Crusoe

5 hours ago, nzlatic said:

Having 7 subs and being able to use 5 from next season is a game changer and hopefully should help massively with a pathway from the youth team to first team. 

Wait what? I missed this news. 

10 hours ago, Guy Branston Pickle said:

We sign players from clubs in lower divisions "why we signing players from tinpot clubs? "

 

We sign players from teams who have won this division "well it didn't work when we signed players from Stockport "

 

We sign players from higher divisions "why we signing L2 rejects "

 

We don't sign anyone ""

 

 

Very well said. 

If the club knowingly hired a manager who doesn't believe in trying out youth team players, then the recruitment process is also to blame.

At the same time, the record of the players who've left us doesn't suggest there's a stellar production line we're missing out on. I know, there may be some great prospects right now. But how many times have we heard that? I'm still waiting for Carlos Roca, Ryan Sugden and Brendy Glackin to come good.

Still, it would have been nice to at least try a few when there's nothing realistically left to play for.

36 minutes ago, Boyyou said:

I'm surprised Suzanne at the OT hasn't asked proper questions of the club instead of just copying and pasting the piece and merely raising doubts on line.

https://t.co/CudkTpK3ah

30 minutes ago, deyres42 said:

"We would like to thank the players who depart this summer and we wish them well in their future careers"

 

Can only assume some of you lot can't read cos there's nothing vague about that...

Suzanne just posted an update. Amazingly enough it isn’t as clear as that. Fondop, Gardner, Green and McGahey might be offered new terms if savings are made elsewhere in the squad (Nuttall and Willoughby mentioned). The others are definitely going. 

They've tweaked it, Chapman was missing before. No change to the headings though, which could be clearer.

Despite my earlier view, now I've reflected on it I think the story is deliberately obtuse.

There's no reason they couldn't have been more specific. They were in previous years, and other clubs are. So, I assume it's either poorly written, or was a deliberate choice.

It's a safe bet MM doesn't want to keep all those under contract, so it's not a stretch to believe he wants to keep one or two of those out of contract.

https://www.oldhamathletic.co.uk/news/2024/april/24042024-retained-list/

4 minutes ago, simplythemostimportantkick said:

I can’t see an article ?

It's not showing up on the front page of the website (yet?) but the official Twitter account has a link to it.

That's my reading too, but it's a bit ambiguous.

I assume Llyton Chapman is gone too, his name not on any of the lists.

2 minutes ago, whittles left foot said:

You feeling a bit Churchillian?

“Never in the field of non-league wages was so much spunked by so few on so many.”

I think they just pressed the button too early. Presumably we’ll see it tomorrow. 

Ha! Is there some irony in that it’s just blank? (for now)

But what does it matter who’s “bigger”?

There’s no god-given right to a league position. I’ve never really understood this appeal to history as having much value. It certainly hasn’t helped in the last 30 years.

I would like my club to be “bigger” based on performances and results. Couldn’t give a damn beyond that.

If you mean it as a motivational technique to inspire, fine I guess, but it’s failed the last few decades. And I still see people who think we ought to be winning because of who we were rather than because we’re actually earning it on the pitch. 

Never mind, found it!

6 hours ago, JoeP said:

FWIW..

 

 

Got a clearer version or link?

It’s also not a one-sided thing. Players will have their own demands for contract length. If they’re (genuinely) good enough that we want them, they likely have other clubs interested too.

2 hours ago, Magic Mikey said:

I was Stitch on there. I see Guernica appears on the screenshot. That was Mike Keegan.

Ha! I never knew that. Style checks out. 

I was a regular there too. I’m “Matt75” in those screenshots. 
 

There was JKLatics, there was the Latics Canada site, and at some point the other message board that I assume is still around today.

I’m probably putting two and two together and making XI but they normally announce signings’ squad numbers in the articles. I assume that means Garner’s number is currently occupied and shortly to be vacated. 

Is Walker lined up to sign permanently in future? Seems like a lot of very excited stories on the fishal for a loan signing otherwise. 
 

Fascinating article on Medi Abalimba… and fame for @oafcprozac and @BP1960, quoted in it. 
 

https://theathletic.com/5032306/2023/11/07/medi-abalimba-the-astonishing-story-of-a-football-fraudster/

15 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

What happened to Dylan? Went to Livingston but never seemed to play 

He’s still there. Contracted to the end of this season. Looks like he hasn’t done much to impress; 27 league and cup appearances, but only 11 were starts. One goal (a match winner), one red card. He barely gets mentioned on Livi forums.

Just now, St92 said:

 

Yeah but I was thinking no official announcement for the season ahead makes it possible that Norwood could end up with the #9 he had at Barnsley 

Yep, agreed! Or Nuttall’s 10 could free up. 

8 minutes ago, St92 said:

I don't think I've seen an official list of squad numbers for this season yet. I wonder if that could give us an idea of if any of our other strikers will be on their way out after the Norwood signing

Based on the PSFs 1-11 are taken. 12, 16 and 17 are the next ones free I think.