Wigan Athletic vs Brighton & Hove Albion *** Official Match Thread ***

[Dick Head]

Sorry duplicate post.

 

[Triggaaar]

because the club offered him less or the same on a new contract and some of the abuse he got at the Amex and on here was terrible (where are all those knobs now I wonder)

I agree that the abuse he got was terrible, and obviously that's got nothing to do with TB etc.

the others ..........well just about anyone we had we either could have kept them or sold them at a later date, Bridders,Buckley, Orlandi, Lopez, Rodrigez, Upson, Ward, need I go on.

Maybe if you go on you'll eventually get something right. Ward wasn't our player, nor was Upson. Rodriguez wasn't good enough, Bridcutt and Buckley wanted out and we got decent money for them - they're both worth less now than we got. Orlandi was injured too much, and fans went off Lopez as he was too inconsistent - now you think we should have kept them?

Do you not think Barnes would have if he had been offered the right inducement ie wages etc.

Possibly, we don't know what we offered or what he'd have accepted. We used the money wisely and made it to the playoffs, and Barnes was hardly going to be the saviour of our club.

Murray only wanted to stay if the club was willing/able to match the money he would make from a move to Palace, just as Barnes would have stayed if the club were willing to match what was offered by Burnley.

How do you know this? Others have said Murray would have accepted a little less to stay. And losing Barnes has not been the problem losing Murray has.

 

[Acker79]

How do you know this? Others have said Murray would have accepted a little less to stay. And losing Barnes has not been the problem losing Murray has.

Going by all the comments on here from various people claiming to be in the know, interviews in the Argus, and common sense, why move for less money? If you get offered a better deal and have to move, but then your current employers come in and match it, why move? Barnes said he was offered a deal at the start of the season, then the club refused to negotiate, leaving him feeling unwanted. Shows a willingness to stay for the right terms.

Losing both cost the club.

We barely scraped into the play offs, clawing for results in games where it was noted we missed a Barnes-type player, and then were woefully outmatched in the play offs (in part because we also let El Abd go without suitably replacing him in that window so started that game with players who weren't fit who went on to get injured and played most of the second game with a makeshift defence). This season, there hasn't been the defensive strength on the left side Barnes brought.

Maybe we missed Murray more (no way would he have got 30 with our team), but it isn't an either/or thing. We miss both. Both would have stayed if offered what they were getting elsewhere.

 

[m20gull]

I feel so sorry for the fans that made the effort to go to Wigan and the team and manager did'nt even bother to acknowledge them at the end disgraceful bunch of overpaid not fit to wear the shirt c**ts

Some of them tried but I feel the abuse they were getting from the stand may have persuaded them that discretion was the better part of valour.

Shocking collection of individual performances today and not a good word to say for any of them, manager included.

 

[glasfryn]

I agree that the abuse he got was terrible, and obviously that's got nothing to do with TB etc.

Maybe if you go on you'll eventually get something right. Ward wasn't our player, nor was Upson. Rodriguez wasn't good enough, Bridcutt and Buckley wanted out and we got decent money for them - they're both worth less now than we got. Orlandi was injured too much, and fans went off Lopez as he was too inconsistent - now you think we should have kept them?

Possibly, we don't know what we offered or what he'd have accepted. We used the money wisely and made it to the playoffs, and Barnes was hardly going to be the saviour of our club.

How do you know this? Others have said Murray would have accepted a little less to stay. And losing Barnes has not been the problem losing Murray has.

but they could have been had we taken a gamble, who would you rather have playing for us Bennet or Ward Hughes or Upson and if it was a case of giving them more money stop the transfer of COG good player, but hardly ever does there have been some bad,bad decisions
somebody at the club did not like him and it apparetly was not Oscar

 

[origigull]

That's right. Look at all the other clubs who have kept their players and refuse to sell. It only seems we're the only club that sells no matter what.

Paul Barber said on the Albion Roar that if a player wants to leave then we'll let him go..

So what about contracts. The players sign them knowing that at the end of the day if they want to move they will, sod how long the contract is. Its just toilet paper.

 

[Triggaaar]

Going by all the comments on here from various people claiming to be in the know, interviews in the Argus, and common sense, why move for less money?

You've just moved the goalposts. A second ago you said he'd have stayed for the same money. And it would hardly be surprising if he wanted to move, knowing that Burnley were headed for the premier league.

If you get offered a better deal and have to move, but then your current employers come in and match it, why move? Barnes said he was offered a deal at the start of the season, then the club refused to negotiate, leaving him feeling unwanted. Shows a willingness to stay for the right terms.

It shows one side of the story. We have no idea what figures were involved either. And why the hell are we discussing Barnes, the fans thought he was rubbish anyway.

Maybe we missed Murray more (no way would he have got 30 with our team), but it isn't an either/or thing. We miss both.

That's just your opinion. Many fans didn't like Barnes. To now blame the club for letting him go is ridiculous IMO.

but they could have been had we taken a gamble

Ward yes, Upson no. Obviously he'd rather sign for a premier league club than us. And obviously we can't match the wages of premier clubs.

 

[Acker79]

You've just moved the goalposts. A second ago you said he'd have stayed for the same money. And it would hardly be surprising if he wanted to move, knowing that Burnley were headed for the premier league.

It shows one side of the story. We have no idea what figures were involved either. And why the hell are we discussing Barnes, the fans thought he was rubbish anyway.

That's just your opinion. Many fans didn't like Barnes. To now blame the club for letting him go is ridiculous IMO.

In January Burnley were in the play offs and we were also one of the teams vying for a play off spot. More money or the same, both would have kept him given this. It's not moving the goal posts.

There were a lot of people who didn't like Murray, too, whether it be for his non-waving, his lazy style, his perceived only trying when a contract is on offer, his transfer requests, etc. There were plenty, including myself, who regularly stood up for Barnes, and questioned the clubs decision to sell him in January.

We're talking about him because the discussion was about good players we had who we let go or failed to sign and the lower quality that was brought in to replace them in a perceived effort to save money, and he was one of the players we got rid of for less than he was worth and failed to adequately replace.

 

[Triggaaar]

In January Burnley were in the play offs and we were also one of the teams vying for a play off spot.

For most of January Burnley were in the top two[/QUOTE]

More money or the same, both would have kept him given this. It's not moving the goal posts.

You said 'Barnes would have stayed if the club were willing to match what was offered by Burnley.' and then you said 'why move for less money', which is not the same. Maybe he was offered the same, and chose Burnley.

There were a lot of people who didn't like Murray, too, whether it be for his non-waving, his lazy style, his perceived only trying when a contract is on offer, his transfer requests, etc. There were plenty, including myself, who regularly stood up for Barnes, and questioned the clubs decision to sell him in January.

I too stood up for Barnes, but generally Brighton fans didn't think much of him, so to now blame the club for letting him go instead of offering him more is a bit ridiculous IMO.

We're talking about him because the discussion was about good players we had who we let go or failed to sign and the lower quality that was brought in to replace them in a perceived effort to save money, and he was one of the players we got rid of for less than he was worth and failed to adequately replace.

We got Lingard in with money from Barnes, and he wasn't lower quality. We haven't been saving money, we've been losing it. Lots of it. Obviously the club thought they could do better with the money than Barnes. Given how poor we've been this season it makes all transfer decisions look bad, but most of this whining is with hindsight, and blaming TB for the bad decisions is ridiculous. It's like with Stockdale - we've never spent so much on a keeper, we weren't penny pinching and the consensus on NSC was that we'd done great in getting him. He hasn't had a good season with us, so let's all pretend the club were trying to do things on the cheap shall we.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Two wins and a draw could see Millwall finish above us surely?

Yes - sorry - and GT49er picked it op too.

 

[Weststander]

For most of January Burnley were in the top two
You said 'Barnes would have stayed if the club were willing to match what was offered by Burnley.' and then you said 'why move for less money', which is not the same. Maybe he was offered the same, and chose Burnley.

I too stood up for Barnes, but generally Brighton fans didn't think much of him, so to now blame the club for letting him go instead of offering him more is a bit ridiculous IMO.

We got Lingard in with money from Barnes, and he wasn't lower quality. We haven't been saving money, we've been losing it. Lots of it. Obviously the club thought they could do better with the money than Barnes. Given how poor we've been this season it makes all transfer decisions look bad, but most of this whining is with hindsight, and blaming TB for the bad decisions is ridiculous. It's like with Stockdale - we've never spent so much on a keeper, we weren't penny pinching and the consensus on NSC was that we'd done great in getting him. He hasn't had a good season with us, so let's all pretend the club were trying to do things on the cheap shall we.

You justify every players departure with 'facts' - "fans didn't like him anyway, he wanted out, was offered more £ elsewhere, the loanee who replaced the contracted player was better quality". And some of your facts are wrong regarding the departures of Murray and Barnes. In addition, the vast majority of fans liked them both - I remember discussions on NSC for example, where a minority slagged them off, but they were vastly outnumbered by fans with positive views.

But the bottom line is that the squad quality now is shocking compared to that at April 2013. Only a fool would deny that. Look at a program circa April 2015. That squad included about 15 players, possibly more, far far better than we have now. The Board and/or Burke hadn't to tighten the financial belt due to FFP, but we now know from the dross on the pitch, that this was done in an over the top manner and with awful recruitment.

 

[Acker79]

For most of January Burnley were in the top two

Only due to the schedule. After three of the five match days in January they were third, but that's splitting hairs. The point is that it was January and their promotion was not settled, and our failure to get promoted wasn't set.

You said 'Barnes would have stayed if the club were willing to match what was offered by Burnley.' and then you said 'why move for less money', which is not the same. Maybe he was offered the same, and chose Burnley.

How is it not the same? "If we offered him more [than them] he would stay" "he wouldn't go there for less money [than we offer]". That's not moving the goal post.

Given there was no guarantee Burnley would be promoted (they were overtaken and slipped into third the week after Barnes joined them, so it's not like the top two were running away with it) and we were still chasing promotion ourselves, I will expand to counter your point with 'why take less money, have to move almost 300miles away from where you have settled with your family, for only a fraction more chance of promotion to a division where a lot of people expected you to rarely, if ever, play? (Even as one of his defenders I didn't expect him to have as much game time as he's had).

Logic says he was offered more at Burnley than we offered him to stay. His interview in the Argus shows he was willing to stay.

I too stood up for Barnes, but generally Brighton fans didn't think much of him, so to now blame the club for letting him go instead of offering him more is a bit ridiculous IMO.

I think you are confusing the vocal minority with general fan opinion.

But, again, this isn't something that people are just saying now. People said it at the time and as the season wore on.

We got Lingard in with money from Barnes, and he wasn't lower quality.

He wasn't a replacement for Barnes, though. He didn't play the barnes role or offer the things Barnes did. And for what little it's worth, Lingard's season average rating on NSC was lower than Barnes's.

We haven't been saving money, we've been losing it. Lots of it. Obviously the club thought they could do better with the money than Barnes. Given how poor we've been this season it makes all transfer decisions look bad, but most of this whining is with hindsight, and blaming TB for the bad decisions is ridiculous. It's like with Stockdale - we've never spent so much on a keeper, we weren't penny pinching and the consensus on NSC was that we'd done great in getting him. He hasn't had a good season with us, so let's all pretend the club were trying to do things on the cheap shall we.

Hence the words 'perceived effort'.

 

[jay d]

Try again.

I wanted this to come back and bite me on the bum

 

[The Fifth Column]

Considering our current 3 recognised 'strikers' have the combined worst league goalscoring record this season of any of the 92 football league clubs I'm amazed we weren't relegated weeks ago! Rather than a summer clearout, keep what we have in defence and midfield and spunk our entire transfer budget on two decent forwards.

 

[jay d]

Ur all arguing about this and that. But in a nutshell, the players that we have brought in are p*ss poor compared to the ones sold.
no manager since Oscar has been great at managing this club so far.
The club was going so wel b4 barber came along.
We all feel sick to our stomachs watching this dross at the moment.
We all want to se buckley running up the wing again.
we all want alloa back.
we all agree letting murray go was the worst transfer decision the club have made.
we all just want this p*ss poor season to end.
No one feels confedent that the club has as much ambition as they let the fans think.

and most of all we all know that for the first time in the football leagues history, we are the one team ever , to only stay up and beat the drop. Because there was 3 teams worse than us..

Which is even more amazing as last year we only made the play offs because the teams below us weren't as good as us.

 

[AlbionPics&SouthCoastTwit]

you CAN alter it ………………………………………. twit

Yes, that's my name.

 

[sydney]

pushing all the what if's aside there are three glaring problems with the current player group.....can't score , can't defend and they appear to be lacking a collective backbone........other than that everything is just ****ing dandy...!

 

[sydney]

Considering our current 3 recognised 'strikers' have the combined worst league goalscoring record this season of any of the 92 football league clubs I'm amazed we weren't relegated weeks ago! Rather than a summer clearout, keep what we have in defence and midfield and spunk our entire transfer budget on two decent forwards.

we have been accused of poor defending a lot this season...

 

[RexCathedra]

we have been accused of poor defending a lot this season...

And I don't know why.

Seventh in goals allowed. Every better team, save Sheffield Wednesday, is in the playoffs or promotion places.
And eighth in clean sheets.

Are people still sure the defense is that dire?

The offensive statistics are shocking -- 17 games, failed to score.
All three teams team shut out more often are in the relegation zone.
And 19th in goals scored.

Where the blame goes is pretty obvious....

 

[sydney]

And I don't know why.

Seventh in goals allowed. Every better team, save Sheffield Wednesday, is in the playoffs or promotion places.
And eighth in clean sheets.

Are people still sure the defense is that dire?

The offensive statistics are shocking -- 17 games, failed to score.
All three teams team shut out more often are in the relegation zone.
And 19th in goals scored.

Where the blame goes is pretty obvious....

James Perch stabbed home from short range after more poor defending----from the bbc , can't be arsed looking for more , they are in the press.

the fact we can't score is obvious but the fact that we set up so defensively also would suggest why we concede comparatively few ...perhaps one dictates the other....the midfield are too busy defending to create chances for our strikers.......to miss..!?
also when we have managed to score , look at the amount of times we've conceded within 3 or 4 minutes.....schoolboy, no..?