|
Post by statotheblue on Jul 23, 2014 8:04:45 GMT 1
Paul Smith was on £235,000 a year in the Championship I also believe Scally once spoke of Smith earning over a million in 4 years in the championship there is no doubt a lot players fully earn the money they are on.The mistake we have made over and over is believing players have another really good season or two in them when they were past their best.Those Smith Hess and Saunders tackles still bring back memories.That team was fearless dare we dream that they can ever return???Maybe I am odd to not remember the goals all those great strikes with as much fondness as the perfectly executed challenge that Smith made his trade mark but then that is me.Smith may not top my list of all time greats but there has never been a better player than him in that holding roll for Gills without a doubt.The players of that championship side earned the money without a doubt.Mistakes are made by managers if Roberts,Wallace and super Mac were not worth the money that was almost as much the fault of the managers that signed them.There is however a wish in almost all of us to earn as much as we can for our selves and families.Players have short careers they for the most part get what the manager at the time feels they are worth.I will never forget Stimson and Hess's joy at there signings it in both cases cost the manager greatly as well as the club itself.Employing people who are not fit or willing to do the job you need done is not just in football.Banking is a better example of it but I am sure it is across every industry across the world too. The wasters of the past are best forgotten we can't change what has happened in the past.We have a new young side full of players who want to play at a higher level our support can and will help them to that goal.Nobody can move forward without the support of those around them. The only real question fans should ask is did he do his best???If the answer is yes as it has always been with me with Kedwell for example.Then frankly I do not really care less what he is on.He earns that money good luck to him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 15:17:25 GMT 1
Johnknee i agree that Crofts did deserve to be dropped, did throw his toys ect..... and stimson was not all to blame for this BUT your first few words above are MADNESS 'your tone makes it sound as if that was fact' come on, really, you can't have a tone when writing in text unless you write something like 'swanleygill shouted in a angry tone' Their is no tone in what hessisgod is saying. A schoolboy error from you on this occasion Johnknee "Also Crofty was frozen out by Stimson as he...." I'd say that was written in such a way that didn't suggest it was merely speculation. Where I do defend Stimson is that unlike other people I don't think he is the worse manager we ever had who did nothing good at all. I cannot defend his personality and the fact he was happy to antagonise the fans. But some would gloss over the fact he did manage to also get us promoted with the same team that Sir Hessenthaler failed with a year later. Hess resigned all the players who were out of contract except Miller. There is a radio clip of Hess stating he had been keeping an eye on the Gills and had a good idea of who to keep and not. As for "his disastrous spell of 50 players signed, money wasted" then it should be noted he actually made a transfer profit on the players he signed and then had sold. I thought Stimson in some aspects was unlucky for the second relegation - if Simon King hadn't crocked himself then I am certain we would have stayed up. He was the one quality defender we had and wasn't easily replaced. The only time we were actually in the bottom 4 was after the final match of the season. I defend Stimson where I feel he is unfairly blamed for things and try to see the good and bad about each of our managers. Some people only see the bad in Stimson and believe everything bad about him even if the facts don't support the view. And thinking of which: However, the point I was making was that Crofty being accidentally on 5k a week in league one (which wasn't Stimson's fault) was a large part of the reason Stimson froze him out. Had Stimson managed the situation better, we might have got a decent fee for him like we did with Jack Payne Which ignores the fact Crofts had already indicated his intention of letting his contract run out at the beginning of his final season. He reportedly had also indicated he wasn't interested in a permanent transfer mid season as that would restrict him to a club that Gillingham could agree a fee for. And how much do you think we could have sold him for in January if Crofts was prepared to go anyway??? Payne was still under a long term contract, and even if he was in his final year Payne was under the age of 24 and so we would have got a tribunal decided fee if nothing else. I simply think it is wrong to blame Stimson for not getting a fee for Crofts etc when he had no control over the situation. Hess's 2nd spell as manager wasn't a success (neither was it a failure) but Scally has gone on record as saying that Hess had to operate on limited funds as the finances weren't repaired until the season Allen took over. There had been significant investment in the playing staff under Stimson, not only due to the fact we paid transfer fees for players, but also due to the wages of players brought in and the numerous revolving door of loan players, some of whom didn't even get an appearance while we paid their wages. While Hess did retain some Stimson players into 2010/11, that's because most were under contract, having signed 3 year deals when they were brought into the club. Hess was quick to get rid of them when the opportunity presented itself. Back to the original point about Crofts, Stimson took over in 2007, Crofts wasn't out of contract till 2009. You're saying that we couldn't have moved on a player 2 years before the end of his deal and got a fee. That's hardly credible.
|
|
|
Post by johnknee on Jul 23, 2014 17:32:28 GMT 1
Hess's 2nd spell as manager wasn't a success (neither was it a failure) but Scally has gone on record as saying that Hess had to operate on limited funds as the finances weren't repaired until the season Allen took over. There had been significant investment in the playing staff under Stimson, not only due to the fact we paid transfer fees for players, but also due to the wages of players brought in and the numerous revolving door of loan players, some of whom didn't even get an appearance while we paid their wages. While Hess did retain some Stimson players into 2010/11, that's because most were under contract, having signed 3 year deals when they were brought into the club. Hess was quick to get rid of them when the opportunity presented itself. Back to the original point about Crofts, Stimson took over in 2007, Crofts wasn't out of contract till 2009. You're saying that we couldn't have moved on a player 2 years before the end of his deal and got a fee. That's hardly credible. Hess offered new contracts to the likes of Fuller, Richards, Oli etc. He also re-signed Bentley. news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/g/gillingham/8711527.stm"Costly" players who he inherited on a good wage was Simon King (class before being crocked) Danny Jackman (who was player of the year the previous season I think), Kevin Maher (who I thought had a decent season even if one of the boo boys' favourites) Andy Barcham (class player in the previous league 2 season although underperformed in the 1st) Mark McCammon (Stimson's only real costly mistake). Apart from McCammon, how many of them would you have considered poor value for money when fit? None of the players Hess inherited simply sat on the bench and didn't play their part. And you have to remember the bulk of those he inherited had demonstrated themselves good enough to win promotion.... In terms of limited funds, there was still the finances to sign players like Akinfenwa, Lawrence and Spiller who were on decent wages. In Hess's second season, we spent £250k on Kedwell, Whelpdale, Lee and Birchall. Considering most of them would be on good wages, add to that Frampton and supposingly a decent chunk of Kuffours wages when on loan and Hess was hardly in poverty post-Stimson. If anything, Hess was well supported financially. Back to Crofts - when Stimson took over then there was no reason to assume Crofts would want to wind his contract down and it has never been Scally's policy to renegotiate contracts when there is still 24 months to go. I think most people assumed Crofts would basically spend his entire career at the club. On the basis that Crofts was maybe acknowledged as a Mr Gillingham and a key player, do you think it would have been reasonable for Stimson to try and sell him on the off chance that Crofts might be deciding to leave at the end of his contract? The way Crofts was playing before Stimson took over, I wouldn't be surprised if Crofts was already thinking of leaving for a club with higher ambitions. To put the Crofts issue in another light: Do you think we should sell Cody right now and get some money for him? There is a risk you know he could walk for nothing in a year's time...
|
|
|
Post by statotheblue on Jul 23, 2014 19:09:57 GMT 1
Hess's 2nd spell as manager wasn't a success (neither was it a failure) but Scally has gone on record as saying that Hess had to operate on limited funds as the finances weren't repaired until the season Allen took over. There had been significant investment in the playing staff under Stimson, not only due to the fact we paid transfer fees for players, but also due to the wages of players brought in and the numerous revolving door of loan players, some of whom didn't even get an appearance while we paid their wages. While Hess did retain some Stimson players into 2010/11, that's because most were under contract, having signed 3 year deals when they were brought into the club. Hess was quick to get rid of them when the opportunity presented itself. Back to the original point about Crofts, Stimson took over in 2007, Crofts wasn't out of contract till 2009. You're saying that we couldn't have moved on a player 2 years before the end of his deal and got a fee. That's hardly credible. Hess offered new contracts to the likes of Fuller, Richards, Oli etc. He also re-signed Bentley. news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/g/gillingham/8711527.stm"Costly" players who he inherited on a good wage was Simon King (class before being crocked) Danny Jackman (who was player of the year the previous season I think), Kevin Maher (who I thought had a decent season even if one of the boo boys' favourites) Andy Barcham (class player in the previous league 2 season although underperformed in the 1st) Mark McCammon (Stimson's only real costly mistake). Apart from McCammon, how many of them would you have considered poor value for money when fit? None of the players Hess inherited simply sat on the bench and didn't play their part. And you have to remember the bulk of those he inherited had demonstrated themselves good enough to win promotion.... In terms of limited funds, there was still the finances to sign players like Akinfenwa, Lawrence and Spiller who were on decent wages. In Hess's second season, we spent £250k on Kedwell, Whelpdale, Lee and Birchall. Considering most of them would be on good wages, add to that Frampton and supposingly a decent chunk of Kuffours wages when on loan and Hess was hardly in poverty post-Stimson. If anything, Hess was well supported financially. Back to Crofts - when Stimson took over then there was no reason to assume Crofts would want to wind his contract down and it has never been Scally's policy to renegotiate contracts when there is still 24 months to go. I think most people assumed Crofts would basically spend his entire career at the club. On the basis that Crofts was maybe acknowledged as a Mr Gillingham and a key player, do you think it would have been reasonable for Stimson to try and sell him on the off chance that Crofts might be deciding to leave at the end of his contract? The way Crofts was playing before Stimson took over, I wouldn't be surprised if Crofts was already thinking of leaving for a club with higher ambitions. To put the Crofts issue in another light: Do you think we should sell Cody right now and get some money for him? There is a risk you know he could walk for nothing in a year's time... I would hope that we are in talks with Cody right now.He did say after the other lads had their contacts sorted he was happy to talk about a extension.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 21:24:39 GMT 1
Hess's 2nd spell as manager wasn't a success (neither was it a failure) but Scally has gone on record as saying that Hess had to operate on limited funds as the finances weren't repaired until the season Allen took over. There had been significant investment in the playing staff under Stimson, not only due to the fact we paid transfer fees for players, but also due to the wages of players brought in and the numerous revolving door of loan players, some of whom didn't even get an appearance while we paid their wages. While Hess did retain some Stimson players into 2010/11, that's because most were under contract, having signed 3 year deals when they were brought into the club. Hess was quick to get rid of them when the opportunity presented itself. Back to the original point about Crofts, Stimson took over in 2007, Crofts wasn't out of contract till 2009. You're saying that we couldn't have moved on a player 2 years before the end of his deal and got a fee. That's hardly credible. Hess offered new contracts to the likes of Fuller, Richards, Oli etc. He also re-signed Bentley. news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/g/gillingham/8711527.stm"Costly" players who he inherited on a good wage was Simon King (class before being crocked) Danny Jackman (who was player of the year the previous season I think), Kevin Maher (who I thought had a decent season even if one of the boo boys' favourites) Andy Barcham (class player in the previous league 2 season although underperformed in the 1st) Mark McCammon (Stimson's only real costly mistake). Apart from McCammon, how many of them would you have considered poor value for money when fit? None of the players Hess inherited simply sat on the bench and didn't play their part. And you have to remember the bulk of those he inherited had demonstrated themselves good enough to win promotion.... In terms of limited funds, there was still the finances to sign players like Akinfenwa, Lawrence and Spiller who were on decent wages. In Hess's second season, we spent £250k on Kedwell, Whelpdale, Lee and Birchall. Considering most of them would be on good wages, add to that Frampton and supposingly a decent chunk of Kuffours wages when on loan and Hess was hardly in poverty post-Stimson. If anything, Hess was well supported financially. Back to Crofts - when Stimson took over then there was no reason to assume Crofts would want to wind his contract down and it has never been Scally's policy to renegotiate contracts when there is still 24 months to go. I think most people assumed Crofts would basically spend his entire career at the club. On the basis that Crofts was maybe acknowledged as a Mr Gillingham and a key player, do you think it would have been reasonable for Stimson to try and sell him on the off chance that Crofts might be deciding to leave at the end of his contract? The way Crofts was playing before Stimson took over, I wouldn't be surprised if Crofts was already thinking of leaving for a club with higher ambitions. To put the Crofts issue in another light: Do you think we should sell Cody right now and get some money for him? There is a risk you know he could walk for nothing in a year's time... Right, so out of 11 players he inherited who were out of contract, he re- signed 3. That's hardly a ringing endorsement of Stimson's signings is it and certainly disproves your theory that Hess didn't change the team and failed to get Stimson's team promoted. McCammon was Stimson's only real failure? Oh come on. Did any of the Stevenage lads really justify the sums we paid for them? Thurgood, Lewis etc. I'd argue he only signed 2 real quality players out of the 50 which would be Barcham and Jackson. I liked Nutter as well, but I wouldn't say he was ever worth a fee. You really need to remember he signed 50 players in 2 1/2 years. I've never seen such a scattergun approach to recruitment in my time following gills or football in general. As for Hess, I'm quoting Scally who is on record as saying Hess didn't have a lot to spend. Cody was only on loan remember and was part of the the Jackson deal so we weren't picking up wages. Spiller had been released by Millwall and couldn't get a club and Lawrence was right at the end of his career and again, couldn't find a club. 2nd season, he got a little bit, but a Scally has said, nowhere near what Allen got as funds simply weren't available. That's why he couldn't afford a proper coaching team. The funds were largely from the sale of Jackson (the one big Stimson success out of the 50 players he signed) and he got about a third of that to invest. Back to crofts. So you're now acknowledging that Crofts hadn't been settled as definitely leaving when Stimson took charge. He was certainly a key player under Ronnie. A season later, he was refusing to renew his deal and leave on a free. If you ever speak to Crofty, he doesn't have a good word to say about Stimson and that speaks volumes. Croft's agent undoubtedly used the situation, but it was caused by Stimson wanting him out. At the end of the day, he got us relegated twice, left us in a lower position than when he took over, despite signing so many players. He was rightly sacked and has failed to be successful since. It speaks volumes that out of all of his ex players he signed, he wouldn't sign Steve Morison as he said he didn't think he was league standard. Say no more.
|
|
|
Post by johnknee on Jul 24, 2014 7:40:57 GMT 1
(1) Right, so out of 11 players he inherited who were out of contract, he re- signed 3. That's hardly a ringing endorsement of Stimson's signings is it and certainly disproves your theory that Hess didn't change the team and failed to get Stimson's team promoted. (2) McCammon was Stimson's only real failure? Oh come on. Did any of the Stevenage lads really justify the sums we paid for them? Thurgood, Lewis etc. I'd argue he only signed 2 real quality players out of the 50 which would be Barcham and Jackson. I liked Nutter as well, but I wouldn't say he was ever worth a fee. You really need to remember he signed 50 players in 2 1/2 years. I've never seen such a scattergun approach to recruitment in my time following gills or football in general. (3) As for Hess, I'm quoting Scally who is on record as saying Hess didn't have a lot to spend. Cody was only on loan remember and was part of the the Jackson deal so we weren't picking up wages. Spiller had been released by Millwall and couldn't get a club and Lawrence was right at the end of his career and again, couldn't find a club. 2nd season, he got a little bit, but a Scally has said, nowhere near what Allen got as funds simply weren't available. That's why he couldn't afford a proper coaching team. The funds were largely from the sale of Jackson (the one big Stimson success out of the 50 players he signed) and he got about a third of that to invest. (4) Back to crofts. So you're now acknowledging that Crofts hadn't been settled as definitely leaving when Stimson took charge. He was certainly a key player under Ronnie. A season later, he was refusing to renew his deal and leave on a free. If you ever speak to Crofty, he doesn't have a good word to say about Stimson and that speaks volumes. Croft's agent undoubtedly used the situation, but it was caused by Stimson wanting him out. (5) At the end of the day, he got us relegated twice, left us in a lower position than when he took over, despite signing so many players. He was rightly sacked and has failed to be successful since. It speaks volumes that out of all of his ex players he signed, he wouldn't sign Steve Morison as he said he didn't think he was league standard. Say no more. 1) The other 7 players that he didn't re-sign were Tom Wynter, Rashid Yussuff, Stewart Lewis, Luis Cumbers, Andy Pugh, Jacob Erskine and James Walker. Aside from Lewis who I think started well for us, but then got injuried and never got back into the team and James Walker who was only signed on a 3 month contract, the rest were all youth people. Hardly "Stimson's signings". 2) And McCammon was a costly mistake and Thurgood was quickly sold. As for the rest of the signings then I think they were ok players. I even had an appreciation for Miller on the basis of his strengths although many boo boys just wanted to concentrate on any mistakes. Were they worth the exact fees? Maybe, maybe not. In comparision, do you think Lee and Whelpdale lived up to the hype of the £100k Hess spent on them? Do you think Kedwell is worth £60k? 3) Hess didn't have a lot to spend? I think the £250k spent at the beginning of season 2 and the fact the likes of Lee and Whelpdale and others would have been on big wages disproves the notion Hess wasn't financially supported by Scally. I could be wrong, but doesn't Scally say most seasons we have no money to spend? I'm not sure any additional funding Allen might have got is necessarily relevant - Hess got the funds he needed. Looking back to the championship days too, I wonder if a small support team is the way he wants it as he often seems short of coaches and back up. 4) When Stimson took over, we have no idea what Crofts thinking was at the time. It is entirely probable that he was already thinking of getting away. He clearly thought he was better than league 1 (and he was) and since it was clear our glory days was over and we'd never return to the Championship, I wouldn't rule out his intention to leave wasn't already being considered. When we got relegated six months later, it probably made up his mind. I suspect that even if we had avoided relegation he would still have gone - it is only that he announced it in the off season. I just simply don't think Stimson was in a position to keep Crofts and the fact our form significantly improved when Crofts left (and we got promoted) proves Stimson was right to drop him. Not sure Stimson necessarily wanted Crofts out for most part. But when Crofts had the captainancy taken away and dropped resulting in toys being thrown out the pram then I reckon Stimson saw him as a distruptive influence. I'd suggest cynically that in that final season, Crofts form was of someone who knew he was leaving and didn't want to get himself crocked. 5) Morison again! Stimson said at the time he could afford to buy either Jackson or Morison and he thought Jackson was the one most likely to succeed in the league. Or do you think he should have signed Morison instead of Jackson? Yes, his record shows he was manager when we got relegated twice. Stimson was not perfect and made mistakes. I've never argued that he never. However for some, he only made mistakes and gives him no credit for the good things that he did. People who dislike Stimson never seem to give him credit for the fact he also got us promoted, something Hess tried twice with good financial backup and still failed.
|
|
|
Post by mrpthegillsfan on Jul 25, 2014 8:40:07 GMT 1
even if hess did indeed have restrictions on funds than allen did not, he still did not help himself the way he managed things
he brought in his best mate and another mate as coaches, a psychologist, a new physio and a consultant physio - yet got rid of the fitness coach - consequently we were unfit to say the least, and when hendon cleared off to west ham the second year, all our coaching was hess and trigger - and even with his big summer spending spress, lee, whelps, kedwell etc, we still struggled and it was obvious for all to see the reasons why
in fact ob both occasions hess has been replaced as manager, there has been an immediate turnaround / impact in fitness, organisation, discipline, attitude etc - the finances excuse is just scally's way of trying to defned his mate
as for allen getting more financial backing than hess, i remember martin going on radio on deadline day saying we could not afford the players he wanted, good players are expensive - and that was when we were sitting top of league 2 - so i think the lack of funds goes both ways
|
|
|
Post by muppet on Jul 26, 2014 13:30:37 GMT 1
Just looking at some of the numbers being quoted, just shows how much the lower divisions lost in TV money to be able to pay such wages. On the other side, hopefully not so many clubs will go into admin. As to Paul smith, loved watching him play, real class and a really nice bloke to go with it.
|
|