New Signings Rumours

[HenneysKnee]

omar bogle would be a good signing

Not sure we could afford him to be honest,

In talks with Grimsby

[blumooncrab]

Interesting article in the Manchester Evening news today about Evatt's view on signings- out of contract players will have missed pre- season, won't be properly fit and ready for a couple of months , so now concentrating on loanees , who will have done pre season and will be fit and ready (readier?) to go. I expect that is where we/most sensible clubs are now.

[Bingo]

David Dunn says Scott is under 21 so does not affect the salary cap.

so we must have a decent players budget I am guessing then

[mickmike wilson]

In a word NO....He was saying he doesn't want players settling for us, I was badly trying to explain they already do , Any of our players given the option of playing for us or playing for bigger clubs with the bigger fan bases/facilities, Providing them a higher profile in the game & on better money etc You will struggle to find one who says, no thanks, It's the nature of the game.

Absolutely correct. There is absolutely no such thing as loyalty in football where money is concerned. 99.9% of footballers will move to any club which will pay them more money. Very rarely you will get a case such as Grealish who has just signed a 5 year contract at Villa when he almost certainly could have gone to a higher profile club. However, he will be getting paid a very high salary to stay and almost certainly would have left if he had been given a much higher offer elsewhere. They are all "loyal" when they stay as just as "loyal" to their next club when they move on. The best you can hope for is that they do their best when they play for your club and I think we are well served in that respect.

Exactly mate, We are who we are, A small unfashionable club isolated by Geography who historically over paid plodders just to raise a team, Our stock is rising but we are still miles off the pace compared to most of our L2 rivals & Players are basically Mercenaries.

[Suffolk Blue]

Absolutely correct. There is absolutely no such thing as loyalty in football where money is concerned. 99.9% of footballers will move to any club which will pay them more money. Very rarely you will get a case such as Grealish who has just signed a 5 year contract at Villa when he almost certainly could have gone to a higher profile club. However, he will be getting paid a very high salary to stay and almost certainly would have left if he had been given a much higher offer elsewhere. They are all "loyal" when they stay as just as "loyal" to their next club when they move on. The best you can hope for is that they do their best when they play for your club and I think we are well served in that respect.

Exactly mate, We are who we are, A small unfashionable club isolated by Geography who historically over paid plodders just to raise a team, Our stock is rising but we are still miles off the pace compared to most of our L2 rivals & Players are basically Mercenaries.

Trying to get inside the mind of a footballer is not exactly a precise science. But since we're going down this route of remuneration versus ambition for any budding psychologist, I heartily recommend a quick review of Maslows Hierarchy of Needs. This stipulates that each of us is driven by a series of needs which can be tiered into five levels. Only once the needs at the "base" level are met do the next level needs come into play. The key point here is that for each of us our base level is defined by "physiological" needs which include the basic need to eat, survive and essentially live. For which we need to derive income. Safety and security needs are at the next level and then Personal relationships at the third level. Ambition, the desire to belong to a group, the need to achieve are at levels 4 and 5.

What does this mean? Essentially that the argument as to whether football players (or any of us) subvert financial compensation (a base need) to a higher level such as the desire to be in a particular place or part of a particular team is spurious. Financials will in the main always overcome feelings of belonging or loyalty. This will apply whether you are signing for Barrow or Real Madrid. So when a player tells you how much he is looking forward to playing for a club and how much it means to him, whilst this may not actually be a lie, it has to be subject to the unsaid caveat that financial expectations have already been met. That's not a footballer being greedy just being human. So when Dunn likes the look of a player and engages with them, money will be where the real engagement starts.

The thing about a loanee of course is that the financial issue is already ...from the players perspective...dealt with. At that point the issue ceases to be about money but becomes more about ambition and career development. This is when the relationship with a higher level club can pay dividends and mutually beneficial but sadly only for a limited period.

If you believe Maslow these behaviours do not change and are the product of evolution. Doesn't mean of course that there aren't exceptions. Players that are at the end of a career can become very attached to a club and may become much loved by supporters. But this is probably because their financial expectations from football have been met previously or alternatively have been exhausted by age. Occasionally also you will find a player that deliberately contradicts these rules. One such example would be "Winston Bogarde" syndrome (remember him? He was on Chelseas books for many years without ever playing for them. Refused to leave so was happy doing something entirely different with his life whilst picking up a £100k per week). Gareth Bale until now is a similar case. Wont move if it means losing a salary in his case £200k per week despite being a multi-millionaire already. Obstinate, principled or just plain greedy? Maslows would say however that the Hierarchy rules still apply though as these people are simply retreating to their base need .... financial security even when they dont need it and logic dictates they should move on.

Geography is not a base need. Its a lifestyle choice and will only come into play when a choice is offered on an identical basis between two different clubs in different places. Using it as an excuse is usually a red herring. Put simply if we offer more money we are likely to get the player. If we dont we wont. In any event moving training to Hopwood Hall negates geography as a critical issue and was done precisely for that reason.

Thats why we should be happy that we have a very good accountant as a Chairman.

[andyg]

An excellent mini essay Mr Suffolk Blue with a very astute conclusion. I would give you a mark of A-. If you had included other psychological work such as Rutledge's critique who felt Maslow missed out on the role of social connection in his hierarchical model then this would have been a straight A grade in my humble opinion. It is interesting to note that Dunn has moved towards buying or loaning players he knows. Please note his comments regarding the keeper we bought today this was the same with Harrison Biggins loan move. Social connections had been a significant factor in bringing both these players to the club. Nevertheless Mr Suffolk Blue a very worthy effort.

[Suffolk Blue]

Thank You Andy. Have been holding back with the psychobabble bullsh** but the thread has been descending towards an "are they fit to wear the shirt" debate so I was attempting to introduce a little context. Believe it or not I was a smidge away from conceding that Maslows views had been challenged in recent times but thought that might have looked a little pretentious.

The tendency for managers to prefer players they have some knowledge of is pretty obvious especially with those who have recently left the game or who've worked within academies. In this respect both Dunn and Evatt are similar and for a club like ours it makes good sense. Interestingly it may prove more of a challenge for Evatt at Bolton working with a DoF and expectations that you sign "quality" players as this limits the number you would have prior knowledge of. As far as I'm aware he had no prior relationship with either of Boltons "marquee" signings pre-season and has effectively been given them. Also as a manager matures his direct knowledge of potential talent probably decreases hence the need for a good scouting network.

In relation to finance, my expectation is that either Dunn does not make those decisions or is handed a framework by the Board to work within. Thats a traditional model. Again the existence of a DoF complicates this but thats not a problem for us. So when Dunn references financial issues or constraints or work-arounds thats the Board talking rather than him. In my experience the absolute worst thing and most job terminating thing that a manager can do, even beyond producing a crap team on the field is to break the rule of financial responsibility. I do recall for example that when Paul Cox left Guiseley there were rumours circulating quite openly that financial terms had been agreed with certain players without specific reference to their Board or budget. That is a recipe for chaos and any manager who crosses that line risks not just his job but his career. Though it should be said of course Paul Cox remains gainfully employed at Kettering.

[andyg]

Absolutely. As I said elsewhere on this forum it is critical we work within our budget. I didn't realise Cox did that at Guiseley. Its frightening.

[russell_anderson]

Absolutely. As I said elsewhere on this forum it is critical we work within our budget. I didn't realise Cox did that at Guiseley. Its frightening.

From what several people have written on this forum, I think he might well have done it at Barrow as well!

[barrowaberdeen]

So is Maslow more you traditional number 10 or could you play him as a lone striker?

[andyg]

As Maslow prefers the pyramid system I'd say a lone striker

[MisterPleasant]

Au contraire, he is a traditionalist and, therefore, the goalkeeper looking out at a 2 - 3 - 5 formation in front of him. That makes us a bit top-heavy on 'keepers, though.

[+[ [[Kris]] ]+]

Are we making a bid for Schrodinger? Potential to come alive inside the box. But could be a dead cat.

[Suffolk Blue]

Oh dear. What have I started?

Best keep my theories on the Matrix and the application of simulations on EFL rankings to myself then

[blumooncrab]

Are we making a bid for Schrodinger? Potential to come alive inside the box. But could be a dead cat.