pound for pound, Jordan Rhodes, the worst signing in our history?

[Indoor Owl]

5 hours ago, SallyCinnamon said:

I know that Rhodes is a good lad who gave his all. Those slating him need to realise he didn’t decide his transfer fee and wage. 
 

He didn’t get a fair crack at it here.

 

 

He did next to nothing. 

Finally rid of him, and he's hardly out the door and the revisionist history is already popping up.

 

As for not getting a fair crack, with appropriate respect, complete nonsense:

 

 

At ~5500 minutes, Rhodes has played a full 16% of his entire professional career at Wednesday.  It's a third of the time he spent at Blackburn, and half of his time at Huddersfield.

Under contract for five years, with like seven different managers, none of whom had any use for Rhodes once they had time to have a good look at him. 

 

Even on loan at Norwhich, he played in 36 games - and for the first 15 games he started and played nearly the full 90 minutes for 8 of them, until even Norwich decided they'd seen enough after 4 goals in 15 appearances, and punted him from the starting line up.

 

120 appearances.  20 goals to show for it.  "Didn't get a fair crack", my ass.

 

Rhodes was an absolute waste of everyone's time, waste of a lineup spot, and a waste of an absolute pile of money.

 

 

 

Edited May 21, 2021 by Indoor Owl

[nickswfc]

7 hours ago, Sticky Micky said:

Ah yes I remember when Rhodes was the main negotiator when Dc enquired for him at Middlesbrough 

 

Dc= hello Mr Gibson id like to buy jordan Rhodes off you how much would you like 

 

Gibson =erm ill have to get back to you, Mr Rhodes sets his own transfer cost 

 

 

Rhodes didn't pay the money to come here 

 

He took the pay cut to come here 

 

He still gave his all, even when f*cked about by every manager here 

 

 

 

 

You've baffled me here, what on earth are you going on about?

 

How have you taken a critique of a signing to mean the player negotiated his own fee?

[sexpistol]

6 hours ago, Emerson Thome said:

 

Yeah, agree, he was soft as shíte, but then so was Rhodes up until the Derby game. Still, ran about a lot, linked up nicely with Carbone and Di Canio, plenty of skill. I could think of at least 6 regulars from that time worse than him. Maybe just me, but always rated him as being half decent.

Rudi was a decent player

[sexpistol]

45 minutes ago, nickswfc said:

 

You've baffled me here, what on earth are you going on about?

 

How have you taken a critique of a signing to mean the player negotiated his own fee?

I thought the same. I think quite a few on here haven’t read properly or understood the thread.

[Bluewings]

1 hour ago, Indoor Owl said:

120 appearances.  20 goals to show for it.  "Didn't get a fair crack", my ass.

 

 

He comes across a genuinely nice lad Rhodes, wish him well and gutted it didn't work out for him.

But

These figures are hard to ignore, 1 goal in 6.... for a Striker who's only true attribute is to put the ball in the net is dire.

He came to score goals, he didn't do it as much as he "tried" he flopped massively considering the outlay.

 

 

[WhiteOwl91]

6 hours ago, The Night-Owl said:

 

Worst thing of all was that Rhodes at the time was a needless signing, we could've brought in some extra physicality in midfield or a box to box goalscoring midfielder instead.

 

We had plenty of other strikers at the time. I thought at the time we only needed one or two players in other areas and I think we'd have gone up. Instead we brought in Winnall and Rhodes, upset the applecart or something and cocked it up.

 

Rhodes was a monumental disaster of a signing and arguably the writing was on the wall, after he lost his way and his confidence at Middlesbrough before we even signed him. 

This is the worst thing about it. 
It was so clear as well that Hooper Fletcher Forestieri for starters you’d want in your side before Rhodes, so to splash £10m and those wages was nonsense! Still baffled to this day.

 

I understand Hooper and a few others were injured, but why not a loan for someone then ffs. 
 

Mismanagement of the highest level.

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

The transfer fee wasn't his fault of course, and he's far from being our worst ever player, but in terms of the outlay to return ratio, he has to be pretty close to our worst signing, I'm afraid.

 

In the context of what we had in the squad at the time, where the money invested in Rhodes could have been better spent, and the fact that it well and truly tipped us into the abyss in P&S terms, it was a shocker of a decision.

 

I mean, after his initial loan spell, we'd have gladly sent him back. Instead, we'd already signed a binding agreement to fork out £10m for him.

 

I can hardly believe it as I'm typing it, but we actually spent £10m on a player we didn't really want.

 

Just one of many crazy decisions which have led us into League One.

[Holmowl]

7 hours ago, CircleSeven said:

Elias did at least get one in the Onion bag for us (albeit in the League Cup). But yes. He was also absolute Dogshîte. 
I am also a bit prejudiced against Marriott because of his hair. Kind of greased bob/ ponytail combo. Very nasty. 

Fair assessment.

 

If Marriott had scored 20 and carried us to 6th place I’d have struggled unless he had a wash and cut.

 

Gareth Bale can’t get away with it and he’s world class.

[Holmowl]

3 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

The transfer fee wasn't his fault of course, and he's far from being our worst ever player, but in terms of the outlay to return ratio, he has to be pretty close to our worst signing, I'm afraid.

 

In the context of what we had in the squad at the time, where the money invested in Rhodes could have been better spent, and the fact that it well and truly tipped us into the abyss in P&S terms, it was a shocker of a decision.

 

I mean, after his initial loan spell, we'd have gladly sent him back. Instead, we'd already signed a binding agreement to fork out £10m for him.

 

I can hardly believe it as I'm typing it, but we actually spent £10m on a player we didn't really want.

 

Just one of many crazy decisions which have led us into League One.

When you say “we didn’t really want”, who’s the “we”?
 

Carlos clearly did want him. Put him straight in the side and played him every minute of every game. 
 

If you mean we didn’t need him that’s another matter entirely.

[unkastav]

Sinton

De Bilde

Abdi

Rhodes

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

21 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

When you say “we didn’t really want”, who’s the “we”?
 

Carlos clearly did want him. Put him straight in the side and played him every minute of every game. 
 

If you mean we didn’t need him that’s another matter entirely.

 

The royal 'we'.

 

 

I mean, after his initial lukewarm loan spell, the fanbase were generally against spending £10m on him.

 

I'd also question to what extent Carvalhal really wanted Rhodes: yes, he played him a lot initially, but he was never a great fit and his goal return was fairly poor for a forward of his type. I suspect politics played a large role in Carvalhal's continued selection of Rhodes in that initial spell - when your boss has broken the club's transfer fee for a player, it's going to be quite difficult to leave him out of the squad.

 

Of course, as time went on, Carvalhal used him more sparingly - not a great deal more in Rhodes' entire first full season at the club than he'd used him in his initial three month loan spell, and then of course he was farmed out on loan the next season.

[DIPPS_S.W.F.C]

Abdi........

12 hours ago, nickswfc said:

Whilst there have been poorer players on the pitch than Jordan Rhodes. In terms of fee, expectations and overall output I can't think of any worse

 

The huge transfer fee

 

The amount of games where he offered absolutely nothing

 

Perceived weak mental state (too scared to take a penalty)

 

His inability to score consistently (and before anyone pulls out the 'service' argument, both Fletcher and Hooper managed it with the same players around them)

 

The pressure to play him constantly when arguably those on the fringes would've performed better, key example Sam Winnall 

 

 

Abdi......

And we didnt play him constantly that was the problem...

Still a very poor return on fee.....

[RichSheffWeds]

£9m fee plus £35k a week over 4 years. 
 

£16.28m spent on Rhodes. 
 

Let that sink in ffs. 
 

No other player, even Abdi or Jeffers has been worse value. 
 

It’s frightened how much we spent on him. 
 

No wonder we are in a mess both financially and on the pitch.

[Holmowl]

1 hour ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

The royal 'we'.

 

 

I mean, after his initial lukewarm loan spell, the fanbase were generally against spending £10m on him.

 

I'd also question to what extent Carvalhal really wanted Rhodes: yes, he played him a lot initially, but he was never a great fit and his goal return was fairly poor for a forward of his type. I suspect politics played a large role in Carvalhal's continued selection of Rhodes in that initial spell - when your boss has broken the club's transfer fee for a player, it's going to be quite difficult to leave him out of the squad.

 

Of course, as time went on, Carvalhal used him more sparingly - not a great deal more in Rhodes' entire first full season at the club than he'd used him in his initial three month loan spell, and then of course he was farmed out on loan the next season.

Worth a quick look at his first season. 

 

Carlos picked him pretty much all the time

7th when he joined

4th by May

Won our first 4 games when he played 4 x 90 mins

Prior to that we’d got 6 points from 5 games

In our WWWWWW run in April he was on the pitch for each of our 10 goals

 

 

 

 

 

[@owlstalk]

[DuttyTeabags]

I'd love to digout some of the vitriol gotten by those who predicted the Rhodes signing was the worst bit of business we'd ever done and that the guy was slow and past his sellby date. 

 

The signing of Rhodes on a total 4 year deal of 18m quid in fees and wages when our annual income pre Covid was 16m is criminal. 

[@owlstalk]

 

I didn’t mind Jordan Rhodes

 

 

[matthefish2002]

8 minutes ago, DuttyTeabags said:

I'd love to digout some of the vitriol gotten by those who predicted the Rhodes signing was the worst bit of business we'd ever done and that the guy was slow and past his sellby date. 

 

The signing of Rhodes on a total 4 year deal of 18m quid in fees and wages when our annual income pre Covid was 16m is criminal. 

 

I thought it was a cracking signing.

Why wouldn't any Wednesday fan be excited seeing the best goalscorer in the last 20 years outside the Premier League sign for them.

Thought the time was over of us getting players like Gary Taylor-Fletcher as a stop gap loan players.

 

In retrospect I was wrong but I don't think I was the only one.

 

[Guest T Hardy]

4 hours ago, Holmowl said:

When you say “we didn’t really want”, who’s the “we”?
 

Carlos clearly did want him. Put him straight in the side and played him every minute of every game. 
 

If you mean we didn’t need him that’s another matter entirely.

I believe Chansiri told CC on deadline day that it was happening. CC’s main targets in that window were Winnall and Hourihane, and both of them were at our training ground to sign, but Villa offered Hourihane more at the last minute. 
 

It’s going to be difficult for a manager to leave out his chairman’s record signing. A bit like Torres at Chelsea I think, woefully out of form but they kept playing him. Why? Because Abramovich had just spent £50m on him, which at the time was obscene money. It shouldn’t happen, but from time to time, managers are going to feel pressure to play a player that their chairman has just spent a fortune on

[RichSheffWeds]

2 hours ago, Holmowl said:

Worth a quick look at his first season. 

 

Carlos picked him pretty much all the time

7th when he joined

4th by May

Won our first 4 games when he played 4 x 90 mins

Prior to that we’d got 6 points from 5 games

In our WWWWWW run in April he was on the pitch for each of our 10 goals

 

 

 

 

 

I think we need to discuss his success or failure over 4 years - not a few games. 
 

Circa £16-17m down the toilet.