We will have to agree to disagree then. Kyle Joseph 5 goals in 16 games for Wigan 3 of those goals were in one game. Sorry but it's a no from me.
But I'm not talking about a proven Championship striker. I'm talking about players like Woodrow, who had played in the Premier League, played in the Championship, scored some goals at this level but had fallen out of favour at his club. Players like Moore who had bagged a hatful in his loan spell at a promotion chasing side in League 1. Players like Winnall who was young and hungry AND was a top scorer in the league below. I don't expect us to sing proven Champion strikers, I haven't made one reference to us doing that. I said good players. Players who have proved something. We're buying forwards who haven't proven anything anywhere.
Challenge there is that other than Moore we signed them as a League One club. And I don’t think Moore had the overall impact we were hoping for. Would those strikers you mention have been as successful if we signed them straight in to the Championship? I don’t think so personally. It’s much easier to get right in League One
We've signed players in all other positions of the type I've mentioned. Many of whom have had a significant impact. We've spent a lot of money too. We just haven't done it with strikers, we've gone for the scattergun approach.
Strikers are notoriously the hardest signing to get right. That’s why the good ones go for obscene fees. I think the fact we have a striker who could get 20 Championship goals for the first time since Bruce Dyer suggests we’re not doing terribly. Another playing for Millwall and another playing for Cardiff, all sold for millions. The back fill hasn’t been great and at this level we haven’t cracked having ‘two Woodrow’s’ yet
Yep. Just having a look at League 1 top scorers. The usual Peterborough striker factory line is up there. Interesting that John Marquis, Kane Hemmings and Mallik Wilks are up there as well, which might be a handy benchmark. It's hard finding a goalscorer. Especially an English one.
Players like the ones you mention cost an absolute bomb compared to when we signed the likes of Winnall, Moore etc. The top scorer in League Two will probably command a fee of around £2 million in the current market.
We have one of the division's top scorers (he has two in the cup also). A couple of clubs have two of the top scorers (both relegated Prem clubs). Swansea also. Who are paying Hourihane's wages for four months. It's also worth noting that we've had Moore, Armstrong and Toney. So we can clearly identify good strikers. What we can't do, is pay them the sort of salary that others are happy to. Which is an altogether different argument.
I agree, it's not easy, but when we've got a dozen strikers already on the books making a dent in the budget, it makes that task even more difficult.
I'm not sure what the point is people are making. My argument is simple: We've way too many forwards. WAY TOO MANY. This makes it much more difficult to bring in a good forward as we've already used up a good chunk of the budget on these mediocre forwards, some of whom rarely, if ever, get a game. We've signed another recently who went straight on to the bench, apparently fifth in line. We're after yet another. I don't think this is a good approach. I think a better approach is to sign fewer players of better quality. We can do it, as Whitey's post proves. We take this approach in every other position. Do people disagree with this point? Do they think what we're doing is the right policy? Having, 10, 11, 12 forwards who don't cost much and inevitably don't produce much is the way we should go?
I get what you’re saying, I really do. However, what if we say, spent 3 million on that Clarke-Harris from Peterborough, there is absolutely no guarantees he would get more goals than someone like Chaplin. 3 million down the drain and no alternatives. Just because we spend more money on a player, to suggest this would definitely be better than the current setup is absolutely miles off.
think we should take the players to a local farm and give them a stringed instrument and point them in the direction of the barn
Nobody has disagreed with your main point. You’re almost creating an argument with yourself. What people are suggesting as a counter perspective, which you seem to be completely ignoring, is either that we struggle attracting that one striker of real quality, can’t afford to spend so much of the budget on that one player, can’t risk that amount of budget on one player, or can’t afford the wages when we enter discussions with that level of player. Literally nobody is saying it isn’t better to sign quality over quantity. But they’re acknowledging that the quantity strategy could be a necessity for a club like ours if you can get the quality right as well. And as Whitey has pointed out, our track record isn’t that bad on the goal scorer front - we just can’t keep them for long enough. P.S. I’m sure during this thread we’ve grown our number of strikers. It keeps going up!
I agree, spending more doesn't guarantee anything. But we do seem to have a better return on players who do have some history of producing rather than those we're taking a total gamble on. There's always exceptions to this, but they're exceptions not the rule. BTW I don't think we can afford to sign strikers from Peterborough. Because of their history they are able to command a fee that is above our budget.
If the business model that covers the running of a football club was just about what happens on a Saturday afternoon, then Barnsley Football club would have gone out of business years ago. That side of the business model loses money every season. That is why the business model includes the investment in footballers on long term contracts, and the intention to "buy young, improve and sell on". It is about recouping the losses that the club makes on playing the game, by increasing the value of young players and selling them on for a profit. I am sorry to be so unromantic, but romance is for the fans. Business is for the owners and CEO, because the financial success of the business is their responsibility. When the club owner devised the policy, he knew that not every investment in young players would be a success. He knew that if the club researched its proposed investments thoroughly, it would increase the chances that it would get a return on its investment, but he also knew that nothing was guaranteed with young footballers. The club knew that if it invested in more players, it would improve the percentages. It is a matter of spreading the risk, and if you talk to any businessman, he will talk at length about not putting all his eggs in the one basket. That is all this policy amounts to. There are those on the BBS that would invest in older players. That might be better for playing results, but it might not, after all, is that not the business model followed by Sheffield Wednesday, Nottingham Forest etc. But what is for certain is that the investment in an older player (both transfer fee and pay) is one that does not have the same potential to offer a financial return on the investment, and as I say, that is a very important part of our business model.