Glen Rea

[midnight_rendezvous]

Already gone, I think you'll find.

Right you are. Just seen on the Twitter. My bad for being out of the loop.

 

[GT49er]

Right you are. Just seen on the Twitter. My bad for being out of the loop.

No prob. - I actually agreed with what you were saying (except for it being no longer an option of course). But maybe Southend is the right place for the lad - and I really can't see Sarfend doing a B'Muff and shooting past us to the PL!

 

[Raskolnikov]

according to a comment on Southend "shrimpers zone " forum we want to keep him here because Goldson is leaving!

apparently that is what we are saying though, no idea where they have seen that..

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

according to a comment on Southend "shrimpers zone " forum we want to keep him here because Goldson is leaving!

Only a handful of words but so much is wrong in them.

I'm not saying Goldson isn't going, but if he is we'll have someone better than Rea in mind as a replacement, and Rea has gone anyway !

 

[Surrey_Albion]

apparently that is what we are saying though, no idea where they have seen that..

this was my point, wtf are they going on about!

 

[Grombleton]

This is os sad to read we bemoan we have no talent coming through from Development squad and it appears as soon as we do they are moved on!!!!!!watch harper hambo chicksen tilley etc they never seem to be given a fair crack of the whip!!!!!cook and elphick spring to mind, why dont we wait until preseason and see how they perform then

Well, lets see:
Harper & Hambo - bought for the dev squad only last year, but both had injuries this season.
Chicksen - not our 'dev' signing - we bought him from MK Franchise
Tilley - had 30 seconds last season in a nothing match, so not exactly pushing for the first team yet.

Unless you want us to have loads of inexperienced kids and get smacked off the park each week? We've shown that we promote from within if they're good enough, it doesn't mean everyone will be tho.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Well, lets see:
Harper & Hambo - bought for the dev squad only last year, but both had injuries this season.
Chicksen - not our 'dev' signing - we bought him from MK Franchise
Tilley - had 30 seconds last season in a nothing match, so not exactly pushing for the first team yet.

Unless you want us to have loads of inexperienced kids and get smacked off the park each week? We've shown that we promote from within if they're good enough, it doesn't mean everyone will be tho.

Quite. Not sure where anybody expects James Tilley (or whoever) to have slotted seamlessly into the side from this season.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Quite. Not sure where anybody expects James Tilley (or whoever) to have slotted seamlessly into the side from this season.

Would have offered something different in a 4-4-1-1 style formation, sitting off Baldock or Wilson on Monday. Quick feet, tricky from a central position, things we seemed to lack in the last 30 mins, when we started going long.

I would always look to have at least him or someone else as the 7th sub, just for experience alone, even if it meant sacrificing..............Calde! (Sorry Edna).

 

[chaileyjem]

Quite. Not sure where anybody expects James Tilley (or whoever) to have slotted seamlessly into the side from this season.

Agreed. Also. James Tilley is still only 17.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Agreed. Also. James Tilley is still only 17.

If you're good enough, you're old enough. Don't go with the age argument on that basis. Tilley is very strong and difficult to get off the ball.

I accept that everyone matures differently, so it would not always be the case, hence my first sentence.

 

[Gullflyinghigh]

In order to get anything, we'd have to have offered him a contract of equal or higher worth than his current one.
Which I reckon we haven't done.
Free.

Pretty sure we'd still get a small percentage of a future transfer due to our part in 'developing' him, regardless of new contract offered or not. Obviously stand to be corrected.

 

[TSB]

Pretty sure we'd still get a small percentage of a future transfer due to our part in 'developing' him, regardless of new contract offered or not. Obviously stand to be corrected.

Unless that's a rule brought in since 2014, we won't.
Great idea, though. Should be enforceable and rewards youth development. Nice one.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Unless that's a rule brought in since 2014, we won't.
Great idea, though. Should be enforceable and rewards youth development. Nice one.

Disagree - it would be a horrible rule, from the young players' perspective.

As it stands, the developing club is rightly due money if they offer a new deal, but the player chooses to move on (because they presumably have a better offer - eg Grant Hall).

If you had a rule where a fee was due to sign a player who had been released, then it would make it so much harder for those young lads not kept on, to fix themselves up with new clubs further down the pyramid.

 

[Postman Pat]

If you're good enough, you're old enough. Don't go with the age argument on that basis. Tilley is very strong and difficult to get off the ball.

I accept that everyone matures differently, so it would not always be the case, hence my first sentence.

Maybe in different circumstances this season some of the younger players would have got a go. We had so many games that we won by only one goal we had to fight for every point.

I would have loved to have seen some of the younger players thrown on in games to give them some experience, but given the instant decisions made on players abilities on here, they could be ruined for life if they had made a cock-up that cost us three points.

With the emergency loan window ending now, younger players will likely get a chance in the way Ince and Goldson have done, lets hope they take them like them rather then what happened with Shamir Fenelon/Maksimenko/Chicksen

 

[Gullflyinghigh]

Unless that's a rule brought in since 2014, we won't.
Great idea, though. Should be enforceable and rewards youth development. Nice one.

Huh, my mistake then, could've sworn that clubs who develop a player between certain ages are entitled to some sort of recompense from future transfer fees (tiny % but still). Clearly not!

 

[TSB]

Disagree - it would be a horrible rule, from the young players' perspective.

As it stands, the developing club is rightly due money if they offer a new deal, but the player chooses to move on (because they presumably have a better offer - eg Grant Hall).

If you had a rule where a fee was due to sign a player who had been released, then it would make it so much harder for those young lads not kept on, to fix themselves up with new clubs further down the pyramid.

He's talking about a sell-on, rather than a fee.

 

[BensGrandad]

I wouldnt think that we are entitled to insert any sell on clause as he is no longer our player so any contract between him and another club is purely that nothing to do with us. I may well be wrong but that is my opinion.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

He's talking about a sell-on, rather than a fee.

Sorry - yes, see that now. That would be an idea, certainly. Can't see it though. If you choose to release a player as not good enough, why should you benefit from their future success?

 

[8ace]

How come there was no news about this earlier

 

[NooBHA]

The problem with Rea is he needs games, and in my opinion not close to first 11, we currently have 4 centre halfs light years ahead of him.

I would let him go, its the right thing to do in my opinion, letting go of Elphick and Cook was also in my opinion a correct decision at the time.

I agree.....You can't stifle a young lad's career progression and use the excuse ''just in case''