• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Kimpioka

Status
Not open for further replies.
10 Gary Rowells said:
Not really - we've been utterly ruined by playing players who don't want to be here. Kimpioka has been OK at best. Imagine putting him on the bench then playing him instead of an unfit McGeady and we still lost - hell on. Its one of those situations where Donald can't win and, on balance, I think his stance is correct.
Click to expand...
He had pace and unpredictability which we desperately needed. If he does go, we'll get peanuts for him now as he hasn't shown his worth.
Could have shown his worth which could have meant promotion and a bigger fee - win win.
 

Kid Galahad said:
He set his stall out early on about young lads and their contracts so no argument about it from me.
Click to expand...

It's such a fine line though, one that SD has already fallen foul of with massive consequences that ended up with costing him a lot of money.
 
West_Winger said:
Can’t believe people are defending an owner telling a manager what players he can or can’t pick
Click to expand...
ross didnt pick him anyway..but yes i agree its the wrong policy..certainly when they are a year from end of contract..i think it might have validity a month from the end or something..
 
offmenut said:
Cos he hasn't signed a new contract and we're not going to get done like we did with Maja.
I tend to agree.
Play kimps next season, support him in a few dodgy outings when we're bloodng him and then he starts to look good and goes on a free next June
Click to expand...
Similar situation to Aribo at Charlton and look how thats turning out. In league one you have to accept that players will leave if the opportunity arises to play at a higher level. The only party getting done out of this is us for making him rot when he might have had an impact.

Besides, I very much doubt freezing the lad out is going to convince him to sign a new deal.
 
Imagine we had a player with a year left , who wanted to sign a new contract but the club don't want to offer him one. He refuses to play, why's it ok for the club to refuse to play a player who has a year left when he has a year left and won't sign. Double standards
 
kildaremackem said:
didnt work that way with maja....
Click to expand...
In retrospect we should've allowed him to amicably sign a pre-contractual agreement with Bordeaux and see the season out as our player. So we lose £3m or so in transfer fees, we wouldn't have had our pants pulled down trying to buy a replacement so late in the transfer window.
 
The Rat said:
Aye because playing Maja was a disaster

The decision to sell him was suicidal
Click to expand...
The decision not to have Maja on a contract was shocking. (nowt to do with this regime)
In hindsight I would think SD would have kept him. Bad mistake but I think he hoped he had rectified it with grigg.
It didnt pan out, but I understsnd why they did what they did
 
10 Gary Rowells said:
Not really - we've been utterly ruined by playing players who don't want to be here. Kimpioka has been OK at best. Imagine putting him on the bench then playing him instead of an unfit McGeady and we still lost - hell on. Its one of those situations where Donald can't win and, on balance, I think his stance is correct.
Click to expand...
Correct. May be some who think short term just play him but it's the right stance going forward
 
Abu Dhabi Red and White said:
He had pace and unpredictability which we desperately needed. If he does go, we'll get peanuts for him now as he hasn't shown his worth.
Could have shown his worth which could have meant promotion and a bigger fee - win win.
Click to expand...
You may be correct but he equally could have cost us a goal - its a little desperate relying on a raw, unproven talent but it may have worked. However, we haven't failed to get promotion because we haven't involved Kimpioka and the broader point of not being messed about by unproven players with awful agents seems to be the correct one. Everyone one the club to change the way we deal with contracts and it seems that that is what the club is trying to do. On Kimpioka the club seems to be doing the right thing.
 
offmenut said:
The decision not to have Maja on a contract was shocking. (nowt to do with this regime)
In hindsight I would think SD would have kept him. Bad mistake but I think he hoped he had rectified it with grigg.
It didnt pan out, but I understsnd why they did what they did
Click to expand...

Thr contracts irrelevant man

I said all along, let him go in thr summer

Weird decision
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top