Loic Damour - season long loan to Le Mans confirmed

[GinRummy]

23 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

I think you're trying to be far too prescriptive based on a few bad (hindsight) examples and when/how do you decide who is the exception?  You would need to have Mystic Meg powers 10 times over to be anywhere near certain of their worth in a Hearts jersey.

As an example if we tried to sign say Caulker what length of contract and terms should he be offered and what if he insisted on a longer contract before agreeing to sign?  One answer is that we just don't sign him and make do with what we have or go down out list of the next best available - in other words dilute our ambitions.  What is the answer?

You think wrongly then. You can’t judge transfers in any other way than with hindsight. It’s as if you are debating on the back of a successful transfer period for the club, the opposite is true.. The answer is that we make 3-4 year contracts rarer than we have done and make 1-2 year deals the norm. I don’t see how I can make that clearer. I get that giving quality players, particularly older ones, long deals can be a deal clincher but it should only happen in rare circumstances. Fwiw I’m fairly sure someone at the club will realise this by now and we will see much less long term deals. 

[Jamboelite]

6 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

You think wrongly then. You can’t judge transfers in any other way than with hindsight. It’s as if you are debating on the back of a successful transfer period for the club, the opposite is true.. The answer is that we make 3-4 year contracts rarer than we have done and make 1-2 year deals the norm. I don’t see how I can make that clearer. I get that giving quality players, particularly older ones, long deals can be a deal clincher but it should only happen in rare circumstances. Fwiw I’m fairly sure someone at the club will realise this by now and we will see much less long term deals. 

I get the point and agree but the risk is you sign someone on a 1-2 year deal and they play well and then they leave for no money on a free.

 

Older players have the experience and want security and young players have the potential and may not make it.

 

Very difficult to judge but thats what earns scouts and managers their dough.

 

The balance is how much you want to make from the player by selling him or the ability in the here and now, with the ideal being both.

Edited January 1, 2021 by Jamboelite

[GinRummy]

2 minutes ago, Jamboelite said:

I get the point and agree but the risk is you sign someone on a 1-2 year deal and they play well and then they leave for no money on a free.

 

Older players have the experience and want security and young players have the potential and may not make it.

 

Very difficult to judge but thats what earns scouts and managers their dough.

 

The balance is how much you want to make from the player by selling him or the ability in the here and now, with the ideal being both.

Of course. We have got this balance wrong on far too many occasions though. It then restricts us in future windows and/or leaves us with a bloated squad. From memory as well as Damour’s 4 year deal, we have handed out three year deals to Garrucio, Lee and Walker in recent seasons and gave a two year deal to Steven McLean. There will be loads more but that’s just off the top of my head. I’m not saying never hand out long term deals, I am saying we hand them out too often. 

[JamboAl]

4 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

You think wrongly then. You can’t judge transfers in any other way than with hindsight. It’s as if you are debating on the back of a successful transfer period for the club, the opposite is true.. The answer is that we make 3-4 year contracts rarer than we have done and make 1-2 year deals the norm. I don’t see how I can make that clearer. I get that giving quality players, particularly older ones, long deals can be a deal clincher but it should only happen in rare circumstances. Fwiw I’m fairly sure someone at the club will realise this by now and we will see much less long term deals. 

I don't think I can make it any clearer either.  Hindsight is too late.  It's when you offer/agree the contract that is the key moment.

A manager/scouts/whoever make(s) a judgment on a player and has to look into the future before deciding what terms to offer, against a back of available finances.  The player insists on a 3 or 4 year contract.  If we agree and things turn sour, people like you are right in there with their pitchforks.  If they accept the (norm) 2 year contract and then perform way beyond expectations you are in there again with your pitchfork because other clubs could sign them on FoC in 18 months.  I gave you an example of Caulker.  IF we decided he was THE man what terms would you offer, bearing in mind we pushed the boat out a bit to get Berra from Ipswich and he has spent a large part of his contract injured/ out on loan/still trying to recapture his initial form?

[wavydavy]

10 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

Of course. We have got this balance wrong on far too many occasions though. It then restricts us in future windows and/or leaves us with a bloated squad. From memory as well as Damour’s 4 year deal, we have handed out three year deals to Garrucio, Lee and Walker in recent seasons and gave a two year deal to Steven McLean. There will be loads more but that’s just off the top of my head. I’m not saying never hand out long term deals, I am saying we hand them out too often. 

 

Any transfer is a risk and we should be trying to minimise the risk by not offering long term deals to players.

 

Offering a one or two year deal with options to extend if both parties want is the better option.

 

If a players does really well and wants to leave then that is part of the risk and you have to consider which is worse losing a decent player or being stuck with a crap one for four years.

 

I think I would rather take the risk on the shorter deal. You win some and you lose some.

Edited January 1, 2021 by wavydavy

[GinRummy]

1 minute ago, JamboAl said:

I don't think I can make it any clearer either.  Hindsight is too late.  It's when you offer/agree the contract that is the key moment.

A manager/scouts/whoever make(s) a judgment on a player and has to look into the future before deciding what terms to offer, against a back of available finances.  The player insists on a 3 or 4 year contract.  If we agree and things turn sour, people like you are right in there with their pitchforks.  If they accept the (norm) 2 year contract and then perform way beyond expectations you are in there again with your pitchfork because other clubs could sign them on FoC in 18 months.  I gave you an example of Caulker.  IF we decided he was THE man what terms would you offer, bearing in mind we pushed the boat out a bit to get Berra from Ipswich and he has spent a large part of his contract injured/ out on loan/still trying to recapture his initial form?

Stop with the pitchforks shite. I’ve said it should be offered under rare circumstances and you want to brand me as a raving lunatic. We’ve been shite in the transfer market and offered mediocre players long deals which has hampered the club. We’ve dished out three year deals to Zlamal, Wighton, Lee, Garrucio, Walker and others who I can’t be bothered fact checking. Every one of these players could’ve been offered shorter deals and had to EARN contract extensions. Young guys like Brandon and Henderson still here and have no hope of making it at the club. Quality players like Berra, Naismith and your example of Caulker are probably worth the pay off of giving a longer deal to secure a signature. Young players with potential for resale value are as well. The mediocre journeymen aren’t. Balance is what I’m looking for and we haven’t got that balance right. The summer signings point to a change in the policy, I just hope that continues. 

[will-i-am-a-jambo]

Damn, was hoping he was away. Hopefully by the time the window slams shut he'll be gone.

[Unknown user]

3 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

Stop with the pitchforks shite. I’ve said it should be offered under rare circumstances and you want to brand me as a raving lunatic. We’ve been shite in the transfer market and offered mediocre players long deals which has hampered the club. We’ve dished out three year deals to Zlamal, Wighton, Lee, Garrucio, Walker and others who I can’t be bothered fact checking. Every one of these players could’ve been offered shorter deals and had to EARN contract extensions. Young guys like Brandon and Henderson still here and have no hope of making it at the club. Quality players like Berra, Naismith and your example of Caulker are probably worth the pay off of giving a longer deal to secure a signature. Young players with potential for resale value are as well. The mediocre journeymen aren’t. Balance is what I’m looking for and we haven’t got that balance right. The summer signings point to a change in the policy, I just hope that continues. 

I doubt managers sign many players they consider mediocre to be fair. 

Damour had a pedigree and I can see why he seemed like a player worth pushing the boat out for,  even if he hasn't shown much yet.

[GinRummy]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

I doubt managers sign many players they consider mediocre to be fair. 

Damour had a pedigree and I can see why he seemed like a player worth pushing the boat out for,  even if he hasn't shown much yet.

I get mistakes happen and I also get that bad signings happen. I just think we hand out too many long term deals which has contributed to a really bloated squad that RN himself said he wanted to trim down. I also think, judging by recent signings the club realises this. 

[JamboAl]

1 hour ago, wavydavy said:

 

Any transfer is a risk and we should be trying to minimise the risk by not offering long term deals to players.

 

Offering a one or two year deal with options to extend if both parties want is the better option.

 

If a players does really well and wants to leave then that is part of the risk and you have to consider which is worse losing a decent player or being stuck with a crap one for four years.

 

I think I would rather take the risk on the shorter deal. You win some and you lose some.

And therein lies the key.

[JamboAl]

1 hour ago, GinRummy said:

Stop with the pitchforks shite. I’ve said it should be offered under rare circumstances and you want to brand me as a raving lunatic. We’ve been shite in the transfer market and offered mediocre players long deals which has hampered the club. We’ve dished out three year deals to Zlamal, Wighton, Lee, Garrucio, Walker and others who I can’t be bothered fact checking. Every one of these players could’ve been offered shorter deals and had to EARN contract extensions. Young guys like Brandon and Henderson still here and have no hope of making it at the club. Quality players like Berra, Naismith and your example of Caulker are probably worth the pay off of giving a longer deal to secure a signature. Young players with potential for resale value are as well. The mediocre journeymen aren’t. Balance is what I’m looking for and we haven’t got that balance right. The summer signings point to a change in the policy, I just hope that continues. 

As you yourself say, HINDSIGHT will determine whether what you seek has been successful but decisions are taken BEFORE they play for us.

Re your last sentence, does that change of policy include summer signings like Frear and Roberts?  If so, do you see a sea change?

[Gorgie Boot boy]

1 hour ago, GinRummy said:

I get mistakes happen and I also get that bad signings happen. I just think we hand out too many long term deals which has contributed to a really bloated squad that RN himself said he wanted to trim down. I also think, judging by recent signings the club realises this. 

We wait and see, already grumblings about the standard of player brought in. Most of our new additions have took a slaughtering, Robbie and the new staff have to clean up someone else's mess. The introduction of Joe Savage should solve those previous issues,there is going to be a cull of the squad.

[GinRummy]

6 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

As you yourself say, HINDSIGHT will determine whether what you seek has been successful but decisions are taken BEFORE they play for us.

Re your last sentence, does that change of policy include summer signings like Frear and Roberts?  If so, do you see a sea change?

I certainly see a change in the length of contracts handed out but we’ll see if that continues in the summer. Roberts and Frear have both been poor signings. Like everyone I’m hoping the introduction of Savage means we get it right more often. 
 

Obviously it’s much tougher to decide on a player before they sign for us rather than after they’ve played. I’m not saying the decision makers have an easy job.

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, GinRummy said:

I get mistakes happen and I also get that bad signings happen. I just think we hand out too many long term deals which has contributed to a really bloated squad that RN himself said he wanted to trim down. I also think, judging by recent signings the club realises this. 

I basically agree. It's just that the perspective view was that these are cracking players, we'd be mental not to get them tied down.

 

That would have been great if the players had been as good as hoped, so the real problem isn't the contract, its the quality of signing.

 

[GinRummy]

5 minutes ago, Gorgie Boot boy said:

We wait and see, already grumblings about the standard of player brought in. Most of our new additions have took a slaughtering, Robbie and the new staff have to clean up someone else's mess. The introduction of Joe Savage should solve those previous issues,there is going to be a cull of the squad.

It’s a process, I agree.  It’s always the case that a new manager needs a summer transfer window to really make his mark on the squad.  The one RN just had was to prepare us for the championship so he still needs time. I make it 4 relative successes, 2 failures and 2 meh signings so far.  Gordon, Kingsley, Ginelly and Halliday all add something to the squad. Frear and Roberts aren’t good enough. Stewart looks like he can fill in and Popescu is cheap cover. Not the worst record so far but early days. 

[GinRummy]

Just now, Smithee said:

I basically agree. It's just that the perspective view was that these are cracking players, we'd be mental not to get them tied down.

 

That would have been great if the players had been as good as hoped, so the real problem isn't the contract, its the quality of signing.

 

Fair argument. 

[Gorgie Boot boy]

3 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

It’s a process, I agree.  It’s always the case that a new manager needs a summer transfer window to really make his mark on the squad.  The one RN just had was to prepare us for the championship so he still needs time. I make it 4 relative successes, 2 failures and 2 meh signings so far.  Gordon, Kingsley, Ginelly and Halliday all add something to the squad. Frear and Roberts aren’t good enough. Stewart looks like he can fill in and Popescu is cheap cover. Not the worst record so far but early days. 

As the main presenter on the Gorgie Boot Boy Show, i can assure you that these are the early days of our return as a football club.  Gordon, Kingsley, Ginnelly and Halliday , Gordon is the top signing for us, followed by Kingsley,who has stunned me with his performances. Halliday is getting fitter, learning a lot more about himself and Us. Ginnelly has the ability to put fear into sides.

All four are top signings. Frear and Roberts have to do a lot better. I think we are doing well, better than being shite every week and hating **** out of near everyone .

I love you all so much.

[JamboAl]

55 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

It’s a process, I agree.  It’s always the case that a new manager needs a summer transfer window to really make his mark on the squad.  The one RN just had was to prepare us for the championship so he still needs time. I make it 4 relative successes, 2 failures and 2 meh signings so far.  Gordon, Kingsley, Ginelly and Halliday all add something to the squad. Frear and Roberts aren’t good enough. Stewart looks like he can fill in and Popescu is cheap cover. Not the worst record so far but early days. 

So you're hovering around the 50% mark . Is that the level of success you crave?

[GinRummy]

Just now, JamboAl said:

So you're hovering around the 50% mark . Is that the level of success you crave?

No. Why would you think I crave a 50% success rate? What have I said that made you ask that?

[Gorgie Boot boy]

2 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

So you're hovering around the 50% mark . Is that the level of success you crave?

We lost a cup final,Knocked out of the Piss potty,Any potential success has gone on those two.

Top of the mini diddy league, still in the Scottish cup.

50% still to play for.

 

[JamboAl]

1 hour ago, GinRummy said:

No. Why would you think I crave a 50% success rate? What have I said that made you ask that?

With 2 meh signings and 2 failures out of 8 that suggests a (roughly) 50% hit rate unless I've misunderstood the meaning of "meh"

2 hours ago, GinRummy said:

I certainly see a change in the length of contracts handed out but we’ll see if that continues in the summer. Roberts and Frear have both been poor signings. Like everyone I’m hoping the introduction of Savage means we get it right more often. 
 

Obviously it’s much tougher to decide on a player before they sign for us rather than after they’ve played. I’m not saying the decision makers have an easy job.

It would be silly for us to tie ourselves down to long contracts in the midst of a pandemic.

On the basis of evidence available up to now, Robbie's hardly covered himself in comparative glory proving how tough it can be with new signings.  It's a pity he didn't have the advantage of hindsight.

It's definitely much tougher to decide on a player before they sign for us - in fact there are not a lot of cast iron alternatives.  And you're now reduced to the same hope with Savage as we all had with Levein, MacPhee and Stendel

[GinRummy]

5 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

With 2 meh signings and 2 failures out of 8 that suggests a (roughly) 50% hit rate unless I've misunderstood the meaning of "meh"

It would be silly for us to tie ourselves down to long contracts in the midst of a pandemic.

On the basis of evidence available up to now, Robbie's hardly covered himself in comparative glory proving how tough it can be with new signings.  It's a pity he didn't have the advantage of hindsight.

It's definitely much tougher to decide on a player before they sign for us - in fact there are not a lot of cast iron alternatives.  And you're now reduced to the same hope with Savage as we all had with Levein, MacPhee and Stendel

It was the word ‘crave’ that I didn’t get. It’s not as if I was cheerleading our recent signings just giving an honest assessment
 

In most cases it would be silly to tie ourselves to long contracts outside of a pandemic.  That’s been my whole point. I don’t see it as being ‘reduced’ to the same hope. Levein and Stendel’s signing record wasn’t good enough. Change was needed, we’ve had change and I’m optimistic that we’ll do better with the changes made. 
 

I’m not arguing or aspiring to a 50% success rate. I want better and clearly so do the club or why would they have employed savage. Surely not to maintain the signing success we’ve had?

Edited January 1, 2021 by GinRummy

[JamboAl]

5 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

In most cases it would be silly to tie ourselves to long contracts outside of a pandemic.  That’s been my whole point. I don’t see it as being ‘reduced’ to the same hope. Levein and Stendel’s signing record wasn’t good enough. Change was needed, we’ve had change and I’m optimistic that we’ll do better with the changes made. 
 

I’m not arguing or aspiring to a 50% success rate. I want better and clearly so do the club or why would they have employed savage. Surely not to maintain the signing success we’ve had?

Everyone wants better.  You're not a lone and wiser voice.  It's how you can guarantee it that is/has been the problem.

Edited January 1, 2021 by JamboAl

[GinRummy]

1 minute ago, JamboAl said:

Everyone wants better.  You're not a lone and wiser voice.  It's how you can guarantee it that is/has been the problem.

I don’t know why you have to be so condescending. Where have i said I’m wise or a lone voice? I voiced an opinion at the start of our conversation that longer contracts should be handed out in rare circumstances to stop our budget being eaten up by poor players on long contracts. I then gave an assessment on RN’s signings so far which you wrongly took to mean that I was ‘craving’ a 50% success rate. There are no guarantees but I believe we can and will do better than we did under CL and DS when signing players. Part of that is to have the failures here for less time. I take on board your argument that it may stop us getting some players in or losing players earlier than we’d like but, except under very rare circumstance, I think that’s worth it to help prevent a return to a bloated, expensive, underperforming squad. I could be wrong and I could be right. Like you I’m just expressing my opinion on a message board. The difference between us is I’m trying to do it in a cordial manner. 

[JamboAl]

57 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

I don’t know why you have to be so condescending. Where have i said I’m wise or a lone voice? I voiced an opinion at the start of our conversation that longer contracts should be handed out in rare circumstances to stop our budget being eaten up by poor players on long contracts. I then gave an assessment on RN’s signings so far which you wrongly took to mean that I was ‘craving’ a 50% success rate. There are no guarantees but I believe we can and will do better than we did under CL and DS when signing players. Part of that is to have the failures here for less time. I take on board your argument that it may stop us getting some players in or losing players earlier than we’d like but, except under very rare circumstance, I think that’s worth it to help prevent a return to a bloated, expensive, underperforming squad. I could be wrong and I could be right. Like you I’m just expressing my opinion on a message board. The difference between us is I’m trying to do it in a cordial manner. 

You said you wanted better as if no one else did.  You also agreed with another poster who said

No player over the age of 22 or 23 should get anything more than a 2 year contract and thankfully that appears to be the Neilson policy.

You implied that only 4 of RN's signings were decent although you did say 2 were meh.  I assume meh means a bit iffy and so you're quite happy with a 50% hit rate.  You also want the failures to be with us for less time although you agree there are no guarantees at the time of signing so how can you tell they are going to be failures or if they'll fall within your rare case criteria.  And how/when would you decide if someone was a rare case if they were over 23.  One problem you might have with under 23s is the cost as they are may require a development fee.

 

[GinRummy]

6 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

You said you wanted better as if no one else did.  You also agreed with another poster who said

No player over the age of 22 or 23 should get anything more than a 2 year contract and thankfully that appears to be the Neilson policy.

You implied that only 4 of RN's signings were decent although you did say 2 were meh.  I assume meh means a bit iffy and so you're quite happy with a 50% hit rate.  You also want the failures to be with us for less time although you agree there are no guarantees at the time of signing so how can you tell they are going to be failures or if they'll fall within your rare case criteria.  And how/when would you decide if someone was a rare case if they were over 23.  One problem you might have with under 23s is the cost as they are may require a development fee.

 

No I said I wanted better. You just made up the bit about ‘as if no one else did’. I fully understand we all want successful transfers. 

 

Take what another poster said up with that poster. I agreed with some of what you said as well but it doesn’t mean I agree with every word. 
 

I didn’t imply anything. I expressly said what I thought of each signing to avoid any ambiguity. You seem to think I am in some way happy with the signings RN has made and happy with a 50% success rate. I didn’t say that and for the avoidance of doubt I’m not that impressed overall but it is early days.

 

You can’t tell if players are going to be good signings when you sign them. All I have said, and I didn’t really touch too much on age, that was someone else, is we should only be offering 3-4 year contracts on rare occasions. As for how/when I would consider someone a rare case? I wouldn’t but I gave examples like Berra, Naismith and Boyce who, injuries aside I would say were known quantities and of the quality I personally would make exceptions for. Ultimately it’s up to the club if they want to dish out longer contracts but I think they should adopt a more cautious approach regarding contract length. I’m not proposing some sort of rigid criteria for longer contracts, as you said we need flexibility but I do think we have handed out long contracts and subsequently been stuck with players we don’t really want far too often. 
 

 

[JamboAl]

58 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

No I said I wanted better. You just made up the bit about ‘as if no one else did’. I fully understand we all want successful transfers. 

 

Take what another poster said up with that poster. I agreed with some of what you said as well but it doesn’t mean I agree with every word. 
 

I didn’t imply anything. I expressly said what I thought of each signing to avoid any ambiguity. You seem to think I am in some way happy with the signings RN has made and happy with a 50% success rate. I didn’t say that and for the avoidance of doubt I’m not that impressed overall but it is early days.

 

You can’t tell if players are going to be good signings when you sign them. All I have said, and I didn’t really touch too much on age, that was someone else, is we should only be offering 3-4 year contracts on rare occasions. As for how/when I would consider someone a rare case? I wouldn’t but I gave examples like Berra, Naismith and Boyce who, injuries aside I would say were known quantities and of the quality I personally would make exceptions for. Ultimately it’s up to the club if they want to dish out longer contracts but I think they should adopt a more cautious approach regarding contract length. I’m not proposing some sort of rigid criteria for longer contracts, as you said we need flexibility but I do think we have handed out long contracts and subsequently been stuck with players we don’t really want far too often. 
 

 

But how do you avoid/rectify it (apart from the too late hindsight) when you acknowledge that all transfers are a risk at the point of signing?

[Last Laff]

1 hour ago, GinRummy said:

No I said I wanted better. You just made up the bit about ‘as if no one else did’. I fully understand we all want successful transfers. 

 

Take what another poster said up with that poster. I agreed with some of what you said as well but it doesn’t mean I agree with every word. 
 

I didn’t imply anything. I expressly said what I thought of each signing to avoid any ambiguity. You seem to think I am in some way happy with the signings RN has made and happy with a 50% success rate. I didn’t say that and for the avoidance of doubt I’m not that impressed overall but it is early days.

 

You can’t tell if players are going to be good signings when you sign them. All I have said, and I didn’t really touch too much on age, that was someone else, is we should only be offering 3-4 year contracts on rare occasions. As for how/when I would consider someone a rare case? I wouldn’t but I gave examples like Berra, Naismith and Boyce who, injuries aside I would say were known quantities and of the quality I personally would make exceptions for. Ultimately it’s up to the club if they want to dish out longer contracts but I think they should adopt a more cautious approach regarding contract length. I’m not proposing some sort of rigid criteria for longer contracts, as you said we need flexibility but I do think we have handed out long contracts and subsequently been stuck with players we don’t really want far too often. 
 

 

 

Please stop quoting mate.  The guys a walking headache. 

[Unknown user]

4 hours ago, GinRummy said:

No. Why would you think I crave a 50% success rate? What have I said that made you ask that?

I doubt anyone else took it that way, I certainly didn't. 

[JamboAl]

5 minutes ago, Smithee said:

I doubt anyone else took it that way, I certainly didn't. 

I meant a 50% success rate with signings not results.

[Tom Hardy’s Dug]

9 hours ago, Smithee said:

I doubt managers sign many players they consider mediocre to be fair. 

Damour had a pedigree and I can see why he seemed like a player worth pushing the boat out for,  even if he hasn't shown much yet.

I agree with this. Also Warnock praised the guy and his talent - and he can’t be accused of having slouches/slackers in his team.

 

He should stroll the Championship if given the chance - appreciate the fact that apparently he has had an injury...

[Lovecraft]

I've honestly not seen enough of the guy to give a full judgement.

 

 

[jimbojambo]

Looking at it from his point of view if he sits around picking up a wage but not playing until 2023 it's very unlikely he will play again at a decent level. He should move on while young enough and with part of his reputation still in tact to get a decent club back in France.

[spirt of 98]

See this wage thief was down the beach at Yellow Craigs breaking COVID rules at the weekend. Hopefully Hearts can get him off the wage bill. 

[lost in space]

45 minutes ago, spirt of 98 said:

See this wage thief was down the beach at Yellow Craigs breaking COVID rules at the weekend. Hopefully Hearts can get him off the wage bill. 

Do you know he doesn't live in the area?

Was he looking fit?

Ready for a comeback?

[Jean Louis Valois]

Should be getting a chance in our midfield now, couldn't be any worse.

[Auld Reekin']

47 minutes ago, spirt of 98 said:

See this wage thief was down the beach at Yellow Craigs breaking COVID rules at the weekend. Hopefully Hearts can get him off the wage bill. 

 

He hadn't joined in a kick-about on the beach had he...?!?!?!?* 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

(*Nah, of course he didn't - silly me - hadn't thought that through at all...   )

 

[spirt of 98]

54 minutes ago, lost in space said:

Do you know he doesn't live in the area?

Was he looking fit?

Ready for a comeback?

Cause he lives in Kingsknowe! He does look fit! Lost weight! 

[theshed]

53 minutes ago, Jean Louis Valois said:

Should be getting a chance in our midfield now, couldn't be any worse.

 

Said this back in January 

 

Very strange he’s not getting a look in with how our midfield has been 

[XB52]

Just can't understand why this guy doesn't get a game. Surely he can't be worse than some that have disgraced the jersey

[TheOak88]

I get the point “he cannot be any worse” but I doubt he would be much better either. 

[heartyhub]

Next manager, Nap.

[Sertse]

Every time someone bumps this thread it gets my hope up that he's gone

[Rick Sanchez]

Imagine we get another new manager who rates him and he becomes an integral part of a cup winning team next season

 

In all seriousness though he's been given a chance but not a fair chance IMO. He'd have been fine in this division without signing Halliday.

 

He can't be that shite....surely?

[Deevers]

4 minutes ago, Rick Sanchez said:

Imagine we get another new manager who rates him and he becomes an integral part of a cup winning team next season

 

In all seriousness though he's been given a chance but not a fair chance IMO. He'd have been fine in this division without signing Halliday.

 

He can't be that shite....surely?

He really shouldn’t be allowed to be sitting on his arse while contributing absolutely heehaw to the club while picking up a big salary. 

[Sertse]

12 minutes ago, Rick Sanchez said:

Imagine we get another new manager who rates him and he becomes an integral part of a cup winning team next season

 

In all seriousness though he's been given a chance but not a fair chance IMO. He'd have been fine in this division without signing Halliday.

 

He can't be that shite....surely?

Levein Stendel and Neilson all didn't rate him, I genuinely believe he is that shite!

[jambonian]

Levein was stupid enough to give him a 4 year contract!  

Neilson said he was back in training in October, here we are six months down the line and he's never even been on the bench (that i'm aware of). He'll be one of the best paid players at the club and should be playing, not scrounging a wage for nothing. Mind you....great work if you can get it!

 

I'd love someone to ask Neilson what's the script with this chancer.

Edited April 5, 2021 by jambonian

[chrystaf]

1 hour ago, TheOak88 said:

I get the point “he cannot be any worse” but I doubt he would be much better either. 

Surely worth a punt.

[communist]

20 minutes ago, Deevers said:

He really shouldn’t be allowed to be sitting on his arse while contributing absolutely heehaw to the club while picking up a big salary. 

I blame the club more than I blame him, who’s to say he hasn’t been knocking on Neilsons door asking why he hasn’t been playing? 
 

I did find him ponderous and ineffective last season, but the fact he’s perceived as being on a big salary can only be the clubs fault for allowing such a salary over a long period.

[Deevers]

8 minutes ago, communist said:

I blame the club more than I blame him, who’s to say he hasn’t been knocking on Neilsons door asking why he hasn’t been playing? 
 

I did find him ponderous and ineffective last season, but the fact he’s perceived as being on a big salary can only be the clubs fault for allowing such a salary over a long period.

I agree. Howe er he seems to have fitted the bill at his last club. The support there were gutted to lose him.  Once again another player that was brought in where we don’t really seem to have known if he would be a good fit for the club or not.