Shrimpsvoices

This from a Torquay fan

Been to watch Lancaster a few times this season as I'm at Uni there. Connerton is an excellent prospect, too good for the level he's at and I'm sure moving to the right club he could make the step up. Crewe would probably be a good move for him in that respect, they have a good reputation for moulding non-league gems and producing very good strikers.

I hope Lancaster get a decent fee for him and can maintain their current form. They are played 17, won 15 and lost 2 this season, but losing Connerton would be a massive hole to fill.

heysham_mfc wrote:This from a Torquay fan

Been to watch Lancaster a few times this season as I'm at Uni there. Connerton is an excellent prospect, too good for the level he's at and I'm sure moving to the right club he could make the step up. Crewe would probably be a good move for him in that respect, they have a good reputation for moulding non-league gems and producing very good strikers.

I hope Lancaster get a decent fee for him and can maintain their current form. They are played 17, won 15 and lost 2 this season, but losing Connerton would be a massive hole to fill.

Connerton is playing at park football level,ffs why would we want him???????????????

i wouldn't gamble on him, no doubt he's some prospect hence all the attention off bigger clubs



but MFC would have to make room for him we have 4 strikers whats enough for any squad id say, two players for every position = 22-man squad for a club like ours and what little money we have to play with

so who would people get rid of to make room?

Jevons?
Mullin?
Curtis?
Taylor?


oh and Twiss i class him as a winger/midfielder

For me this is simple - all squads at this level should have one young striker unproven but with potential for the future - this is currently Taylor.

We are not a big enough club to have two - simply dont have the budget. Therefore it is a question of who is the better prospect Taylor or Connerton - cant comment as I have not seen Connerton.

But IF we bring Connerton in Taylor has to go.

feelingguilty wrote:For me this is simple - all squads at this level should have one young striker unproven but with potential for the future - this is currently Taylor.

We are not a big enough club to have two - simply dont have the budget. Therefore it is a question of who is the better prospect Taylor or Connerton - cant comment as I have not seen Connerton.

But IF we bring Connerton in Taylor has to go.

thats really backwards thinking, young strikers are normally on smaller wages because they are unproven, the more proven and experienced strikers will be on more money so having younger strikers would actually save money

shrimpnsave wrote:

heysham_mfc wrote:This from a Torquay fan

Been to watch Lancaster a few times this season as I'm at Uni there. Connerton is an excellent prospect, too good for the level he's at and I'm sure moving to the right club he could make the step up. Crewe would probably be a good move for him in that respect, they have a good reputation for moulding non-league gems and producing very good strikers.

I hope Lancaster get a decent fee for him and can maintain their current form. They are played 17, won 15 and lost 2 this season, but losing Connerton would be a massive hole to fill.

Connerton is playing at park football level,ffs why would we want him???????????????

have not seen him play but if as reported teams like preston have been looking at him he must have something about him

feelingguilty wrote:For me this is simple - all squads at this level should have one young striker unproven but with potential for the future - this is currently Taylor.

We are not a big enough club to have two - simply dont have the budget. Therefore it is a question of who is the better prospect Taylor or Connerton - cant comment as I have not seen Connerton.

But IF we bring Connerton in Taylor has to go.

Taylor needs regular games...
Connerton needs full time training to develop....

In my eyes the solution to both is simple.

We loan Taylor to City until the end of the season. City then have a ready made replacement.
Connerton joins us on loan (plus an inital nominal fee) with a view to a permanent deal and benefits from full time training and gives both parties time to assess his potential. Very much like the Duffy deal with Southport minus the player exchange.

At the end of the season both clubs re-assess the situation and make a judgement call on any permanent deal (s).

Christies Child wrote:Taylor needs regular games...
Connerton needs full time training to develop....

In my eyes the solution to both is simple.

We loan Taylor to City until the end of the season. City then have a ready made replacement.
Connerton joins us on loan (plus an inital nominal fee) with a view to a permanent deal and benefits from full time training and gives both parties time to assess his potential. Very much like the Duffy deal with Southport minus the player exchange.

At the end of the season both clubs re-assess the situation and make a judgement call on any permanent deal (s).

Except that, if we ARE interested in Jordan, we're not the only ones and City have already had at least one bid for a straight transfer. Why would they loan him out when, if they're going to lose him for at least this season, they can get the cash they want now?

A player going the other way might appeal to both parties but it'd have to be a firm deal now, I reckon.

And again, that's IF we're interested.

Christies Child wrote:Taylor needs regular games...
Connerton needs full time training to develop....

In my eyes the solution to both is simple.

We loan Taylor to City until the end of the season. City then have a ready made replacement.
Connerton joins us on loan (plus an inital nominal fee) with a view to a permanent deal and benefits from full time training and gives both parties time to assess his potential. Very much like the Duffy deal with Southport minus the player exchange.

At the end of the season both clubs re-assess the situation and make a judgement call on any permanent deal (s).

What colour is the sky in dreamland? Why on earth would L******** break up their potentially title winning side just to fit in around Morecambe FC, enabling us to have a tentative look at one of their best players? The only thing that would benefit them is to be compensated by the loss of their top goal scorer in cash. Simple solution? Barking. Also, didn't we loan Duffy from Southport on the understanding that we'd buy him the following summer after our transfer embargo was lifted? I'm sure this codswallop about loaning to have a look was a piece of PR, otherwise we probably should have sent him back. I very much doubt Southport would've loaned us their best player in the knowledge that it could and did scupper their chances of promotion, and then give us the option of returning the same player.

Has anybody seen Connerton play apart from some Torquay fan on the football forum? I haven't, but I'm also not getting carried away at the number of goals he has scored at Unibond North level. He represents a massive gamble. I'm totally against us bringing him here for the purpose that has been suggested; put him straight in the team to prop up an injured frontline. It just won't happen, at least not successfully in terms of goals. He might have potential, and if he is good enough I'm sure he'll gravitate closer towards our direction step by step through clubs lower in the pyramid (or downwards via clubs higher up spending money, like Peter Thompson etc). This will also be better for him. I doubt he'll get games here, what's the point in having another Taylor sat on the bench and not developing?

Christies Child wrote:
We loan Taylor to City until the end of the season.

didn't taylor get the hump about being sent to barrow? how on earth would he react to being sent to lancaster?! don't see this one happening!

RedRedWine wrote:Has anybody seen Connerton play apart from some Torquay fan on the football forum? I haven't, but I'm also not getting carried away at the number of goals he has scored at Unibond North level. He represents a massive gamble.

While I agree with much of what you say (as I usually do, to be fair) I think this is the crux.

People who have seen him play include a couple of mates of mine (Shrimps fans) and, of course, our scouts and coaches.

I suppose they have to think "does he look better than, say, Aaron, Twissy or Wayne might look if they played at that level" and then use their footballing judgment to assess whether he's worth bringing here.
It's not unknown for players to make the step up and do well.

That "park" footballing side north of the border seem to rate him.My opinion is that being a local lad we should have had him at christie for a trial.

IF and it's a big IF Sammy was to gamble, it wouldn't be the first time that he's gone down this 'untested' route before.

Remember last season he had lined up the lad from Retford to come to the club only for the deal to go cold due to the player getting injured and then joining Macc where by all accounts he wasn't given much of an opportunity to shine.

As for the suggestion that it would be a gamble, I can't disagree. But with no prospects on the horizon from our own Youth Policy then potential long term investments from other clubs, is one option that can't be discounted.

I'd hate for us to loose out on any local player who showed potential, especially one who is generating interest from other League clubs. And has been posted, if a Scottish Prem team (sorry 'Park' team )was prepared to take him on then they must have seen something in the player when he was on trial!

Funny

Jordan Connerton is scoring alot of goals in unibond league yeah fantastic.I think this deal won't happen maybe end of season maybe but Morecambe should give Taylor a chance in my opinion and scotish football is rubbish come on look at izzy mcloed one of the worst striker's ive seen in a charlton top lol.
If connerton was going to leave it be end of season with hope Lancaster going up i hope.
I think personally he stay at Lancaster even next season but only if lancaster get promotion.

wonder shrimp wrote:

Christies Child wrote:
We loan Taylor to City until the end of the season.

didn't taylor get the hump about being sent to barrow? how on earth would he react to being sent to lancaster?! don't see this one happening!

I'm pretty sure that Taylor "got the hump" through hardly playing a game whilst at Barrow!!!

John L wrote:

wonder shrimp wrote:

Christies Child wrote:
We loan Taylor to City until the end of the season.

didn't taylor get the hump about being sent to barrow? how on earth would he react to being sent to lancaster?! don't see this one happening!

I'm pretty sure that Taylor "got the hump" through hardly playing a game whilst at Barrow!!!

Why didn't he get a chance then? Attitude problem? Not good enough? Both credible arguments I've read given that we've sent both Curtis and Wainwright there in recent seasons and both have come back with a glowing reputation from Barrow fans and both have gained from the experience.

I don't know the whole story of why it didn't work for Aaron, but in my view it was a brilliant chance for him to prove himself. The fact that he didn't is quite worrying. It is quite easy to get caught up and emotional with players like Taylor that have come through our system, naturally there is an attachment. If he is not going to get a game at a bottom-half conference outfit, where is he going to play that will be of benefit to his development? For me he needs games, but not here.

shrimper wrote:People who have seen him play include a couple of mates of mine (Shrimps fans) and, of course, our scouts and coaches.

I suppose they have to think "does he look better than, say, Aaron, Twissy or Wayne might look if they played at that level" and then use their footballing judgment to assess whether he's worth bringing here.
It's not unknown for players to make the step up and do well.

I appreciate that it is all about judgement and interpretation. I haven't got a clue other than looking at what Connerton has achieved thus far on paper (not a good form of assessment I'll admit). I just think that for the position we are in, we can't afford too many Duffy's and Taylor's in the team, over say a Jevons. Connerton's record is excellent and he could offer us some potential. I suppose what I was trying to do was dampen some of the speculation on here for him to be brought in and do a job straight away (for me this is the only reason to make a signing in January). How can anybody be so sure? They can't, not even the top dogs. I'd much prefer him to make his way towards us rather than skipping a few stages.

Talking about players coming from a lower level and being a hit; Robbie Talbot came to us for a nominal fee from Burscough and was brilliant until he picked up an injury and subsequently missed an open net against Dagenham. Irrelevant to this argument I know, but what a prospect he looked.

Yep.

We'll let our scouting staff work out whether Jordan's got what it takes to be a hit for us but, as you say, he may not be able to hit the ground running and be as effective as Jevons straight away so, for immediate impact, we'd need someone more proven at this level to help us over the injury period (loan for a month or two).

The flip of that is that there are games off now and it may be that Jevons and Mullin don't actually miss too many. And if we did bring someone new in on loan, the loan period may be up before they've kicked a ball!

Then signing Connerton would make a lot of sense. He could partner Wayne or Twissy for now and see how he goes and then, when the others are back, he can take a step back (unless he's been banging them in straight away) and learn a bit more and be brought on more gradually.

All assuming we're really interested of course.

DawZi wrote:i wouldn't gamble on him, no doubt he's some prospect hence all the attention off bigger clubs



but MFC would have to make room for him we have 4 strikers whats enough for any squad id say, two players for every position = 22-man squad for a club like ours and what little money we have to play with

so who would people get rid of to make room?

Jevons?
Mullin?
Curtis?
Taylor?


oh and Twiss i class him as a winger/midfielder

We should definitely get rid of Taylor. He does nothing on the pitch. He's got no strength, no pace and he can't shoot. Connerton is alot better than Taylor!

shrimper wrote:

RedRedWine wrote:Has anybody seen Connerton play apart from some Torquay fan on the football forum? I haven't, but I'm also not getting carried away at the number of goals he has scored at Unibond North level. He represents a massive gamble.

While I agree with much of what you say (as I usually do, to be fair) I think this is the crux.

People who have seen him play include a couple of mates of mine (Shrimps fans) and, of course, our scouts and coaches.

I suppose they have to think "does he look better than, say, Aaron, Twissy or Wayne might look if they played at that level" and then use their footballing judgment to assess whether he's worth bringing here.
It's not unknown for players to make the step up and do well.

Aaron taylor is a much better player than jordon connerton,as i have said before why would we want him when Aaron rarely gets in the team except for injuries

RedRedWine wrote:I just think that for the position we are in, we can't afford too many Duffy's and Taylor's in the team, over say a Jevons.

Equally, we can't afford too many Jevons type players in the side - if you want a proven player, you are always going to have to stump up more cash. And its not really sustainable to have a team full of "proven", 30+ year old players.

It's all a balancing act.

shrimpnsave wrote:

shrimper wrote:

RedRedWine wrote:Has anybody seen Connerton play apart from some Torquay fan on the football forum? I haven't, but I'm also not getting carried away at the number of goals he has scored at Unibond North level. He represents a massive gamble.

While I agree with much of what you say (as I usually do, to be fair) I think this is the crux.

People who have seen him play include a couple of mates of mine (Shrimps fans) and, of course, our scouts and coaches.

I suppose they have to think "does he look better than, say, Aaron, Twissy or Wayne might look if they played at that level" and then use their footballing judgment to assess whether he's worth bringing here.
It's not unknown for players to make the step up and do well.

Aaron taylor is a much better player than jordon connerton,as i have said before why would we want him when Aaron rarely gets in the team except for injuries

That's your opinion, others may feel Connerton may have what it takes to score plenty of goals at this level. Scottish league may be bad,but the Scottish prem is still better standard than this so is Motherwell were looking at him so should we if the deal doesnt go through

Taylor is prolific whenever he plays at reserve level, yet looks totally out of his depth at L2 unless 5yds in front of goal. Whilst Connerton is performing well where he is, i reckon most of the players our reserves come up against are much better than what he faces every week.

Id like to know what Connertons goals are like however. If he is making chances out of nothing then maybe he can play higher. I noticed he didnt score many last year. Are his goals alone taking Lancaster up the table, or is their performances and service enhancing his reputation further?

For me both Taylor and Connerton could be very successful in non-league but nothing more.

heysham_mfc wrote:http://www.footballforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=234027

Means nothing. Jim Gannon has left Motherwell. While they may still be interested I'm certain a deal with us would be a preferred option given travel and family.