Zadi Gone or Not (merged)

[Jay_7]

Probably the right decision. Apart from Barry's testimonial I only saw him play once - in the reserves v Hearts last week.

Although he was decent in the air, quick and not afraid to go forward, he did also seem to have a tendency to pass the ball into or across our own box (3 times in that match I think), the first of which led to their first goal.

In that he closed his eyes when challenging for a ball in the air?...

[Jay_7]

Good riddance. We should have never signed him in the first place.

[Guest Spectre]

In that he's 6'2" and won a few headers in that match!

[stevico1]

money well spent on a wasted salary for 6 months :thumb04:

[The Mantis]

Oh well, water under the bridge now Stevico (or maybe 'over the bridge') :thumb04:

[stevico1]

Oh well, water under the bridge now Stevico (or maybe 'over the bridge') :thumb04:

:018: ;)

[starchief]

No doubt the Highland curse will strike and he'll be terrible for the next team he plays for...

...hang on, something not quite right there....

[CaleyD]

I would agree with comments that his signing would appear to have been a waste of time and money, somewhat of a "panic buy" I think at the time.

What I don't agree with is having a go at the guy himself, especially as very few will have seen him play more than once.

[Yngwie]

Good decision to release Zadi...........but it clears the way for Ritchie Byrne :o

[SMEE]

I would agree with comments that his signing would appear to have been a waste of time and money, somewhat of a "panic buy" I think at the time.

Brewster did exact same with Watt last season. he seems to think nothing of wasting ICTs cash.

[CaleyD]

It happens....sometimes clubs/managers make signings that don't work out and I'd challenge anyone to find a manager who's never done it.

Seriously, as much as I think Brewster has his faults (and plenty of them), and as much as I might question the logic behind some of the signings from the perspective of them being replacements for what we've let go, I won't be crucifying him for the odd non-starter in the signings department.

If you want to question signings then look at things like why we let someone like Marius go, only for us to replace him with a comparative amateur on comparable wages, or why he's never looked to take in a serious replacement for Dods at the back and is still concentrating on forward players on the approach to the window when we have just as many issues in defence.

[SMEE]

Well...come January, he will have the money freed up by 3 departures to play with. Barry, Zadi and Brew says one more will leave. I wonder who?????????

[CaleyD]

On the subject of spending wisely, giving money to Brewster does worry me a bit, but that's a different discussion altogether.

[Guest Spectre]

If you want to question signings then look at things like why we let someone like Marius go, only for us to replace him with a comparative amateur on comparable wages,

Is this really right? The sort of numbers I've seen bandied around on here were very different i.e. a multiple.

I'm assuming it wasn't Brewster's choice to let him go, anyway, more financial.

or why he's never looked to take in a serious replacement for Dods at the back and is still concentrating on forward players on the approach to the window when we have just as many issues in defence.

Well more issues I would say. Our scoring record is better than everyone else in the bottom 6 apart from Falkirk.

CC has to share the blame for not replacing Dods, too. Brew only had a day or so in the previous window (though I agree, with hindsight at least, it should have been a bigger priority this summer).

[Guest Spectre]

Well...come January, he will have the money freed up by 3 departures to play with. Barry, Zadi and Brew says one more will leave. I wonder who?????????

Are you suggesting the club expects someone to go because they've had an informal approach from a "bigger" club?

[kencar]

Good decision to release Zadi...........but it clears the way for Ritchie Byrne :o

I fear you may well be right

[CaleyD]

The problem with trying to determine what sort of package Niculae was on is that we had so many stories which were put out there by the press which were never challenged or refuted by the club. It suited them (and to an extent Niculae) at the time that people thought he was on far, far more than he actually was.

It suited the club because it made them look like they could be a player in the transfer market, and it suited Marius because if/when the time came for him to move on then the last thing he would want is people offering him wages based on his real salary at ICT instead of the perceived one. i.e. If clubs thought he was on 3k or more a week then only the serious contenders would be coming in looking to top it. If they knew he was on nearer ?1500 or so a week then every chancer would have been pestering him looking for his services.....just my opinion on things, but I think it makes a certain amount of sense.

You then have to look at the kind of figures which were being talked about, and which were confirmed by the club at the time or following Marius' departure, and the figures put about for Barrowman when he signed.

For Barrowman we were told it was a 3 year deal thought to be worth over ?200,000 plus a signing on fee. When you do the maths on that it's about ?1300/week not including the signing on fee.

For Marius we were told that an investment was made by Orion which would have covered the players costs for 2 years. We know a singing fee was involved and that it was 200,000 Euros or more (press reports on him still being due 100k and this being a second instalment suggest this to be the case). So if you take that first instalment off and divide the remaining investment by Orion down weekly over 2 years then you end up with a figure which is not too far off what Barrowman is receiving.

So, IMO, based on the information to hand, I would surmise that selling Niculae had very little to do with "finances", or the clubs inability to pay his level of wages....despite the spin placed on it at the time.

We then come to more recent stories about players such as Black where we're being given the impression that we can't afford his wage demands as finances aren't what they should be and things are difficult with the credit crunch. That, on the face of it would appear to make sense....money is tight so we have to think about trimming the squad. However, we then see stuff appearing in the papers about money being made available to bring in players in the transfer window....experienced players, players who we aren't going to get for the same or less money than players being let go. That, again, leaves me feeling that these decision is NOT being based on finances, which seems to be the party line, and just more poor spin.

[RiG]

Brewster did exact same with Watt last season. he seems to think nothing of wasting ICTs cash.

Watt was signed by CC who then resigned about 8 hours later.

Coincidence?

[Guest Spectre]

Well I certainly hope the stories about Black are wrong.

I must admit I'd assumed that the Orion money was the excess over what we could afford.

I remember the club saying that they'd offered Dargo the 'best ever deal' which by implication means there ought of been some cash in the club.

Sorry, this is all OT.

[Guest birdog]

The problem with trying to determine what sort of package Niculae was on is that we had so many stories which were put out there by the press which were never challenged or refuted by the club. It suited them (and to an extent Niculae) at the time that people thought he was on far, far more than he actually was.

It suited the club because it made them look like they could be a player in the transfer market, and it suited Marius because if/when the time came for him to move on then the last thing he would want is people offering him wages based on his real salary at ICT instead of the perceived one. i.e. If clubs thought he was on 3k or more a week then only the serious contenders would be coming in looking to top it. If they knew he was on nearer ?1500 or so a week then every chancer would have been pestering him looking for his services.....just my opinion on things, but I think it makes a certain amount of sense.

You then have to look at the kind of figures which were being talked about, and which were confirmed by the club at the time or following Marius' departure, and the figures put about for Barrowman when he signed.

For Barrowman we were told it was a 3 year deal thought to be worth over ?200,000 plus a signing on fee. When you do the maths on that it's about ?1300/week not including the signing on fee.

For Marius we were told that an investment was made by Orion which would have covered the players costs for 2 years. We know a singing fee was involved and that it was 200,000 Euros or more (press reports on him still being due 100k and this being a second instalment suggest this to be the case). So if you take that first instalment off and divide the remaining investment by Orion down weekly over 2 years then you end up with a figure which is not too far off what Barrowman is receiving.

So, IMO, based on the information to hand, I would surmise that selling Niculae had very little to do with "finances", or the clubs inability to pay his level of wages....despite the spin placed on it at the time.

We then come to more recent stories about players such as Black where we're being given the impression that we can't afford his wage demands as finances aren't what they should be and things are difficult with the credit crunch. That, on the face of it would appear to make sense....money is tight so we have to think about trimming the squad. However, we then see stuff appearing in the papers about money being made available to bring in players in the transfer window....experienced players, players who we aren't going to get for the same or less money than players being let go. That, again, leaves me feeling that these decision is NOT being based on finances, which seems to be the party line, and just more poor spin.

Add to that, that it would be far cheaper to re-sign a player of Black's, Cowie's or Wilson's quality and experience than it would be to go out and pay a transfer fee, signing on fee and going rate in wages. The trimming the wage budget argument does not add up.

[stevico1]

The problem with trying to determine what sort of package Niculae was on is that we had so many stories which were put out there by the press which were never challenged or refuted by the club. It suited them (and to an extent Niculae) at the time that people thought he was on far, far more than he actually was.

It suited the club because it made them look like they could be a player in the transfer market, and it suited Marius because if/when the time came for him to move on then the last thing he would want is people offering him wages based on his real salary at ICT instead of the perceived one. i.e. If clubs thought he was on 3k or more a week then only the serious contenders would be coming in looking to top it. If they knew he was on nearer ?1500 or so a week then every chancer would have been pestering him looking for his services.....just my opinion on things, but I think it makes a certain amount of sense.

You then have to look at the kind of figures which were being talked about, and which were confirmed by the club at the time or following Marius' departure, and the figures put about for Barrowman when he signed.

For Barrowman we were told it was a 3 year deal thought to be worth over ?200,000 plus a signing on fee. When you do the maths on that it's about ?1300/week not including the signing on fee.

For Marius we were told that an investment was made by Orion which would have covered the players costs for 2 years. We know a singing fee was involved and that it was 200,000 Euros or more (press reports on him still being due 100k and this being a second instalment suggest this to be the case). So if you take that first instalment off and divide the remaining investment by Orion down weekly over 2 years then you end up with a figure which is not too far off what Barrowman is receiving.

So, IMO, based on the information to hand, I would surmise that selling Niculae had very little to do with "finances", or the clubs inability to pay his level of wages....despite the spin placed on it at the time.

We then come to more recent stories about players such as Black where we're being given the impression that we can't afford his wage demands as finances aren't what they should be and things are difficult with the credit crunch. That, on the face of it would appear to make sense....money is tight so we have to think about trimming the squad. However, we then see stuff appearing in the papers about money being made available to bring in players in the transfer window....experienced players, players who we aren't going to get for the same or less money than players being let go. That, again, leaves me feeling that these decision is NOT being based on finances, which seems to be the party line, and just more poor spin.

Add to that, that it would be far cheaper to re-sign a player of Black's, Cowie's or Wilson's quality and experience than it would be to go out and pay a transfer fee, signing on fee and going rate in wages. The trimming the wage budget argument does not add up.

Perhaps if Black and Cowie do go it will not just be a money based decision , perhaps they just want to move on to pasture new

[DALNEIGHCALEY]

Move on to pastures new or leave a sinking ship ?

[AJS]

Was pritty hurrendous when i saw him play for the reserves. Why sign him?? What a waste of time that was. I'll expect to see Richie Byrne join us in 2 weeks then.

[SMEE]

I fear its very much looking that way ajsict92. Or perhaps numpty boy will play a blinder and land a capable Centre Half...........but probably more likely Byrne

[CELTIC1CALEY3]

Quelle dommage! In this case I think Stuart Garden's advice was not the best. However, unless Grassa takes all the decisions on signing players, Brew should perhaps acknowledge that this did not help Lionel's career. Virtually everyone who has posted under this thread seems to have made a better judgement on the player than Brew.