What's new
PNE Online
Welcome to PNE-Online. Why not register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! You can also join up as a forum Patron to help support in the running costs of the forum.

Podcast

HunterLionheart said:
He's clearly not a bad player by any means. But he doesn't have the explosive pace he used to have. Questioning what's changed for him to be willing to come down to Preston level wages and football is perfectly reasonable.
Click to expand...
Of course it's reasonable to question it. But what I sensed (rightly or wrongly) was certainty from Pearson that Sinclair must have been past his best. Can't be certain about that. Also Sinclair's wages (£20,000 a week?) are way above our normal level, are they not ? So that argument fails if that is the case.
 
Realistic said:
Agreed, because the price would have been the peak full price with a bit more added on. So no, Trevor would never pay that. However, based on what I've seen of him when he does score, he doesn't look that much different to the player that was banging them in at Celtic. He's only 32, surely his best is not all behind him ? Are they all f*cked these days at 32 ?
Click to expand...
I don't think Sinclair is a bad player. But I'd question whether financially he's been worth it and whether he's the sort of player we should have been buying?
 
Realistic said:
Of course it's reasonable to question it. But what I sensed (rightly or wrongly) was certainty from Pearson that Sinclair must have been past his best. Can't be certain about that. Also Sinclair's wages (£20,000 a week?) are way above our normal level, are they not ? So that argument fails if that is the case.
Click to expand...

Well... Yeah. His instinct was that he must be past his best to drop to this level. That's the logical assumption to make and he's obviously right.

Investment has to be smart. He's not saying spend money blindly, however much it is. Just that if we spent a bit more on getting those quality players over the line, we'd look more ambitious, like we had any plan to get promoted.

Sinclair was our only signing, a belated replacement for a multi million pound sale of our best attacker in Robinson. Yes, his wages were a bit heftier, and to be fair, he's not even a bad signing, just too little too late, ya know?
 
Realistic said:
Of course it's reasonable to question it. But what I sensed (rightly or wrongly) was certainty from Pearson that Sinclair must have been past his best. Can't be certain about that. Also Sinclair's wages (£20,000 a week?) are way above our normal level, are they not ? So that argument fails if that is the case.
Click to expand...
Of course he’s past his best.

The question is whether past his best is good enough for us. I’d argue it is but he doesn’t really fit into the systems we’ve used more recently.
 
Sports Trader said:
Of course he’s past his best.

The question is whether past his best is good enough for us. I’d argue it is but he doesn’t really fit into the systems we’ve used more recently.
Click to expand...

Precisely. There's nothing wrong with being past your best but still good enough for us. Brian O'Neil was lauded for it, and gets his flaws handwaved away. McGeady was clearly past his prime but was outstanding at this level.

Sinclair was obviously no longer at his peak, and it shouldn't be remotely controversial to believe and acknowledge that.
 
HunterLionheart said:
Well... Yeah. His instinct was that he must be past his best to drop to this level. That's the logical assumption to make and he's obviously right.

Investment has to be smart. He's not saying spend money blindly, however much it is. Just that if we spent a bit more on getting those quality players over the line, we'd look more ambitious, like we had any plan to get promoted.

Sinclair was our only signing, a belated replacement for a multi million pound sale of our best attacker in Robinson. Yes, his wages were a bit heftier, and to be fair, he's not even a bad signing, just too little too late, ya know?
Click to expand...
Interesting post and I don't disagree with some of it. But why is he obviously right ? If Sinclair scores fifteen to twenty goals next season, then he's obviously not right. Hindsight is easy, you me or anyone else don't know what the future holds. Look at what happened with DJ Campbell at the lashers. It pains me to say but he was superb for them, past his best (that's why he went there) but obviously not past his best, because he kept scoring, didn't he.
 
HunterLionheart said:
Precisely. There's nothing wrong with being past your best but still good enough for us. Brian O'Neil was lauded for it, and gets his flaws handwaved away. McGeady was clearly past his prime but was outstanding at this level.

Sinclair was obviously no longer at his peak, and it shouldn't be remotely controversial to believe and acknowledge that.
Click to expand...
It's not controversial. This is a forum, everyone is entitled to their opinion but it's just an opinion that might be wrong, including mine. Peaks can only be judged with hindsight at the end of the career. Sinclair might rise to a new peak, you or anyone else can't know that won't happen. You can scratch your chin and make a good guess but you don't know for sure.

When I was young, I used to make snap judgements, oh he'll never be any f*cking good etc. You learn the error of that when you've lived long enough, as I'm sure you're aware, not trying to patronise you.
 
Realistic said:
Interesting post and I don't disagree with some of it. But why is he obviously right ? If Sinclair scores fifteen to twenty goals next season, then he's obviously not right. Hindsight is easy, you me or anyone else don't know what the future holds. Look at what happened with DJ Campbell at the lashers. It pains me to say but he was superb for them, past his best (that's why he went there) but obviously not past his best, because he kept scoring, didn't he.
Click to expand...

I mean he's clearly not the player he was 5 or 10 years ago. He doesn't have the same pace. Doesn't mean he can't do a job, but the player who was at Man City, Chelsea and scoring shit tons for Celtic is not the player who we have at 32, and the past 18 months should show that?
 
HunterLionheart said:
I mean he's clearly not the player he was 5 or 10 years ago. He doesn't have the same pace. Doesn't mean he can't do a job, but the player who was at Man City, Chelsea and scoring shit tons for Celtic is not the player who we have at 32, and the past 18 months should show that?
Click to expand...
As I said, if you look at my post above, what I'm saying is that he might have a real spurt and return to his best, we don't know, no one knows. Statistically, it might be unlikely but I've seen too many surprises to rule anything out.
 
Just listened to it and Ben came across quite well, a complete opposite to his earlier naive signing on comments. Probably adrenalin and excitement caused these ill founded comments compared to his calm interview on the podcast.

He'll get a polite (not overboard) clap from myself.
 
Not sure we have actually learned much that the ITK lot haven't spoken about over recent years.

The Contract situation as we suspected sounded a right old balls up by the club. Although Pearson states he was never offered anything where we had been led to believe the offers where crap... so that doesn't add up.

Sounds like in the end, Neil, Pearson, Hemmings and The Advisor all made mistakes.

I bet the advisor is livid with the timing of this.

Pearson was a great footballer for North End but ultimately he will be playing for a small club (albeit on better money) in part of the country he clearly doesn't have an affection for and will be visiting us again next season.
 
Top