| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) 11:49 - Apr 19 with 1971 views | SamWhiteUK |
|  | | |  |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 11:50 - Apr 19 with 1952 views | Kieran_Knows |
For what purpose exactly? |  |
| |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 11:50 - Apr 19 with 1951 views | clive_baker |
What’s the point if he can’t come on? |  |
| |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 11:59 - Apr 19 with 1895 views | monty_radio |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 11:50 - Apr 19 by Kieran_Knows |
For what purpose exactly? |
In case it tips up if someone gets off the other end? |  |
| |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 11:59 - Apr 19 with 1889 views | PhilTWTD |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 11:50 - Apr 19 by clive_baker |
What’s the point if he can’t come on? |
He could, the clause only referred to starts. |  | | |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 12:01 - Apr 19 with 1876 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 11:50 - Apr 19 by clive_baker |
What’s the point if he can’t come on? |
Might be the wording but the article here says he had made 29 starts and one more would trigger the extension, so potentially sub appearances would be ok?
Obviously a pretty sh*tty way to handle it though and unlikely to be received well either
EDIT: damn that PhilTWTD chap beating me to it [Post edited 19 Apr 2021 12:02]
|  |
| |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 12:05 - Apr 19 with 1846 views | maccyd9 |
The issue was if he was to get injured then the club have an obligation to support him through his rehab. The club don't want to be tied to a non contracted player.
Makes perfect sense. | | | |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 12:06 - Apr 19 with 1835 views | wkj |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 12:05 - Apr 19 by maccyd9 |
The issue was if he was to get injured then the club have an obligation to support him through his rehab. The club don't want to be tied to a non contracted player.
Makes perfect sense. |
Maybe they could have kept him on to weed the stands or something. |  |
| |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 12:08 - Apr 19 with 1816 views | NthQldITFC |
I rather think that might be a jest, m'lord? |  |
| # WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE # | | Poll: | It's driving me nuts |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 12:15 - Apr 19 with 1790 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 12:05 - Apr 19 by maccyd9 |
The issue was if he was to get injured then the club have an obligation to support him through his rehab. The club don't want to be tied to a non contracted player.
Makes perfect sense. |
That's the case for half the squad.
Looks like its simply a case of Cook not rating him. |  |
| |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 12:25 - Apr 19 with 1758 views | Keno |
I dont think he is big enough for many people to sit on? |  |
| |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 12:33 - Apr 19 with 1727 views | Garv |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 12:01 - Apr 19 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
Might be the wording but the article here says he had made 29 starts and one more would trigger the extension, so potentially sub appearances would be ok?
Obviously a pretty sh*tty way to handle it though and unlikely to be received well either
EDIT: damn that PhilTWTD chap beating me to it [Post edited 19 Apr 2021 12:02]
|
Sounds like an element of it comes down to not wanting Judge to get a bad injury and the club be liable or at least duty bound to look after him after his contract ends. Suits Judge in a way too. |  |
| |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 12:54 - Apr 19 with 1662 views | J2BLUE |
Why bother? Cook doesn't want him next season and was being diplomatic. It makes no sense to keep him for the bench. |  |
| |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 13:01 - Apr 19 with 1624 views | Keaneish |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 12:01 - Apr 19 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
Might be the wording but the article here says he had made 29 starts and one more would trigger the extension, so potentially sub appearances would be ok?
Obviously a pretty sh*tty way to handle it though and unlikely to be received well either
EDIT: damn that PhilTWTD chap beating me to it [Post edited 19 Apr 2021 12:02]
|
Thought it was handled well and sends a clear message to the squad. Probably the sort of stern approach we need in the current climate. |  |
| |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 13:06 - Apr 19 with 1615 views | Swansea_Blue |
I must admit I didn't quite understand PC's glowing comments in the context of letting him go. If Judge was prepared to waive the clause, surely the injury point would apply to anyone coming to the end of their contract this season. Judge is also far from one of the worse players.
Presumably this is an implicit admission by PC that they've given up on making the playoffs? Judge's experience would have been valuable to a last gasp push imo. |  |
| |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 13:12 - Apr 19 with 1586 views | IpswichKnight |
Ipswich fans after Wimbledon defeat - sack them or release them all
Ipswich release a player
Ipswich fans - can’t we keep him.
None of this squad is good enough to get us out of this league the sooner we can bin as many of them as possible the better. | | | |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 13:42 - Apr 19 with 1520 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 12:33 - Apr 19 by Garv |
Sounds like an element of it comes down to not wanting Judge to get a bad injury and the club be liable or at least duty bound to look after him after his contract ends. Suits Judge in a way too. |
Maybe but then that logic would apply to anyone outside of plans for next season which would mean 20+ players not being played
Thus suspect it is much more simply the fact that we have no intention of triggering the renewal so rather than mess around with a halfway house of only using him from the bench we’ve just taken the decision to move on
As far as Cook goes I’m very much in the camp that’s disappointed/underwhelmed with his start and somewhat bemused that people once again seem to be w*nking themselves silly over press conferences, but remaining hopeful that his track record shows he’s the right man and will be able to rebuild us in the Summer. And decisive moves like this do at least give credence that there is a plan, unlike say the whole ‘Knudsen won’t be here long term so I’m not going to play him so have instead brought in a short term loanee...oh actually he was sh*t so Knudsen is back in’ shenanigans we had in a similar situation with his predecessor | |
| |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 13:43 - Apr 19 with 1511 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 13:01 - Apr 19 by Keaneish |
Thought it was handled well and sends a clear message to the squad. Probably the sort of stern approach we need in the current climate. |
Yep agreed, as per above response to Garv | |
| |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 13:48 - Apr 19 with 1497 views | clive_baker |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 11:59 - Apr 19 by PhilTWTD |
He could, the clause only referred to starts. |
Oh fair enough, yes in that case it does feel a little odd. Might as well have kept him around the place I would've thought. If the season was officially dead that's one thing, but if by some miracle we fluked our way to Wembley then he would've been worth having on the bench surely.
Moot point anyway as that's not happening. | |
| |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 17:22 - Apr 19 with 1365 views | BlueBadger |
We've already got Harrop if we want to bring on an ineffective 'well, we're settling for 0-0 again' midfielder? |  |
| |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 17:26 - Apr 19 with 1352 views | PhilTWTD |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 13:48 - Apr 19 by clive_baker |
Oh fair enough, yes in that case it does feel a little odd. Might as well have kept him around the place I would've thought. If the season was officially dead that's one thing, but if by some miracle we fluked our way to Wembley then he would've been worth having on the bench surely.
Moot point anyway as that's not happening. |
Would have been a bit of an odd state of affairs as well, someone being in the squad but not being able to start as the manager's decided he doesn't have you in his plans. | | | |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 20:30 - Apr 19 with 1225 views | Garv |
| Couldn't we have kept Judge for the bench? (n/t) on 13:42 - Apr 19 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
Maybe but then that logic would apply to anyone outside of plans for next season which would mean 20+ players not being played
Thus suspect it is much more simply the fact that we have no intention of triggering the renewal so rather than mess around with a halfway house of only using him from the bench we’ve just taken the decision to move on
As far as Cook goes I’m very much in the camp that’s disappointed/underwhelmed with his start and somewhat bemused that people once again seem to be w*nking themselves silly over press conferences, but remaining hopeful that his track record shows he’s the right man and will be able to rebuild us in the Summer. And decisive moves like this do at least give credence that there is a plan, unlike say the whole ‘Knudsen won’t be here long term so I’m not going to play him so have instead brought in a short term loanee...oh actually he was sh*t so Knudsen is back in’ shenanigans we had in a similar situation with his predecessor |
Maybe the rest of them have all got the chance, albeit slight chance, of earning a contract during the final few games? If no one else has this silly threshold of games started that will trigger a new deal.
While I don't want many of them to stay, there's probably an argument for each of them individually to get another chance. Someone like Huws is another story, because where has he been? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
