Please - not again.

A-Ro · Post by **A-Ro** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:21 am

I have this terrible feeling of deja vu.

http&#58//news&#46bbc&#46co&#46uk/sport ... 863&#46stm

I hope the player registrations are in order.

Mooro · Post by **Mooro** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:00 pm

Do other clubs do this so blatantly, or is it only us?

GodalmingYellow · Post by **GodalmingYellow** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:12 pm

I really don't understand a policy of exclusion.

Even players with no future at the club, are expensive resources which should be properly utilised. Not only is there the possibility that with a small squad that we may need them, but even if that were not the case, surely they are usable assets to make up practice games and so on, and keeping them fit will surely enable earlier release. Sure there is a tiny cost of paying for their hotel rooms and meals on tour, but that can't be enough to justify exclusion can it?

Andrewmaha · Post by **Andrewmaha** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:57 pm

Another interesting point to consider........

We are not considering a player to be part of our plans and yet he is supposedly being watched by a team in a higher league (albeit Exeter).
What's the logic there then? Is it salary related or something to do with a poor scouting system in Exeter?

Baboo · Post by **Baboo** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:36 pm

Do I detect the first critisism of CW here?

Andrewmaha · Post by **Andrewmaha** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:37 am

I wondered if my post would be interpreted as criticism of CW.

At this point in time I would say &quotNo, this is not aimed at criticism of CW&quot.
To date I think his contribution has been 99.99% positive.

However think of the scenario whereby there player is allowed to move to a club in a higher league and goes on to have a stormer. How would that be perceived generally, not just by myself but by all.

For the time being I will put the reason down to one or more of the following:-
a) The salary of the player is high.
b) The player does not fit in with our style of play.
c) We have alternative cover with players who can play in more than 1 position during an 'emergency'.

SmileyMan · Post by **SmileyMan** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:08 am

My reading of it is:

d) the player is such a disruptive force off-field that taking them on tour would be counter-productive for team-building/morale.

I note the Beeb article describes the players as &quotmisfits&quot without a direct quote from anyone at the club? There's probably been something off-the-record as well as the upfront stuff.

Mark G · Post by **Mark G** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:20 pm

I suspect they have been left behind so that should the chance of a trial or transfer become available then they are immediately available. I also think they will be involved in the pre-season friendlies should nothing happen with regards a transfer/trial. CW also did say that they won't be ostracised so if they are still here I reckon they will train with the 1st team, be registered and have a squad number.

Chris Carruthers was used by CW last season so if he is still here I reckon he will be used when needed. As for Burnell, I think he is so far down the pecking order and with the number of central midfielders we have, it would take a injury nightmare to the squad for him to play!

Paul Cooper · Post by **Paul Cooper** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:08 pm

Burnell is as stated a long way down the pecking order. he has more chance of playing right back than central midfield in an emergency.

We now have 2 left backs, so CC is unliklely to play again except for emergencies. It is in the players as well as the clubs interets if they move on- I guess we may have to pay part of their wages to gte rid of them.