Jump to content

Piccolo


jlsarmy
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

 

Definitely. How his performance against Limassol warranted a two-year contract is a mystery that will never be solved. At least the manager is now rectifying that mistake and allowing the boy to pursue a career elsewhere. Perhaps at a modelling agency.

Probably same modelling agency Baird, Kerr, Mukendi went to as well
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jaggernaut I completely agree with you.

 

He is athletic, deceptively strong, agile and towards the end was doing well catching other teams long balls on the head and sending them back.

 

He came at a bad time for us and a few people needed someone to blame, so from his very first game he became that person. The ideal scenario would have been to have got time on loan in the championship so he could adapt to not just the style of play here, a full new life. I am dissapointed by the clubs handling of this and feel sorry for the lad. Hopefully he goes on to make a successful career, he definitely has the desire to do so. Just like the celtic away game, maybe watch that Collins Out or a few other games other than that 1 that he is forever remembered for by people like yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our defence was poor last year and if we are to progress it needs to improve by a significant amount

The manger has brought in new players in this area which is right

We will see soon enough if this helps address the issue ( mind you last weeks goal by Dunddee was very poor)

Muirhead clearly next in line to go

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our defence was poor last year and if we are to progress it needs to improve by a significant amount

The manger has brought in new players in this area which is right

We will see soon enough if this helps address the issue ( mind you last weeks goal by Dunddee was very poor)

Muirhead clearly next in line to go

 

I think Muirhead is the bast passer of the current back 4 & a bit like O'Donnell last season we didn't see the best of him because he was carrying an injury.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if he eventually replaces Balatoni alongside Seaborne.

 

Piccolow was a panic buy after going through a dozen centre half trialists last Summer.

 

If anything, although I'm still slightly worried by the lack of signings as in LB, CF & wide player, the manger has learned from that & not rushed into anything.

 

1st /September the time to judge thee.

 

Piccolo was never the answer for me & to be truthful, I wouldn't have been disappointed to see go last Jan but that would've been a real embarrassment. As it stands it still is an expensive mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I struggle to see this as a bad thing.

 

Unfortunately signings don't work out and quite often these are rectified by a mutual agreement to break up the contract.

 

I really liked Piccolo as a guy, met him a few times and he was very pleasant. I also don't think he was a terrible defender, however I don't think he was up to the level required and early Archie is in agreement.

 

We also don't know how discussions went, maybe Gabby wanted first choice football that we couldn't guarantee and was told he could leave when he is replaced?

 

Good luck to him anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The club seems to have spent a lot of money on terminating the contracts of players early in the last year or so - Piccolo, Kerr, Baird, Forbes, Murray and McGuigan. IIRC Baird had around 18 months left on his contract.

 

Yes, but given that we're still in the top flight with the financial bonus that gives us, all of those decisions seem sound (although I'd have liked Piccolo to get more of a chance).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you still had a year left on your contract , under no obligation to leave why would you accept anything less than at least 50% of your contract ? , don't think I would write off even 50% of my salary if that was the case.

 

Maybe he really just wants to get playing football, and we weren't willing to give him enough chances. Might be a financial risk on the side of the player, but he could have something lined up that will suit him better, or just be confident enough to take that chance.

 

I think he could have worked out for us, but needs a run of first team football to get going and he wasn't going to get that here. As mentioned earlier, if he had joined us in our championship winning season, it may have suited him better. Bit of a 'nearly' in my book, but I hope he gets something fixed up soon and goes on to enjoy his football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The club seems to have spent a lot of money on terminating the contracts of players early in the last year or so - Piccolo, Kerr, Baird, Forbes, Murray and McGuigan. IIRC Baird had around 18 months left on his contract.

 

So keep these six players on our books that are clearly not good enough or grow a pair, cut our losses and move on.......

 

Unbeaten start to the season, the best team I have seen with the best prospects and I cannot fault Archie and his team. Archie has come out and stated how difficult it is to get BETTER players to sign and he will not sign dross just for the numbers. We all were shocked to see Doolan on the bench but you can't argue with a 4-0 win against Ross in your opening game.

 

#InArchieWeTrust

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it, we signed him on a two year deal for a reason. We asked a lot of the boy who had built his career in a different style of football.

 

Let's not forget, for someone, who some would say lacks the where with all, to be a defender. It's strange that we'd offer him a two year deal.

 

Even stranger, that the fans would vote him a Player of The Month.

 

It's just my opinion, but I'm let down a wee bit by the club in how our club has treated him.

 

We could at least have given the boy a full summer to find a club. Archie didn't just decide this in the first couple of days of pre season.

 

Given that he was released on the 21st of August & there have been rumours about him being surplus to requirements since pre-season started some 7 weeks ago, he has had pretty much the full summer to find a new club, without much success it would appear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we budgeted to have 4 centre half's this season, then we are losing money, as we are paying for 4, plus some of his wages.

 

The pay off we've had to give him is lost money that could have been used elsewhere.

 

 

 

Of course, if this new lad goes on loan, and the second team picks up a % of his wage. Then that money received could cover the loss of the gabby pay off.

 

But that begs the question, why bring in someone on a one year deal, not good enough for the squad, to go out on loan.

 

Who replaces someone who had a year left on his contract, and you were going to send out on loan.

 

Maybe the answer lies in the defender brought in being a different type of defender to Gabriel? I'm repeating myself when saying that Gabby's distribution and footwork may have been the reason Archie thought it necessary to replace him. If so then he really replaced Gabriel with Seaborne. Perhaps Richards-Everton is replacing Brownlie, who was a ball playing centreback?

 

Starting last season with three right sided inexperienced centrebacks was far from ideal. I could see why Archie thought Dowie wouldn't have been up to it. By all accounts he tried to get Mair last summer. If that had come about he could've either not signed Gabby or sent him immediately out on loan. Worth minding firstly that Osbourne could've provided cover in central defence as well and also Archie did give trials to a host of centrebacks, none of whom came up to spec.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that he was released on the 21st of August & there have been rumours about him being surplus to requirements since pre-season started some 7 weeks ago, he has had pretty much the full summer to find a new club, without much success it would appear.

 

He was told he was surplus to requirements at the end of June. when ours, and everyone else's pre-season had started.

 

The right thing to do would have been to tell him back in April when the season was finishing, giving him May and June to secure a move for the start of pre season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was told he was surplus to requirements at the end of June. when ours, and everyone else's pre-season had started.

 

The right thing to do would have been to tell him back in April when the season was finishing, giving him May and June to secure a move for the start of pre season.

 

That's a valid point. I guess you're maybe hinting at monetary reasons requiring the completion of his first year of his contract,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

He was told he was surplus to requirements at the end of June. when ours, and everyone else's pre-season had started.

 

The right thing to do would have been to tell him back in April when the season was finishing, giving him May and June to secure a move for the start of pre season.

 

Is that definitely the case or was it possible that he had asked for more first team games which Archie couldn't agree and was told he could leave if a replacement arrived, as happened yesterday?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The situation only arose when the player came back to pre season.

My understanding is that he sought assurances re first team action.

These couldn't be given. An impasse was then the order of the day, altho

the player trained as normal.

 

The situation came to a head when the player was asked to undertake certain duties

that would be expected of a squad player. He refused (rightly in his view).There was then no way back.

 

I like Gabby , but believe this is the right course of action for all concerned.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The situation only arose when the player came back to pre season.

My understanding is that he sought assurances re first team action.

These couldn't be given. An impasse was then the order of the day, altho

the player trained as normal.

 

The situation came to a head when the player was asked to undertake certain duties

that would be expected of a squad player. He refused (rightly in his view).There was then no way back.

 

I like Gabby , but believe this is the right course of action for all concerned.

 

Added into the time line a week or so after pre season training began, our chairman was telling fans Gabby was going out on loan for the remainder of his contract.

 

Regards the highlighted part, you would think if that was the case, the club would be within their remit to terminate his contract.

 

Push comes to shove, its the managers choice, who he sees as good enough for the squad.

 

But there are ways of going about things, and in that regard the club has really let it's self down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...