• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Tommy Watson ( ...off to Brighton)


sunderpitt said:
His going i presume will be the first of many.

Apparently it's the model we are following, nurture a good player and sell him... so the owners do not have to dip their hands in their pockets much.

From the Accounts, I think we have a loan of some £8m, against the clubs assets to cover losses to date.

Short, iirc, wrote off some £100m +, not this guy!
Click to expand...
Oh aye. Let's just sit and praise Ellis Short shall we?

The man who watched over the club fall to the 3rd tier and consecutive relegations, while also in receipt of parachute payments.

The man who then sold the club to Donald and Methven and allowed the clubs parachute payments to be used towards the purchase.

What a f*cking hero :rolleyes:
 
This is the model.

Imo we should be happy for the lad and get the best fee possible with sell-ons. We're not in the promised land yet and need to improve on and off the pitch incrementally - this is what that means.

We know from bitter experience that there is no magic wand, no quick fixes and I think we need to be happy we now seemingly have a plan.

Good luck to him, I look forward to him doing well. I hope we can go the distance and replicate the sustainable success that Brighton and Brentford are achieving.
 
Keith S30S said:
After he'd made a complete balls up of everything he generously left us debt free.

Hardly a glowing way to run a club.
Click to expand...

He didn't even leave us debt free tbh either.

Still 30m+ of transfer debt even though we sold Pickford and Mannone - presumably that went towards the SBC loan he paid off and had his claws on wasn't it the SoL and AoL till the parachute payments for the first season went to him?

Of course he could have left us in a worse financial position, but I think he done a bit of damage limitation to both his losses at SAFC and his reputation and passed us over to anyone daft enough to take it on.
SAFC Wilks said:
Mundle has been excellent in comparison to Watson since they’ve both came back from a long lay off.
Click to expand...

I thought Mundle was beginning to get a bit one dimensional before his injury but his pace and physique meant he was still an outlet.

Watson appeared to be in good form before injury but IMO has been quite poor since his return.

I'm of the opinion that a few people hadn't really spotted the drop off in Mundle's form prior to his injury as we were both flying and he scored against Luton and was involved in a coupe of goals against someone poor whom I forget (was it derby?) where the reality was teams were beginning to get tighter to him and he didn't have the freedom he had previously - he wasn't getting down the left and was running into bodies when coming inside. He's come back and still been an outlet, as good as he was before injury but people are seemingly judging against his early season form where he was ripping it up.
 
Last edited:
Perryqhill said:
He didn't even leave us debt free tbh either.

Still 30m+ of transfer debt even though we sold Pickford and Mannone - presumably that went towards the SBC loan he paid off and had his claws on wasn't it the SoL and AoL till the parachute payments for the first season went to him?

Of course he could have left us in a worse financial position, but I think he done a bit of damage limitation to both his losses at SAFC and his reputation and passed us over to anyone daft enough to take it on.


I thought Mundle was beginning to get a bit one dimensional before his injury but his pace and physique meant he was still an outlet.

Watson appeared to be in good form before injury but IMO has been quite poor since his return.

I'm of the opinion that a few people hadn't really spotted the drop off in Mundle's form prior to his injury as we were both flying and he scored against Luton and was involved in a coupe of goals against someone poor whom I forget (was it derby?) where the reality was teams were beginning to get tighter to him and he didn't have the freedom he had previously - he wasn't getting down the left and was running into bodies when coming inside. He's come back and still been an outlet, as good as he was before injury but people are seemingly judging against his early season form where he was ripping it up.
Click to expand...
Mundle literally got 2 assists the game he got injured
 
The more I look at this coming out in the wash....
We've got 10m + 20% sell on clause for a 17 year old whose started 6 times.

He could up playing for England and we would make good on our investment.

He wants to play in the premier league. He won't start for Brighton next season.

His Agent has had many a word in his ear wanting his 20%!

All the best to the lad, but not sure I would have done the same aged 17 playing for the club I love.
 
daveyt said:
This is the model.

Imo we should be happy for the lad and get the best fee possible with sell-ons. We're not in the promised land yet and need to improve on and off the pitch incrementally - this is what that means.

We know from bitter experience that there is no magic wand, no quick fixes and I think we need to be happy we now seemingly have a plan.

Good luck to him, I look forward to him doing well. I hope we can go the distance and replicate the sustainable success that Brighton and Brentford are achieving.
Click to expand...
To be fair I don't think this is really an example of our model operating as we'd wish. If there is a model, it involves giving young lads minutes, making us a good place for them to come. They become regulars, perform well, we get their replacement into the club and start developing them so that the first choice can leave when they've pretty much done all they can do in this league and their value is maximised.

I imagine, in an ideal world, Mundle and Watson would have both got plenty minutes next season. By the end of the season Mundle (who is obviously ahead of Watson at the minute) would have nothing left to prove in this league and would go for £20m or whatever and we'd already have Watson ready to step straight in. Selling the younger player before they've really contributed wouldn't be what we'd want but the fact he won't agree a new contract and has got interest from elsewhere has forced our hand
 
daveyt said:
This is the model.

Imo we should be happy for the lad and get the best fee possible with sell-ons. We're not in the promised land yet and need to improve on and off the pitch incrementally - this is what that means.

We know from bitter experience that there is no magic wand, no quick fixes and I think we need to be happy we now seemingly have a plan.

Good luck to him, I look forward to him doing well. I hope we can go the distance and replicate the sustainable success that Brighton and Brentford are achieving.
Click to expand...
Why on earth should we be happy for someone leaving to sign for Brighton whilst we're pushing for the PL and potentially being in a position to offer him a decent contract in the summer?

He's played a few games and gone at the first opportunity. Although I don't blame kids being attracted by the big money on offer.

Hopefully we see very little of him before the season is out though.

And brighton's owner pumped half a billion into the club. They made huge losses getting to where they are now.
 
chopsfc007 said:
Mundle literally got 2 assists the game he got injured
Click to expand...
Yes against Oxford. That's the one I meant. Oxford were absolutely sh*te and gave him space he hadn't been getting for a while.

His form hadn't been great leading up to it though, it's pretty much the point I was making. He'd scored one goal in about 7 games after starting the season on fire.

Fair enough if you think he'd been on the same kind of form, but he hadn't.
 
North Yorks Mackem said:
Why on earth should we be happy for someone leaving to sign for Brighton whilst we're pushing for the PL and potentially being in a position to offer him a decent contract in the summer?

He's played a few games and gone at the first opportunity. Although I don't blame kids being attracted by the big money on offer.

Hopefully we see very little of him before the season is out though.

And brighton's owner pumped half a billion into the club. They made huge losses getting to where they are now.
Click to expand...
Don't criticise The Model.
It is our salvation.
 
Perryqhill said:
Yes against Oxford. That's the one I meant. Oxford were absolutely sh*te and gave him space he hadn't been getting for a while.

His form hadn't been great leading up to it though, it's pretty much the point I was making. He'd scored one goal in about 7 games after starting the season on fire.

Fair enough if you think he'd been on the same kind of form, but he hadn't.
Click to expand...
It was Coventry
 
Hank Scorpio said:
Brighton have paid £10m purely for potential mate. There will be an element of future proofing in his contract given the fee paid but clubs like Brighton simply won’t have 18 year old lads, who have barely played 20 games (of which over half he was pretty poor in), sitting on £40k a week for the next 3-4 years. It’s just not the way that well run clubs operate.
Click to expand...
Prem player on £2-3m. The signing on fee alone (if true) is equivalent to £10k per week…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top