No Goalkeeper Brought in, Why?

[SFC Forever]

We have had a keeper problem for a very long time.

Why has that position not been adequately improved?

Just about every fan of our club can see this is a serious error of judgement. So why can't the club.

Giving the worst of our keepers a new contract is for me damned ludicrous.

Even with a team short of strength, talent, and energy can survive with a keeper worth his salt.

I imagine many of us if not the vast majority are completely disturbed by the decision to keep both AM and FF. Someone somewhere must have the answer and I would love to hear exactly what it may be.

[Turkish]

Because we are skint and have two senior goalkeepers already earning about £150k a week between them. It really isn't that difficult to work out.

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

It really isn't that difficult to work out.

 

[SFC Forever]

That is rubbish. We should have sorted the GK position before adding another CB/DM

[Lord Duckhunter]

5 minutes ago, SFC Forever said:

That is rubbish. We should have sorted the GK position before adding another CB/DM

Theo Walcott 

[SFC Forever]

Another terrible decision.

[TWar]

10 minutes ago, SFC Forever said:

We have had a keeper problem for a very long time.

Why has that position not been adequately improved?

Just about every fan of our club can see this is a serious error of judgement. So why can't the club.

Giving the worst of our keepers a new contract is for me damned ludicrous.

Even with a team short of strength, talent, and energy can survive with a keeper worth his salt.

I imagine many of us if not the vast majority are completely disturbed by the decision to keep both AM and FF. Someone somewhere must have the answer and I would love to hear exactly what it may be.

Existing keepers are on massive wages and we can't budget adding another without shifting one. Forster is out of contract next summer so will do it then. I don't like it either, but that is their reasoning 

[nta786]

12 minutes ago, SFC Forever said:

We have had a keeper problem for a very long time.

Why has that position not been adequately improved?

Just about every fan of our club can see this is a serious error of judgement. So why can't the club.

Giving the worst of our keepers a new contract is for me damned ludicrous.

Even with a team short of strength, talent, and energy can survive with a keeper worth his salt.

I imagine many of us if not the vast majority are completely disturbed by the decision to keep both AM and FF. Someone somewhere must have the answer and I would love to hear exactly what it may be.

because we can't afford the signing on fees, agents fees and add-ons that it would take to purchase a GK.

also because Forster will have served 8 years with us he will be owed a huge loyalty fee and a bonus and we are skint so this has been included in the budget

yes the above is a sarcastic post but there is probably an element of truth in there somewhere

[SFC Forever]

Yes we have monetary problems but is it not possible for us to make a deal by paying them off to go. Would not cost as much as they would receive for a full year if they were to stay, but they would be free to look for a place elsewhere.

There has to be other options open to us.

[SFC Forever]

I appreciate the lack of money available for us but we spend on attack and defence Walcott and Lyanco with money that may just have let us either loan or buy a GK

[Dman]

7 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Theo Walcott 

Agreed. A terrible footballer, with a questionable injury record as well. Adds nothing to our squad other than more averageness.

 

6 minutes ago, TWar said:

Existing keepers are on massive wages and we can't budget adding another without shifting one. Forster is out of contract next summer so will do it then. I don't like it either, but that is their reasoning 

I get this, however, it’s such an important position for us it seems a bit of a risk going into the season with 2 substandard goal keepers and a ropey back 4. 

Id have thought we could have found 5m or so from somewhere to pick up a free agent, like Romero. I’m sure if we subsidised the wage of Fraser or McCarthy, we could find a home for them on loan. 

Feels like an area were really neglecting and not appreciating the importance of. 
 

Just more proof of how poorly we’ve been ran for the past 5 seasons (excluding this and the last where we’re seemingly getting, or at least trying, our act together). 

[Lord Duckhunter]

10 minutes ago, TWar said:

Existing keepers are on massive wages and we can't budget adding another without shifting one. Forster is out of contract next summer so will do it then. I don't like it either, but that is their reasoning 

Theo Walcott 

[skintsaint]

Ralph likes this keepers to back peddle, roll around on the floor and to generally stand behind the goal. Not sure we can improve on McCarthy.

[stevy777_x]

19 minutes ago, Dman said:

Agreed. A terrible footballer, with a questionable injury record as well. Adds nothing to our squad other than more averageness.

 

I get this, however, it’s such an important position for us it seems a bit of a risk going into the season with 2 substandard goal keepers and a ropey back 4. 

Id have thought we could have found 5m or so from somewhere to pick up a free agent, like Romero. I’m sure if we subsidised the wage of Fraser or McCarthy, we could find a home for them on loan. 

Feels like an area were really neglecting and not appreciating the importance of. 
 

Just more proof of how poorly we’ve been ran for the past 5 seasons (excluding this and the last where we’re seemingly getting, or at least trying, our act together). 

Theo Walcott signing makes more sense than resigning Long on a 2 year contract.

[Dman]

18 minutes ago, stevy777_x said:

Theo Walcott signing makes more sense than resigning Long on a 2 year contract.

They’re both shit. Both pretty stupid deals for a club as skint as us. 

However, if I remember rightly, Long, for large parts of the season we offered him a new deal was keeping Adams out the team and developed a decent partnership with Ings. 

Theo has been rubbish from the moment he re-signed. Which was obvious to be fair, he’s been pretty substandard for years now. 

[Baird of the land]

1 hour ago, SFC Forever said:

That is rubbish. We should have sorted the GK position before adding another CB/DM

That's clearly rubbish. Going into a season with only 3 CB was not tenable. Going in with two average keepers is.

[Markyruk]

47 minutes ago, SFC Forever said:

Yes we have monetary problems but is it not possible for us to make a deal by paying them off to go. Would not cost as much as they would receive for a full year if they were to stay, but they would be free to look for a place elsewhere.

There has to be other options open to us.

If we pay them off we would have to pay the full value of their remaining contract plus any loyalty bonuses due when the contracts end. We would then have to pay, transfer fee, signing on fees, agents fees etc to get a replacement in. This would make your suggestion unviable.

the only suitable option would be to arrange a transfer and looking at their quality and wages this is unlikely to happen.

 

 

 

[Jeremy Corbyn]

6 minutes ago, Dman said:

They’re both shit. Both pretty stupid deals for a club as skint as us. 

However, if I remember rightly, Long, for large parts of the season we offered him a new deal was keeping Adams out the team and developed a decent partnership with Ings. 

Theo has been rubbish from the moment he re-signed. Which was obvious to be fair, he’s been pretty substandard for years now. 

Theo was excellent for the first third of last season.  Not saying the contract was a smart choice but saying he was rubbish from the start is nonsense.

[skintsaint]

10 minutes ago, Jeremy Corbyn said:

Theo was excellent for the first third of last season. 

[Toadhall Saint]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

Because we are skint and have two senior goalkeepers already earning about £150k a week between them. It really isn't that difficult to work out.

Boom there you go OP first response.

[Kenilworthy]

What we constantly overlook is that a top quality keeper papers over so many cracks that reinforcement in outfield positions. It is not a question of affording a new keeper. We simply cannot afford not to have a better keeper, it could make the difference between being in the PL or Championship next season

[OldNick]

Loyalty bonus, what a load of tosh that any pro footballer gets one. The only reason they stay at the club as they are bang average and so nobody knocks on the door for them lol

[SFC Forever]

You guys keep telling me that we are skint, yet we can afford to buy players for different positions. As much as they may improve our squad that all counts for nothing when we do not have a decent goalie. We have all been saying how poor the goalies are yet nothing is done about it.

Just think of the top teams and how they change there keepers when not good enough. There just has to be a better way to cover our defence and build it's confidence. 

Sadly with the available pair we will never be able to climb the table to a healthy position. No matter how good we can be a gaffe from a keeper destroys it all and I would not be at all surprised if our defenders are always worried by our keepers.

[Turkish]

44 minutes ago, adriansfc said:

I don't get the logic. What was Gunn on? Can't have been a small wage. Why is it ok to stockpile so many no10s? Walcott can't be on tiny wages, Moi/Djenepo/Redmond/Armstrong too. 

Surely we can accept we messed up the keepers and sign someone else to make sure we have a decent season this year. 

I really hope we don't apply this buy young to sell on thing to the keepers too. There's just no need to do it for every single player. Keepers can easily play til 35 and some experience there would really help us. I'd suggest that our defenders would flourish more and be more saleable assets if we had a decent, experienced keeper behind them.

You can play two or three of them at the same time or they can do jobs in other positions, you can only play one goalkeeper at a time and they can only play in goal. Again, it isn't hard to work out.

[S-Clarke]

Why is this so hard for people to work out?

3 first choice goalies on substantial wages would be daft. We bit that pill a little with Gunn, although that was offset because we either loaned out Forster or Gun.

But if neither of Forster or Alex have any takers then we are stuck. As much as I'd like us to get a goalkeeper now I can understand why it would be stupid, and akin to opening staplewood and throwing millions of quid into thin air. Which we don't have.

[Lord Duckhunter]

45 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

Why is this so hard for people to work out?

3 first choice goalies on substantial wages would be daft. We bit that pill a little with Gunn, although that was offset because we either loaned out Forster or Gun.

But if neither of Forster or Alex have any takers then we are stuck. As much as I'd like us to get a goalkeeper now I can understand why it would be stupid, and akin to opening staplewood and throwing millions of quid into thin air. Which we don't have.

How much does Theo Walcott earn & could we get a keeper in on a free or a loan for the same amount.  Burnley’s free acquisition was motm last night, I’m not saying he was the answer, but a blanket defence of the decision on the basis that we’re paying 2 keepers already is nonsense.

 

If McCarthy & Forster are absolutely hopeless and cost us game after game, will you still be parroting the same line in the Jan window.  Would it be “ daft” to get someone in in Jan if we’re in the bottom 3 because of them 2? 

[Whitey Grandad]

If one of our goalkeepers was injured we would need to get someone in to cover. In this instance they’re not injured, they’re just not very good.

[Toadhall Saint]

17 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

How much does Theo Walcott earn & could we get a keeper in on a free or a loan for the same amount.  Burnley’s free acquisition was motm last night, I’m not saying he was the answer, but a blanket defence of the decision on the basis that we’re paying 2 keepers already is nonsense.

 

If McCarthy & Forster are absolutely hopeless and cost us game after game, will you still be parroting the same line in the Jan window.  Would it be “ daft” to get someone in in Jan if we’re in the bottom 3 because of them 2? 

If we are in the bottom 3 it won’t just be because of those 2.

[Saint_clark]

4 hours ago, SFC Forever said:

Yes we have monetary problems but is it not possible for us to make a deal by paying them off to go. Would not cost as much as they would receive for a full year if they were to stay, but they would be free to look for a place elsewhere.

There has to be other options open to us.

Why would they agree to that? 

"Hey, want to get less than your yearly salary to become unemployed?"

[Baird of the land]

34 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

How much does Theo Walcott earn & could we get a keeper in on a free or a loan for the same amount.  Burnley’s free acquisition was motm last night, I’m not saying he was the answer, but a blanket defence of the decision on the basis that we’re paying 2 keepers already is nonsense.

 

If McCarthy & Forster are absolutely hopeless and cost us game after game, will you still be parroting the same line in the Jan window.  Would it be “ daft” to get someone in in Jan if we’re in the bottom 3 because of them 2? 

I assume theo’s demands weren’t particularly large, was keen and easy to get done and he offers versatility and experience.

Personally don’t think Hennessy is any better than what we have. Burnley brought him in so they could get their second choice game time out on loan, so made sense for them.

heard Romero mentioned a lot (my assumption is he has high wage demands and/or signing on fee demands) hence no one going near him.

 

[egg]

44 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

How much does Theo Walcott earn & could we get a keeper in on a free or a loan for the same amount.  Burnley’s free acquisition was motm last night, I’m not saying he was the answer, but a blanket defence of the decision on the basis that we’re paying 2 keepers already is nonsense.

 

Eh? What's Theo got to do with it, he still has to be paid if we get a keeper in!

As others have said, we're paying shite and shiter £150k PW, so it's pretty obvious that we ain't getting a new keeper in. 

[S-Clarke]

54 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

How much does Theo Walcott earn & could we get a keeper in on a free or a loan for the same amount.  Burnley’s free acquisition was motm last night, I’m not saying he was the answer, but a blanket defence of the decision on the basis that we’re paying 2 keepers already is nonsense.

 

If McCarthy & Forster are absolutely hopeless and cost us game after game, will you still be parroting the same line in the Jan window.  Would it be “ daft” to get someone in in Jan if we’re in the bottom 3 because of them 2? 

The point you keep making about Theo is irrelevant.

I don't think he was a good choice for a free signing, but that didn't impact our ability or inability to sign a goalkeeper.

[Lord Duckhunter]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

Eh? What's Theo got to do with it, he still has to be paid if we get a keeper in!

 

It’s obvious what he’s got to do with it. 
 

Instead of getting him in on a free, couldn’t we have saved his salary and got a free or loan to play in nets. 

[Turkish]

9 minutes ago, egg said:

Eh? What's Theo got to do with it, he still has to be paid if we get a keeper in!

As others have said, we're paying shite and shiter £150k PW, so it's pretty obvious that we ain't getting a new keeper in. 

If i went to my CEO and said i need to bring in another Admin person as the two i've got are shit and keep fucking up orders which is costing us business they'd tell me to get rid of them or improve them, i wouldn't be allowed to bring in a third one. That doesn't stop my ability to bring in a new sales or technical person if we need one. Principle is the same. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 minute ago, S-Clarke said:

 

I don't think he was a good choice for a free signing, but that didn't impact our ability or inability to sign a goalkeeper.

Course it does, if as you claim, we haven’t got money to get a keeper in. 
 

Stop trying to make out we didn’t have a choice, that somehow we “couldn’t” sign a keeper. We could, but we didn’t. 
 

If the 2 chumps we’ve got have cost us 12 points come December, do you think we should sign someone in that window? 
 

 

[S-Clarke]

4 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Course it does, if as you claim, we haven’t got money to get a keeper in. 
 

Stop trying to make out we didn’t have a choice, that somehow we “couldn’t” sign a keeper. We could, but we didn’t. 
 

If the 2 chumps we’ve got have cost us 12 points come December, do you think we should sign someone in that window? 
 

 

Of course we had a choice, but the board we have aren't idiots so they decided it would have been a silly idea to sign a third goalkeeper when we already had 2.

Let's think about what that would have given us.

McCarthy - 50k ish p/w, Forster, 80kish p/w. New keeper - 50k p/w? (going rate).

That's almost 200k on goalkeeper wages and we can only play 1 of them, and only rotate between 2. If you think it's a sound business decision to have someone sat not involved or playing, but being paid 50k p/w then by all means go and suggest that to a business and see if they allow that to happen.

We have to be very careful with our signings and make sensible decisions with regards to squad building. That would have been a stupid idea, as much as we need one, we're not in a position to get one. I don't know how else to spell it out really.

But of course, it's Ralphs fault isn't it.

Edited 26 August, 2021 by S-Clarke

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

Of course we had a choice, but the board we have aren't idiots so they decided it would have been a silly idea to sign a third goalkeeper when we already had 2.

But of course, it's Ralphs fault isn't it.

You make out as if Ralph has just landed at the club and has inherited the situation. Anyone with half a brain could see this happening, they were both  shite a year ago. If the manager of 3 seasons isn’t to blame for only have substandard players in a position, I don’t know who is. 
 

Maybe, just maybe Ralph thinks McCarthy is good enough. I’ve not seen anything that suggests otherwise. If he’s capable of playing Redmond over Adams in a semi final, he’s proved he’s capable of poor judgement. 

You won’t answer the question. If these 2 are horrendous and cost us 12 points come Jan, should we bite the bullet and get someone in. Or will you still be trying to claim we can’t? 

[S-Clarke]

1 minute ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

You make out as if Ralph has just landed at the club and has inherited the situation. Anyone with half a brain could see this happening, they were both  shite a year ago. If the manager of 3 seasons isn’t to blame for only have substandard players in a position, I don’t know who is. 
 

Maybe, just maybe Ralph thinks McCarthy is good enough. I’ve not seen anything that suggests otherwise. If he’s capable of playing Redmond over Adams in a semi final, he’s proved he’s capable of poor judgement. 

You won’t answer the question. If these 2 are horrendous and cost us 12 points come Jan, should we bite the bullet and get someone in. Or will you still be trying to claim we can’t? 

I still don't think the situation will have changed come then either, if no one wants either then we are stuck.

Going back on your point - Ralph came to a club with Gunn, Forster and McCarthy in the ranks. He made the decision in the summer of 2019 to dump Forster and go with Gunn and McCarthy as the two. Sadly, Gunn had an absolute nightmare so we had to revert back to McCarthy.

Then Forster came back, Gunn went out on loan and we had Forster and McCarthy as the two. Now Gunn has gone for good we still have those two.

I have no doubts that as a club we have been actively looking for takers for Fraser for a number of years, no doubts at all. Sadly there haven't been any takers on the wages he is on and he didn't want to take a pay cut, so that leaves the power in the players hands. We either have an expensive asset sat doing nothing, or we integrate him in the squad and use him where we can with the view of addressing the situation when his contract expires.

That's where we are at. This goalkeeping situation is a left over mess of past bad decisions, so let's not make more bad decisions by stockpiling more goalies. They're both average, no disagreements there, but we will have to bite the bullet and pay for our mistakes of the past with Forsters contract in particular.

[Charlie Wayman]

The goalkeeping section probably has an annual budget with nothing left in their kitty until one of our colanders leaves.

[The Cat]

Hopefully having better outfield players and a more balanced squad will reduce the number of shots on target the keepers have to face anyway.

Less shots on target = less chance of a mistake leading to a goal.

We can muddle through this season with what we have.

[egg]

50 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

It’s obvious what he’s got to do with it. 
 

Instead of getting him in on a free, couldn’t we have saved his salary and got a free or loan to play in nets. 

Sorry, I didn't realise this was a hindsight discussion. He's here, belly aching about it doesn't get his wages off the books and/or free up cash for a keeper. It's a daft thread frankly, and the obvious point has been made that we either can't afford or justify more wages for another keeper. 

Edited 26 August, 2021 by egg

[The Kraken]

17 minutes ago, The Cat said:

Hopefully having better outfield players and a more balanced squad will reduce the number of shots on target the keepers have to face anyway.

Less shots on target = less chance of a mistake leading to a goal.

We can muddle through this season with what we have.

Do we have a better outfield XI than last season? Not sure myself, in fact I’d say no on early impressions.

The notion of a more balanced squad doesn’t strike me as a big win either, it just means we’ve got more players who don’t merit an automatic first choice pick. Squad depth is great when there us genuinely decent PL quality throughout. I don’t see that with our squad.

Edited 26 August, 2021 by The Kraken

[Cartman]

6 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Theo Walcott 

This.

The "we are skint" argument is laughable when we had the money to sign Walcott who we didn't need, as is the argument that we have a fixed budget for goalkeepers and that we can't possibly increase it by decreasing the budget for outfield players. The money was there, we just decided not to spend it on a goalkeeper for some inexplicable reason.

[The Cat]

1 minute ago, The Kraken said:

Do we have a better outfield XI than last season? Not sure myself, in fact I’d say no on early impressions.

The notion of a more balanced squad doesn’t strike me as a big win either, it just means we’ve got more players who don’t merit an automatic first choice pick. Squad depth is great when there us genuine PL quality throughout. I don’t see that with our squad.

We have much better fullback options now, just look at what Livramento has done in 2 games so far.

Last season we were doing really well until Walker Peters got injured and then we rapidly went down hill, partly because of having to fit people in at RB who were either massively out of position or just a bit shit.

Full backs are ridiculously important to how we play and that area is now significantly stronger which will benefit the whole team.

Ings is obviously a big loss but I think that overall the squad does have better outfield players, especially in the the way the team will defend. And by that I mean the whole team, as our pressing demands every player performs a defensive role even when they are in the opposition half.

[The Kraken]

We’ll see on Livramento as he’s clearly a great talent, but KWP is also an excellent right back and I’d be surprised if he’s usurped so easily. Perraud looks ok so far but I rate Bertrand better on this seasons potential alone ( or at least I did before he got the ‘rona). Losing Ings, however good a replacement we’d have realistically got would have been would be a downgrade, that’s no offence to AA who looks lively but I don’t see him scoring 20+ this season (hope I’m wrong).

In think the squad, overall, is more even than last year, but I don’t see that it’s better. A step up,in some positions, a step down in others, overall even but with some young players in who offer a bit of an unknown. Time will tell, always.

Edited 26 August, 2021 by The Kraken

[SFC Forever]

3 hours ago, S-Clarke said:

Why is this so hard for people to work out?

3 first choice goalies on substantial wages would be daft. We bit that pill a little with Gunn, although that was offset because we either loaned out Forster or Gun.

But if neither of Forster or Alex have any takers then we are stuck. As much as I'd like us to get a goalkeeper now I can understand why it would be stupid, and akin to opening staplewood and throwing millions of quid into thin air. Which we don't have.

Blinkers still on I see. What is wrong with bringing in a better keeper when we can have 3 or 4 midfield players o0n wages and mostly bystanders.

Yes goalkeeping is a special art but when you have two keepers so woeful and likely to lose you many points there is just no logic. if we could afford so many attacking style players then we should have got the keeper first.

What has been our priority for the last year or three. Goalkeeper position and which has not been filled adequately. 

Yep Goalkeeper

[Lord Duckhunter]

35 minutes ago, Cartman said:

This.

The "we are skint" argument is laughable when we had the money to sign Walcott who we didn't need, as is the argument that we have a fixed budget for goalkeepers and that we can't possibly increase it by decreasing the budget for outfield players. The money was there, we just decided not to spend it on a goalkeeper for some inexplicable reason.

Well put. Someone has decided that we need strengthening in other positions, and that we can get by with these two. At the end of the season we’ll see if this was a good call. If it wasn’t, the people who made it are accountable, not the people who signed them.  

[SFC Forever]

2 hours ago, Saint_clark said:

Why would they agree to that? 

"Hey, want to get less than your yearly salary to become unemployed?"

They get a pay off and then are free to play for another team. Surely even you can understand that. They would still be at least in the same wage bracket and possibly more.

[verlaine1979]

Didn't we have three senior keepers on the books as recently as 2018/19? Gunn was signed in July 2018 and became second choice behind McCarthy. Fraser didn't go out on loan until the start of the 2019 season.

We've done it before, and I think the arguments that it's worth doing again now for a year are pretty strong (assuming the right candidate is available).

 

[egg]

21 minutes ago, SFC Forever said:

They get a pay off and then are free to play for another team. Surely even you can understand that. They would still be at least in the same wage bracket and possibly more.

If we buy out a contract, we pay the wages in full up to the end of the contract unless a player takes less money - neither would agree to that.