Harriers Chatter

I was aware he wasn’t happy with what was offered. Still a mistake IMO. Especially given what we have replaced him with.

But economically the club may have decided that he had reached a plateau in his performance and he needed to be replaced. The best way to do that is to offer less money and let the player reject it.

Macca consistently underperformed last season compared with the season before.

While, being offered less money could be considered a slap in the face, I wouldn't have blamed the club for making that decision based
on his season-long form - which was that of a bench warmer.

Of course, as it turned out, he seems to have rediscovered his talent.

Lowe v Daly. On retrospect the wrong decision. But, who knew?

Out of interest Cal, brumkidd and Sheff, how do you assess/rate the performances (often only cameo) of the guy you're sponsoring this season i.e. James Baxendale?

Well, we haven’t seen much of him, have we? Underwhelmed. Has seemed to only pass backwards, but a better showing on Saturday.

Re your question....not sure of the significance of us sponsoring him??

Only attempting to find out what others think of him since he joined. No significance whatsoever in the sponsorship link. I noticed it by chance and it prompted me to ask the question as Quillks was being discussed as I think he brought more to the ‘table’ than Baxendale has thus far.

I recognise that McQuilken didn't reach the heights of his previous seasons. My comment is more a moan at the recruitment of players to fill the holes left. By all means let someone leave if you don't think they are worth the money but replace with a player at least as good. Yes, I know retrospect is a wonderful thing but the job of those involved in player recruitment is to do due diligence. We, the mere fans, don't scout potential players, speak to those who work with them re their ethic and attitude etc. I expect the club to do this - is that naive? So whilst things don't always work out (e.g. Daly) and there can be many reasons for this, my general point is that we don't seem to be improving the team.

With regard to the enquiry about James Baxendale, as a co sponsor I can say that he looks entirely unsuited to football at our level. I imagine he can't help the fact that he has no meat on him and looks a bit like one of the academy lads a good few years younger than him.

I'm not at all sure what he brings to the squad. We have a number of lightweights in the group and we seem to have been recruiting them consistently over the years. A significant number of our rivals tend to hire big brick sh*t house players, who invariably brush our lightweight players aside.

You get what you pay for I suppose and I'm happy for my small contribution to the overall sponsorship cost to be assigned to one or other of his skinny ankles.

I'm not sure how anyone can come to any sort of valid judgment on Bax when he's only played two full games thus far - with 9 as sub.

On paper surely a 26 year-old attacking midfielder with over a hundred games under his belt with Walsall is just the kind of experienced player we should be looking for?
....or maybe I'm missing something??

"........or maybe I'm missing something??"

...or then again, perhaps those who signed him have.

...or then again, perhaps those who signed him have.

....and after a requisite number of games to fairly judge the lad I would have no problem being one of those to confirm that.....

With both Bax & O`connor not impressing, it does question what it takes to play at several levels above us. Clearly physicality is a low priority attribute,(i`m assuming O`connor as a centre back here).