Snog, Marry, Avoid: Summer 2023 Transfer Window

[sonicthewhite]

Errr I meant signing two full backs who can't defend. Honest!

[officer_dibble]

Sadlier joins Wycombe Wanderers. It’s nice we’ve done the lad a favour but it makes zero sense that it’s cost us money!

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Sadlier joins Wycombe Wanderers. It’s nice we’ve done the lad a favour but it makes zero sense that it’s cost us money!

I'm sure that would have been carefully assessed. Had they (or Lincoln or Orient or whoever) wanted to loan him without paying his full wage, that would have cost us too.

Clearly nobody fancied doing a deal while he was still under contract, which might say something. I struggle to see him fitting in at Wycombe but I bear him no malice and his farewell message seems genuine.

[officer_dibble]

He’s a good set piece taker isn’t he? I mean he might not win them the league but he’ll be useful for them I think?

[BWFC_Insane]

Sadlier joins Wycombe Wanderers. It’s nice we’ve done the lad a favour but it makes zero sense that it’s cost us money!

I'm sure that would have been carefully assessed. Had they (or Lincoln or Orient or whoever) wanted to loan him without paying his full wage, that would have cost us too.

Clearly nobody fancied doing a deal while he was still under contract, which might say something. I struggle to see him fitting in at Wycombe but I bear him no malice and his farewell message seems genuine.

The fact he’s gone to Wycombe suggests decent clubs were interested. I’m not sure paying to send him to a rival makes a lot of sense,

[jmjhb]

Bit surprised he's gone to Wycombe when he doesn't do the defending stuff particularly well

[Mar]

Sadlier joins Wycombe Wanderers. It’s nice we’ve done the lad a favour but it makes zero sense that it’s cost us money!

How do you know its cost us money?

It was mutually agreed to release the player. Perhaps he knew that he was going to sign for Wycombe and we just cancelled the rest of the terms of the contract?

[Harry Genshaw]

It's highly likely to have cost us isn't it? Standard procedure is to pay up the contract for a released player who hasn't requested a transfer. Mutual agreement may mean, we've only paid a proportion of the wages and bonuses that were due.

[officer_dibble]

He’s have moved for free on deadline day if it wasn’t costing us. Hopefully cost us less than having him around for the rest of the season.

[Mar]

It's highly likely to have cost us isn't it? Standard procedure is to pay up the contract for a released player who hasn't requested a transfer. Mutual agreement may mean, we've only paid a proportion of the wages and bonuses that were due.

I suspect if anything, we'd've paid the difference between what he's getting at Wycombe and what we were going to pay him. Meaning the only difference as far as the player is concerned is that he'll actually get to play for a club.

[BWFC_Insane]

It's highly likely to have cost us isn't it? Standard procedure is to pay up the contract for a released player who hasn't requested a transfer. Mutual agreement may mean, we've only paid a proportion of the wages and bonuses that were due.

I suspect if anything, we'd've paid the difference between what he's getting at Wycombe and what we were going to pay him. Meaning the only difference as far as the player is concerned is that he'll actually get to play for a club.

Maybe but the point is him going to a rival has cost us money, it may have saved us some wages in the process but it feels less than great - had he gone to league two or even Leyton Orient it would not seem so bad.

[boltonboris]

It's highly likely to have cost us isn't it? Standard procedure is to pay up the contract for a released player who hasn't requested a transfer. Mutual agreement may mean, we've only paid a proportion of the wages and bonuses that were due.

I suspect if anything, we'd've paid the difference between what he's getting at Wycombe and what we were going to pay him. Meaning the only difference as far as the player is concerned is that he'll actually get to play for a club.

Maybe but the point is him going to a rival has cost us money, it may have saved us some wages in the process but it feels less than great - had he gone to league two or even Leyton Orient it would not seem so bad.

So we keep him around doing nothing for £100k, or we give him £50k or whatever and go and let him play football. Forget that they're a "rival" (they're not) as that is completely irrelevant

[BWFC_Insane]

It's highly likely to have cost us isn't it? Standard procedure is to pay up the contract for a released player who hasn't requested a transfer. Mutual agreement may mean, we've only paid a proportion of the wages and bonuses that were due.

I suspect if anything, we'd've paid the difference between what he's getting at Wycombe and what we were going to pay him. Meaning the only difference as far as the player is concerned is that he'll actually get to play for a club.

Maybe but the point is him going to a rival has cost us money, it may have saved us some wages in the process but it feels less than great - had he gone to league two or even Leyton Orient it would not seem so bad.

So we keep him around doing nothing for £100k, or we give him £50k or whatever and go and let him play football. Forget that they're a "rival" (they're not) as that is completely irrelevant

For me the ideal would have been not to have him doing nothing but to involve him and use him as a potential point of difference off the bench. Evatt didn’t want to but in doing so it’s cost us money and left the squad even thinner than it was.

My issue is if we are looking to change a game we are losing or struggling to score in…Sadlier does offer a) a decent delivery and b) possibility of scoring a goal. As Iles has been discussing our impact off the bench this season so far is non existent. And yes CMG will get there but still Sadlier offers more prospect for me than most who sit on our bench.

[boltonboris]

But he's not good enough to play for us and is therefore a waste of resources. That much is clear. And became clear last season when we evolved without him.

[Mar]

But he's not good enough to play for us and is therefore a waste of resources. That much is clear. And became clear last season when we evolved without him.

I think what BWFCI is claiming is that its better to have him, than just getting rid without replacement.

Sadlier was good at times and did have an impact off the bench. Sure he's not fit Evatt's remit, just like John, but they were good and we're worse off without them from a sheer names on paper point of view. When in reality its a bit more nuanced. Having two players outside the squad, wanting to play but left out in the cold, might be slightly disruptive. We're saving money by not having them on the books. Hopefully that gets reinvested in wages in January and we bring in some actual quality.

[BWFC_Insane]

But he's not good enough to play for us and is therefore a waste of resources. That much is clear. And became clear last season when we evolved without him.

What does not good enough mean though? Is he a better option off the bench than either Jerome or Nlundulu? Absolutely by miles.

The thing is that I agree that he was not a good fit overall. Had we sold him for money…great. Had even he gone on a free without costing us…then ok. Had we replaced him in those circumstances with a right wing back then better still.

But paying for him to go to Wycombe whilst we have the bench we have feels less than ideal.

[Worthy4England]

Don't think it's a hanging offence but can see both sides and no right answer, really. If Evatt not going to play them, which was fairly apparent, despite what seemed to be a bit of kiss and make up with John after last Jan, then their value to us is pretty much zero, coz he isn't going to pick them...

I don't think, just because they're on our books we just keep them and assume that's going to work great on the off-chance a plague hits town and they're not affected.

[boltonboris]

He wants to play football, he's not going to for us. It's unfair to keep him around on the off chance he may get 20 minutes off the bench in the Rumbelows cup.

We reduce the wage bill, he gets enough to walk away and make up the short fall elsewhere, where he gets a higher chance of playing

It's a win for everyone

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I think Sadlier might be one of those whose legend grows greater in absentia.

Last season he got one assist and one goal (the deadest of consolations at Derby) in 19 League One appearances for us. So he went to the division below and in 1,200 minutes of league action for the champions he got one goal and five assists – an assist every four hours. No assists against relegated Rochdale or Hartlepool; none against Wimbledon (who finished 21st), Colchester (20th), Harrogate (19th), Gillingham (17th) or Walsall (16th). He didn't face Doncaster (18th) so the only assist he got against the bottom third of the division below us was against Crawley – with a pass I rather suspect was intended for a different player: https://youtu.be/_D_KlegL89g?si=IiFytev5hJl2PDBS&t=37

I liked Sads and I wanted it to work for him here. It didn't. I think getting shut was the right thing to do. Where I think we went wrong is not getting anybody in at all to replace him.

[Worthy4England]

He wants to play football, he's not going to for us. It's unfair to keep him around on the off chance he may get 20 minutes off the bench in the Rumbelows cup.

We reduce the wage bill, he gets enough to walk away and make up the short fall elsewhere, where he gets a higher chance of playing

It's a win for everyone

Agree mate. No point trying to keep people on the "off chance" unless their happy with that notion.