Roger Ritchie Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 And people were saying we had the best goalkeeping situation in years with those two on the books. Reckon letting both of them go might cop LJ a few hidings down the line when the fans turn on him. Brill to two good keepers to none. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stainrod Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Brill to two good keepers to none. Don't mention Brill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristolatic Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 I think Cisak blotted his copybook when he went all moody at being brought back from Portsmouth after one game. It was pretty obvious then that he didn't want to be here and it showed in his body language. If we were ready to exercise the extra one year option and he responded with, "Bollocks to it. You can offer me all you want but I'm off as soon as possible", I don't blame the club for backtracking and withdrawing the contract. We'd have ended up with a back-up keeper who wasn't interested and where would we have been then if the new number 1 is injured in the first game. Thanks Alex, you're not bad, but you're not brilliant either; decent L1 IMO. So good luck wherever you go. We move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitey1980 Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 I think that this is an interesting situation for LJ to consider that highlights the very fine balance between competition placing pressure to perform as opposed to raising the level of a players performance. Everything about Cisak's demeanour suggests that having a number 2 brought in of Boozy's attitude and personality would place pressure on him that would not benefit his performance, and the seeds of this issue trace right back to the signing. Dickov must have been aware of this which suggests that either he didn't consider it to be an issue for Cisak or that he expected him to leave in the summer with Boozy in as number 1. When neither assumptions were correct, there was always a chance it would end in this manner. As LJ has been vocal about doing his background checks on players attitudes and characters then I assume he will not repeat this mistake. If he is going to have an openly competitive situation between the keepers he brings in this summer, then both must be aware and responsive to this environment. To get the best out of a character like Cisak, I would imagine he needs to feel secure in his shirt with an experienced and competent number 2 who is aware of his role but who could perform to a decent standard if necessary. As an example getting Brad Friedel to fulfil this role at Spurs was a major achievement for AVB, and has allowed Hugo Lloris to claim the shirt and become comfortable in his role. To be fair to LJ, everything I have seen suggests that he is aware of this and I fully expect him to get it right. Sadly for us and Cisak (who is a talented young keeper who was superb until christmas last year), Dickov got it wrong, and by the time LJ arrived was damaged goods in need of a fresh start. As such he had no option but to go with the hot hand in Boozy and hope to get through the season before addressing the situation, which he now has!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 We were exercising the option in the hope of getting a fee, but as he's likely to do a Porter there was little point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 We were exercising the option in the hope of getting a fee, but as he's likely to do a Porter there was little point I think the only way we could have gotten a profit was if someone came in for him before Xmas. Otherwise we would have been paying him for months to get less than that in transfer fee, some of which we probably would have had to give to Accy. Worse case scenario was that Cisak was getting paid and sitting on our bench at best, then doing one next summer anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c.hill12 Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 We were exercising the option in the hope of getting a fee, but as he's likely to do a Porter there was little point Why? If he was under contract and ANYBODY wanted him, they would still have to pay. He could of course said 'use your option, i'll take the £x amount a week and sit my deal out' i believe lj has someone lined uf for between the sticks who he thinks is better which is why he released them both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveoafc Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 IMO ....meh, he was a decent keeper at our level, but nothing special, and if his attitude is suspect then let's look elsewhere. I'm sure there's adequate replacements out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusoe Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 Why? If he was under contract and ANYBODY wanted him, they would still have to pay. I think that if he moves to a different country the compensation fee isn't applicable. Hence the Porter situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 I think that if he moves to a different country the compensation fee isn't applicable. Hence the Porter situation. Aye, but not if he's under contract as c.hill is saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneSizeFitz Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 I think that if he moves to a different country the compensation fee isn't applicable. Hence the Porter situation. Not if he's still under contract, as he would be if we'd exercised the option. He could only have gone for free if he'd waited until next summer, had that been the case, by which point he'd be over 24 anyway, so could go anywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusoe Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 Aye, but not if he's under contract as c.hill is saying. Christ, I'm dense today. Sorry c.hill, I misread your post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c.hill12 Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 Your forgiven as it's sunday! Haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Sinnott Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 (edited) We were exercising the option in the hope of getting a fee, but as he's likely to do a Porter there was little point Wouldn't matter if he was under contract... Soz, didn't realise Chicken had already picked up on it... Edited June 9, 2013 by Lee Sinnott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.