Humphrey’s not coming back

If Conor and the club don’t think he’s worthy of being one of our top earners then I’m fine with it. If it’s a case of we really wanted him to stay but can’t compete then I’m a little concerned. Only way we’ll probably know is when we see who’s coming into the club. Would be very nice to get a few bits over the line soon.

 

I'd have liked him to stay on, but I mean the version of him that we saw when the season was over.
Not the version of him that we saw, for ages before that!.
Its just that beggars can't be choosers though, and he showed he can score at this level, when he can be bothered.
That goalscoring option up front has gone now, so let's see who if anybody, we replace him with.

 

Tbh i'd rather have Cole and Norwood back. Humphrys was... disappointing

 

When the DoF said we had a competitive transfer budget did he mean competitive with Athersley Rec or Worsboro Bridge he never clarified which

 

Will his 6 good games a season really be that much of a miss?!

 

What a toilet

 

The right contract for Humphreys is performance based.

Good player when he can be arsed, so lower weekly wage and a compelling goal bonus.

If the player baulks at it, question why they don’t back themself.

 

Didn't he battle illness for a lot of the season and lose a load of muscle and body weight? Harsh to judge someone when they're dealing with that.

 

I read it as the player failed to meet the criteria

 

I might have this wrong but I think yoganathan could do a job in a similar role. I didn’t dislike the bloke but he’s a journeyman who’s (allegedly) hopped from club to club following the money (for his level) which is his prerogative. I’m sick to the back teeth of folk not showing commitment.
Let’s assume it is money , what’s happened to the old backing yourself and ability theory - ie I’ll take a few less quid a week because I like it here and playing some decent football (by his levels) and if we go up etc or I get 20 goals, the money will follow’ type theory?
I don’t think CH will lose much sleep over this one and neither will I

 

Thank f.ck.

 

Me too. I'd assume goals - you get us 15 goals Humphs lad and we'll gladly pay you for another year.

He didn't, we didn't think he was worth what we were paying and negotiated. Fair play.

 

I think any player we truly want as a core member of the first team should have contract extensions agreed much earlier in the term. Extension before the last third of a contract. Players who make up a squad and we fancy being in the mix, but maybe not a regular in the starting line up we will probably work the way we did here with Humphries.

He wasnt a number 1… or 2… even 3 target initially. A late signing from an available pool at that point in time.

main thing is, we need to do better for a replacement.

 

If you like, but that's when he'll be playing for them from. So a L1 club.

 

I'm slightly upset about Humps, but not massively so. More for the fact that it's another slot we've got to fill. Fundamentally, he underperformed for the majority of the season. Whether that's because he was out of position for the most of it, or he didn't buy into what Darrell Clarke wanted from him, I'm not sure. I don't think it's a coincidence that he played his best football when Hourihane moved him out wide, though there were games where he just didn't look bothered. I don't think it's a coincidence either that Wigan fans were having the exact same conversation about him last summer.

We had this situation about 10 years ago, anyone remember Milan Lalkovic? A talented winger who occasionally looked a cut above everyone else in the division, but regularly underperformed. We had him on a short term deal, and the conversation that summer was whether he should get an extended one. He went back to Walsall and had a half decent season for them, but ultimately, we didn't miss him in the end.

I get that faith in our recruitment team is at its lowest, though it's the same recruitment team that brought Humphrys in, in the first place (albeit as a striker). And it's still June.

 

My way of looking at this: If we'd just offered higher wages than a similar sized club for a journeyman forward who scored 9 goals in 41 matches last season, a significant number of fans would be slagging off the club for wasting money.

 

Imread it as the opposite as the chronicle said the club has the option of an extra year if certain criteria were met. Surely there is no clause that says the club can only extend his contract if he scores 10 or more goals

 

An option in the club's favour is that though - they want him, they can keep him. So if he scores 15 goals the club go 'bang yeah thanks we'll have you' but if he doesn't then they can choose not to or to re enter negotiations.

Seems sensible to me - I can't imagine a scenario where an extension is club based, maybe other than if we'd got promoted.

 

Yes I get that but the chronicle article suggested that the club couldn't extend his deal automatically as conditions to extend weren't met rather than it saying the club chose not to and wanted to negotiate a lower wage as Humphreys hadn't done well enough

 

Didn’t Lalkovic score on his return to Oakwell and then run to the front of the dugouts making a’ gesture up at our board for not offering him the contract he wanted?