| Penny for the thoughts of Joe Lumley 08:30 - Apr 17 with 7287 views | PatfromPoole |
Quite the slap in the face for Lumley for McCarthy to not be on the bench, but then put straight in the line-up.
However If it means less faffing about with the ball in our penalty area, I'm all up for that. | |
| |  |
| Penny for the thoughts of Joe Lumley on 11:09 - Apr 18 with 1619 views | saints__fan__73 |
A Brentford player was injured in warmups in Sep against Everton and was replaced by a sub. | |
| |
| Penny for the thoughts of Joe Lumley on 12:44 - Apr 18 with 1575 views | SFC_Referee |
Yeah well that’s the example the guy I know gave me | |
| |
| Penny for the thoughts of Joe Lumley on 13:09 - Apr 18 with 1558 views | saintsfanbrock |
As I have said, it will be McCarthy’s unused substitute fee keeping him off the bench as risk of having him on the bench for a Bazunu injury or red card not deemed worthy of the cost for the sake of one game. | | | |
| Penny for the thoughts of Joe Lumley on 13:48 - Apr 18 with 1524 views | SFC_Referee |
But then all I’d say is who’s gonna be on the bench for us for the remaining games this season? As if Lumley starts and McCarthy can’t be on the bench then who will be? | |
| |
| Penny for the thoughts of Joe Lumley on 13:49 - Apr 18 with 1524 views | PatfromPoole |
How do you know whether he gets an unused substitute fee? | |
| |
| Penny for the thoughts of Joe Lumley on 12:03 - Apr 19 with 1450 views | saintsfanbrock |
I don’t know for certain, but it’s a normal contract condition (and you can see why for a GK, to stop them languishing on the bench at the peak of their career as it makes it less of a good financial decision for the club not to sell them, although McCarthy’s drop in value has not helped that with his good base wage). So it just seems logical as McCarthy hasn’t been getting that bench spot and yet jumped over Lumley for the starting spot. Also pretty weird the manager didn’t give a good reason, while this might be the sort of reason that he wouldn’t want to share with the fan base. | | | |
| Penny for the thoughts of Joe Lumley on 12:10 - Apr 19 with 1431 views | saintsfanbrock |
Not saying he can’t be on the bench, just saying it was probably expensive for him to be on the bench. Say it was an extra 5k (£230k a season) a game for him to sit on the bench so perhaps SR said well that just isn’t worth the risk, that’s a few hundred people buying tickets paid for the risk of Bazunu getting injured mid game or getting sent off. For that game if it did happen then send on Lumley and bring McCarthy in for the next game/games | | | |
| Penny for the thoughts of Joe Lumley on 13:26 - Apr 19 with 1402 views | Ifonly |
I don't think that's right. Look at the FA Cup games. Lumley played with AM on the bench. If a fee payable to AM was a problem then he wouldn't have been on the bench in the Cup. They could have put Baz on the bench and avoided any fee that might exist - but they didn't.
The fact that Lumley played, with AM on the bench, clearly showed that Lumley was no. 2 and so he was given the game time. Then all of a sudden, seemingly on a whim, RM changes his mind, for no reason that makes any sense. | | | |
| Penny for the thoughts of Joe Lumley on 13:37 - Apr 19 with 1395 views | saintsfanbrock |
Imagine they have a carve out clause for the cups, first team GK’s expect to be benched for the cup (at least earlier rounds) it’s the league where they expect to start but pretty usual to still see them on the bench.
Also I think you are forgetting Bazunu was also brought in as a first team keeper so probably would have the same clause | | | |
| Penny for the thoughts of Joe Lumley on 13:52 - Apr 19 with 1389 views | Ifonly |
You think Baz has a clause saying that he doesn't play certain games? I doubt it. I doubt any of our players have that.
Also, the fact is that Lumley played, giving him valuable game time and AM sat on the bench. Then against Preston, at a critical time of the season, they get switched over. Where's the joined up thinking? There's none. If AM was only being kept out because of a fee but would be required to start if Baz got injured, then he should have been given the game time in the Cups. | | | |
| Penny for the thoughts of Joe Lumley on 22:04 - Apr 19 with 1353 views | saintsfanbrock |
Sorry I forget you wouldn’t know what a carve out clause is, no my point was that there would be a proviso for the unused substitute fee saying that it doesn’t apply to cup games. Otherwise teams would have to pay first GK’s to sit on the bench when they didn’t have a good enough 3rd keeper, which the player would accept during negotiations as it’s standard for main GK’s to make way in the cup)
It’s been coming up for 2 months since lumley played, not exactly match sharp. As I have said, Lumley probably wasn’t explained this logic until this week (wouldn’t make him very confident sitting on the bench needing to come on if he thought he was the third keeper but actually had to come on mid-game, probably thought they could fluff him with some bull about McCarthy looking more sharp if Bazunu was out for more than half a game). Let’s be honest if this was all discussed, it was probably seen as far more likely that Bazunu would go off mid-match than the actual situation. | | | |
| Penny for the thoughts of Joe Lumley on 10:54 - Apr 20 with 1235 views | Ifonly |
Sorry but it still makes absolutely no sense (if what you say is true) to put AM on the bench in cup games. You're saying in effect that AM was the real 2nd choice all along. So why put him on the bench in cup games? Just to shield the truth from Lumley??? If he was the real 2nd choice he would have played. Even the most stupid manager wouldn't deliberately plan to throw his 2nd choice keeper into the playoffs with no game time at all, while giving game time to his 3rd choice.
You're also saying that this was kept a secret from Lumley until this week. This makes no sense to me either, but if it is the truth, it's is another piece of terrible management and planning. If the plan was justifiable then just tell him about it for f*cks sake. What's the problem with that? As it is, they've just created an unhappy camp right at the business end of the season. Whichever alternative is the truth, it's terrible management. | | | |
| Penny for the thoughts of Joe Lumley on 14:39 - Apr 20 with 1191 views | saintsfanbrock |
Yes it does still make sense to not start McCarthy in the cup because most seasons your first choice GK does not miss a league game for a long period, most seasons they might get a red or need to come off with a short term injury mid match. So you would want the guy actually on the bench ready to come on. You say nobody would do this but yet look at the current games starting keeper, once again McCarthy.
Actually it’s good management, what is the chances of a player getting injured in the warm-up? Like near to 0%. That is the only scenario where Lumley needs to find out. If it happens in an actual match then Lumley has to come on, if he plays badly - ready made excuse for switching for the next game, if not then just say McCarthy played better in training. Think about the odds of this happening if this was considered at the beginning of the season to save money, not after it happened. | | | |
| Penny for the thoughts of Joe Lumley on 17:45 - Apr 20 with 1159 views | Ifonly |
It's not just injuries in the warm up though, is it. Any injury in training, which happen all the time, would have caused exactly the same problem and Baz's injury could have happened just walking up some stairs. Anything that wasn't an in-game injury would have caused this problem, as well as any in-game injury where Lumley did OK after he came on. The ONLY circumstance in which this wasn't a problem would have been if Baz was injured in-game and Lumley then cocked something up badly when he came on, which isn't a very likely combination.
So, if you're right about the circumstances then this was always likely to be a problem that RM was storing up for himself. And if you're right, RM could have easily avoided all the problems just by sitting down for a chat with Lumley and just saying "look, you're no.3 in reality but keep working and show me you're better". As it is, if you're right about the circumstances, RM has created an unnecessary problem by pissing Lumley off and creating an unhappy and divided camp. Lumley seems to be popular with the other players and they will be very aware if he has been treated badly.
Piss poor management whichever way you look at it. | | | |
| Penny for the thoughts of Joe Lumley on 12:52 - Apr 25 with 985 views | saintsfanbrock |
Multiple games of McCarthy shows him as 2nd choice was all clearly part of the plan. I did say (which you didn’t read) that an injury at any other time of the week would have just allowed RM to say that Lumley had not trained as well as McCarthy hence it was only the circumstance where he was already on the match lineup that created the catastrophic embarrassment.
There is of course the chance Lumley was already aware of this and his supposed reaction was embarrassment that there would be speculation about him staying the sub keeper/the chance he had not told family about this arrangement.
I think the main point though is that you are using this as a stick to beat RM, if it’s the financial side (which looks more and more likely given the team sheets) then it won’t be RM’s decision. I imagine RM cares about his winning ratio (and having the best bench to achieve this) more than SR having to spend more wages to achieve that but at the end of the day is an employee so has to pick his battles when told to cost save from above. | | | |
| Penny for the thoughts of Joe Lumley on 14:44 - Apr 25 with 939 views | Ifonly |
"There is of course the chance Lumley was already aware of this and his supposed reaction was embarrassment that there would be speculation about him staying the sub keeper/the chance he had not told family about this arrangement."
Really? So it's down to Lumley hiding the truth from his family and friends? Sounds like you are grasping at straws. It's infinitely more likely that he was not told about this arrangement (if it existed at all) and there is no reason why that should have been allowed to happen. Piss poor management, as I say, and was always likely to happen (I know you say that RM could have solved the problem of a training injury to Baz by telling more lies, but I don't believe it for a minute. People can see through lies and distrust breeds disunity).
The players don't look keen to play for this manager now and I suspect that treating badly, like he's done with Lumley, is one of the reasons. | | | |
| Penny for the thoughts of Joe Lumley on 15:39 - Apr 25 with 920 views | saintsfanbrock |
Do you actually read my responses or just get irate about a specific part? Firstly you have literally quoted “there is of course the chance”, I have said that I am grasping at straws with if Lumley knew or not, I wasn’t even the one noticing he got upset, just a theory. Secondly as I have said above, this wouldn’t have been a RM decision if it is correct, it would have come from above him - RM doesn’t care about the wage budget.
Grasping at straws is ironic from yourself, you are using a theory you don’t believe (not even using the theory correctly) to go after RM and I think we all remember someone that you used to bash every week with no logic behind it. | | | |
| Penny for the thoughts of Joe Lumley on 16:02 - Apr 25 with 912 views | Ifonly |
Now you're not even making sense. Who is this someone I used to bash every week?
Look, if your theory is correct (big if) then Lumley wasn't told about it and that created a problem. That's down to RM. Or are you now saying that RM was prevented from telling Lumley (the conspiracy deepens)? | | | |
| Penny for the thoughts of Joe Lumley on 13:32 - Apr 26 with 782 views | saint22 |
Us or Celtic hhhmmmmmmmm
I wonder?
We should get after Rotherham or Preston keeper asap
Will we
No | | | |
| Penny for the thoughts of Joe Lumley on 15:18 - Apr 26 with 749 views | darthvader |
Wish he did .. but wilm he against the potty Stoke side? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
