Early days yet but was just wondering how wise it was to let a player go to one of our (hopefully) promotion rivals, especially when he walks straight in to their first team. I think we should've kept him instead of bringing in yet another defender.
Also, looking at MK Dons's team, I see 2 ex-Wednesday players in there, a couple of stikers in Bowditch and MacDonald who, you'd assume, would've come to us if we'd shown interest and start to think if we don't finish ahead of them there aren't many excuses for Megson..
Beevers to MK - Good Move?
posted on 4/9/11
Great move Though he only walks into our team due to injuries.
And you can't blame Megson for Potter's success, you all wanted rid of him as well, quite vehemently.
"a couple of stikers in Bowditch and MacDonald who, you'd assume, would've come to us if we'd shown interest"
You guys love setting yourselves up for massive falls.
posted on 4/9/11
MB has not been motivated on the pitch for a long time - IMO. His performances have been lacking in confidence generally and he did not look happy.
He deserved the opportunity to go to another club and kick-start his career. Best of luck to him.
posted on 4/9/11
I agree hazsa. We're one of the top clubs for ruining players. I dont know why but players flop at SWFC and then immediately go on to be successful when they leave, often in the leagues above us!
posted on 4/9/11
You have a good point. Farming Beevers off to a rival club then bringing in another defender leaves me scratching my head also.
posted on 4/9/11
Selling Beevers would be a mistake, we've all seen his quality. But for the last couple of seasons he's been a shadow of that player, injuries and being part of a awful awful relegation defence can be hazardous for a young talents mentality.
We seem to see this every time Beevers plays he's often a 'zombie'
Shifting him into a different environment for a few months might do him some good, a break from the norm if you will.
If he gets his mojo back and comes back to us that would be great, and this Kasnik fella should be here long enough to cover Beevers until his return
I hope..
posted on 4/9/11
StatesideOwl
I hope you're right but something tells me the loan is because he doesn't feature in Megson's long-term plans, not because he wants him to play matches.
posted on 4/9/11
Beevers is only effective playing alongside a calm and seasoned centre back. In any panic situation, he's an absolute liability. Should've cashed in with the prem interest under Laws, but then again we weren't a "selling club" then. We were a "Buying Franny Jeffers" club.
Good luck to the lad though. I don't rue his move at all because I genuinely couldn't ever see him getting any sort of consistent form back for us. It's a shame, but he just turned into another remnant of the Laws/Irvine "Heads down, bottler" generation for me.
posted on 4/9/11
Shezzadona
We've never been a 'selling club' when it comes to proper transfer fees; we'd rather turn those down then let players go for next to nothing later on:
Bromby,
Quinn,
Morrison,
Whelan,
Simek,
Tudgay,
Spurr
etc etc