan for the season. Might have even made it had he done that

 

You could have a valid point there. That year out in Belgium certainly didn't do him any favours, followed by another year of U23 and then the depths of Rotherham

[Etchesketch]

14 hours ago, timrud said:

 

You could have a valid point there. That year out in Belgium certainly didn't do him any favours, followed by another year of U23 and then the depths of Rotherham

Plus most of the year before he wento to Belgium he was frozen out by us and didn't play at all until right at the end of the season.

[83owl]

Problem with Hirst is that although he had a good youth record when you see him now he still looks like a boy playing against men. He hasn’t filled out and looks out of place.
 

Shaw and urhoghide look like men and look like they belong physically even if they don’t play well. Neither will be with us next season but at least we’ve got Hutch back. 

[marshy]

The situation with urhoghide is beyond. How true it is I don't know, but thus far there's no sniff of a contract for him according to one local paper. When will we learn? 

Are we saying he isn't good enough?

 

[Inspector Lestrade]

30 minutes ago, marshy said:

The situation with urhoghide is beyond. How true it is I don't know, but thus far there's no sniff of a contract for him according to one local paper. When will we learn? 

Are we saying he isn't good enough?

 

 

It takes two to tango, what would you do sign the first contract stuck under your nose?  Or wait till you look at other options?  It's a no brainier to me if you have a player on your books who is showing real promise then you don't sign anything until you have listened to all the offers.

 

 

[marshy]

30 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

It takes two to tango, what would you do sign the first contract stuck under your nose?  Or wait till you look at other options?  It's a no brainier to me if you have a player on your books who is showing real promise then you don't sign anything until you have listened to all the offers.

Agreed. One wonders then who potentially has their eyes on him. 

[Inspector Lestrade]

21 minutes ago, marshy said:

Agreed. One wonders then who potentially has their eyes on him. 

 

Hopefully no one, still think he needs quite a bit of work, not the finished article yet, but should have a good career.

[gurujuan]

A young quick centre back, is a very sought after commodity 

[FlyingOwl]

10 hours ago, marshy said:

The situation with urhoghide is beyond. How true it is I don't know, but thus far there's no sniff of a contract for him according to one local paper. When will we learn? 

Are we saying he isn't good enough?

 

He’ll end up somewhere like Leeds and Chansiri will question the fans logic cos ‘we didn’t even know who Uroghide was two years ago’ 

[ChinaOwl]

9 hours ago, gurujuan said:

A young quick centre back, is a very sought after commodity 

 

One that can morph into a prolific striker is even more sought after. 

[FlyingOwl]

I’ve only seen the highlights of course but for me I’d be wanting to put him on the bench a few times before the seasons out for the first team. Even just for experience and for a taste of things. Encourage other young strikers in the youth set up that if you score goals you’re rewarded. 
 

Other teams do it. Relegation or not, I’d rather him on the bench than Marriott. 
 

What’s the harm in making an attempt to fast track him to see what he does? A few games with the under 23s? Have him dip in and out of senior training? You don’t know if you’ve got genuine special talent on your hands until you do these things.