[Football] Connor Goldson

[spanish flair]

I can't help thinking we have dropped a real b*llock letting him go

 

[Simster]

As I’ve seen other people post on this site before, we bought Duffy because Goldson wasn’t quite good enough to get us up. Surely that says a lot about their respective abilities. Hughton isn’t a mug, if Goldson had shown enough at any point to displace Duffy he would have been given a chance.

I feel like Goldson benefits from a favourable rating on this site because of the sympathy and admiration we all have for him after his medical problems and the fact he proved to be a good player after we bought him for peanuts from lowly Shrewsbury, whereas Duffy was the big money buy with far greater expectations. But if you ignore all that, Duffy has proved over two years that he’s a superior player, while Goldson is very good but unfortunately has never quite been good enough for where we are at any particular time. Just my opinion. I still like him, I still rate him as a very good Championship player and I fully expect him to tear it up in the Scottish league.

Correct. I posted it before but according to one source I know of, Duffy was brought in because Hughton decided Goldson wasn't quite good enough defending set pieces. Notably, he lost his man twice from a corner in that 2-2 home draw against Burnley, from one we conceded but it was wrongly ruled out, but it cost us dear the second time two minutes later. Now admittedly, Burnley have always been strong from set pieces, but our team with aspirations of Premier League football could not afford to take the chance that Goldson would stamp that out of his game. Duffy was then brought in and the rest is history.

Agreed, I would not be at all surprised to find we have a buy back clause in the sale contract, and I would not be at all surprised if we use it. I think he will be better than Dunk.

This opinion beggars belief. Dunk is far superior in almost every way. Not only is he being talked about as a potential England squad player, but in addition he is the best ball-playing central defender we've had since Mark Lawrenson. He is better at blocking, is probably a bit quicker, is undoubtedly better in the air than Goldson. The only aspect of his play that Goldson rivals him in my view is his positional awareness.

None of that is a slight on Goldson, by the way. He'd have walked into our first eleven at any point in our club's last 45 years apart from the last 3. Great player by our standards, but not quite good enough to play in the Premier league.

 

[Weststander]

I thought he was better than Hünemeier (maybe as I was taking his potential into account), and actually better than Duffy too, but different, and not what we needed alongside Dunk as much as Duffy.

Good points.

I thought of Goldson as similar to Dunk as being calm with the ball, with decent passing.

 

[Simster]

I can't help thinking we have dropped a real b*llock letting him go

This is an interesting comment. I'd have had no problem with him staying whatsoever. As a back-up centre half, he'd be far better and far better value than similar back ups at several Premier league rivals.

But the real bollock would have been dropped if we'd forced him to stay. Ultimately, he's hungry to play regularly at a club with potential. Good for him, I say. If we start preventing our players from leaving when we are not prepared to give them enough game time, then we will create problems for ourselves in the future when it comes to recruiting the right players with something to prove. Our recruitment model seems to be working very well, and I strongly suspect that within the game we are a club with a reputation of giving players a chance and being fair to players if it doesn't work out. Goldson was worth more than the million Rangers paid in today's market place, but we were fair to the player and still made money on the deal. Plus of course, we've done Rangers a favour too by taking less than the market rate, and what goes round might well come round.

 

[Weststander]

I can't help thinking we have dropped a real b*llock letting him go

I loved Goldson as an Albion player, but if he wants first team action, I think it unreasonable to prevent a move. A career’s too short to be a perennial sub.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

This is an interesting comment. I'd have had no problem with him staying whatsoever. As a back-up centre half, he'd be far better and far better value than similar back ups at several Premier league rivals.

But the real bollock would have been dropped if we'd forced him to stay. Ultimately, he's hungry to play regularly at a club with potential. Good for him, I say. If we start preventing our players from leaving when we are not prepared to give them enough game time, then we will create problems for ourselves in the future when it comes to recruiting the right players with something to prove. Our recruitment model seems to be working very well, and I strongly suspect that within the game we are a club with a reputation of giving players a chance and being fair to players if it doesn't work out. Goldson was worth more than the THREE million Rangers paid in today's market place, but we were fair to the player and still made money on the deal. Plus of course, we've done Rangers a favour too by taking less than the market rate, and what goes round might well come round.

I have fixed your typo for you.

 

[Baldseagull]

So was Duffy! (They’re the same age)



Based on potential? Connor G isn’t a kid. He and Duffy were both born in 1992 and Dunk in November 1991. They’re basically alll the same age. I really like the lad, but he isn’t close to Dunk’s level. If he does get there, fair play to him.

Based on potential and his current level, I don't think he is as far behind Dunk as you do, they are the same age ish but he just hasn't had the same level of experience as Dunk, and that would account for most if not all the difference I feel.
Goldson is much more vocal on the pitch than Dunk and is a leader, he makes the tackle better than Dunk, not as good at getting the block in, not a lot between them in the air, and he was the only CD to score with his head at a corner for us last season.

 

[Baldseagull]

Correct. I posted it before but according to one source I know of, Duffy was brought in because Hughton decided Goldson wasn't quite good enough defending set pieces. Notably, he lost his man twice from a corner in that 2-2 home draw against Burnley, from one we conceded but it was wrongly ruled out, but it cost us dear the second time two minutes later. Now admittedly, Burnley have always been strong from set pieces, but our team with aspirations of Premier League football could not afford to take the chance that Goldson would stamp that out of his game. Duffy was then brought in and the rest is history.

This opinion beggars belief. Dunk is far superior in almost every way. Not only is he being talked about as a potential England squad player, but in addition he is the best ball-playing central defender we've had since Mark Lawrenson. He is better at blocking, is probably a bit quicker, is undoubtedly better in the air than Goldson. The only aspect of his play that Goldson rivals him in my view is his positional awareness.

None of that is a slight on Goldson, by the way. He'd have walked into our first eleven at any point in our club's last 45 years apart from the last 3. Great player by our standards, but not quite good enough to play in the Premier league.

I know, you wait 30 odd years for a CD with good feet, then two come along, one after the other. Time will tell, but I don't think we will have to wait too long to see how he does in the Premier League.

 

[Triggaaar]

But the real bollock would have been dropped if we'd forced him to stay.

I'm not sure many of us would have liked to see him forced to stay, but I'd have liked a fair price (which I don't think we got), unless we let him go at a discount but with a buy-back clause, which I'd be very happy about. That would have suited both clubs and Connor.

Goldson was worth more than the million Rangers paid in today's market place, but we were fair to the player and still made money on the deal. Plus of course, we've done Rangers a favour too by taking less than the market rate, and what goes round might well come round.

Making money on the deal is neither here nor there IMO, we sold an asset for less than its worth. You wouldn't be happy selling your home for half price just because it's more than you paid for 20 years ago. And I think doing Rangers a favour hoping what goes around comes around is just naive.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I'm not sure many of us would have liked to see him forced to stay, but I'd have liked a fair price (which I don't think we got), unless we let him go at a discount but with a buy-back clause, which I'd be very happy about. That would have suited both clubs and Connor.

The sell-on clause is the important thing.

IF we all think Goldson is likely to move on from Rangers, to a higher league, a la VVD, for big money, then £3m + say 30%, might net us MORE in the long run, than £5m up front. And if he does move on from Rangers for £10m in two years time, whilst there will be loads on here suggesting that is proof we under-sold - it doesn't work like that. He'll only be 'worth' that figure BECAUSE of the exposure and experience of those two years at Rangers. Another two years on our bench would have seen his value drop to next-to-nothing.

 

[Nixonator]

Agreed, I would not be at all surprised to find we have a buy back clause in the sale contract, and I would not be at all surprised if we use it. I think he will be better than Dunk.

Madness.

We must have a bunch of inepts at the club if you think we willingly let go of someone who even has the slightest chance of being better than Dunk, for 3M.

 

[NooBHA]

As I’ve seen other people post on this site before, we bought Duffy because Goldson wasn’t quite good enough to get us up. Surely that says a lot about their respective abilities. Hughton isn’t a mug, if Goldson had shown enough at any point to displace Duffy he would have been given a chance.

I feel like Goldson benefits from a favourable rating on this site because of the sympathy and admiration we all have for him after his medical problems and the fact he proved to be a good player after we bought him for peanuts from lowly Shrewsbury, whereas Duffy was the big money buy with far greater expectations. But if you ignore all that, Duffy has proved over two years that he’s a superior player, while Goldson is very good but unfortunately has never quite been good enough for where we are at any particular time. Just my opinion. I still like him, I still rate him as a very good Championship player and I fully expect him to tear it up in the Scottish league.

All 100% correct.

No one ever said Goldson wasn't a great player with a big future ahead of him.

BUT

Please don't overlook what you see week in week out at the heart of the Brighton defence.

When someone speaks to me when raving about their performances they use the term ''Our two''

That tells you that he doesn't even need to name them, you just know that they think that defensive Partnership is something special.

 

[blockhseagull]

I’m confused by people saying we didn’t get a fair price for Connor.

If he was worth more than £3m and is of premier league standard how come far more clubs werent in for him, because as far as I’m aware and have read Rangers were the only seriously interested club. Also the transfer was kicking around for long enough for someone to step in if they wanted him and valued him at over £3m.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Great player. Shame he didn't get the game time here, but that's football.

Will miss singing his song. One of my favourites.
It was belted out superbly during the Coventry game.

 

[Triggaaar]

The sell-on clause is the important thing.

IF we all think Goldson is likely to move on from Rangers, to a higher league, a la VVD, for big money, then £3m + say 30%, might net us MORE in the long run, than £5m up front. And if he does move on from Rangers for £10m in two years time, whilst there will be loads on here suggesting that is proof we under-sold - it doesn't work like that. He'll only be 'worth' that figure BECAUSE of the exposure and experience of those two years at Rangers. Another two years on our bench would have seen his value drop to next-to-nothing.

But selling for more that £3m now wouldn't have meant we couldn't also have a sell on clause on top of that. And yes he needs to play, he needs experience and exposure, but are we definitely holding on to Dunk for the next 2 years? He could have had game time and exposure via a loan, the way clubs like Chelsea do it. RLC is worth more now than a year ago, and they didn't have to sell him to benefit.

 

[Triggaaar]

I’m confused by people saying we didn’t get a fair price for Connor.

If he was worth more than £3m and is of premier league standard how come far more clubs werent in for him

Because we've seen him play a lot more than they have.

 

[Wozza]

The sell-on clause is the important thing.

IF we all think Goldson is likely to move on from Rangers, to a higher league, a la VVD, for big money, then £3m + say 30%, might net us MORE in the long run, than £5m up front. And if he does move on from Rangers for £10m in two years time, whilst there will be loads on here suggesting that is proof we under-sold - it doesn't work like that. He'll only be 'worth' that figure BECAUSE of the exposure and experience of those two years at Rangers. Another two years on our bench would have seen his value drop to next-to-nothing.

Given Rangers are skint, I'd like to think Albion gave 'em a discount in return for a very healthy sell-on clause - and, ideally, a buy-back clause too.

 

[blockhseagull]

Because we've seen him play a lot more than they have.

He is only worth what people are willing to pay for him .... £3m

 

[Triggaaar]

He is only worth what people are willing to pay for him .... £3m

Using that logic you don't think anyone has ever been over or under-sold.

 

[blockhseagull]

Using that logic you don't think anyone has ever been over or under-sold.

Fair point

But I think we got great value for a player who had played minimal games for 18 months. Has he got potential.... of course he has but he wasn’t good enough to force his way into the team and wanted to get away. As far as I’m aware we had one offer for him, in a transfer that took a good month to complete. That shows me that he was sold for his market value, anyone who valued him higher than that would have been in for him.