Author Topic: Brodie against  (Read 29517 times)

Winging It

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1150
    • View Profile
Re: Brodie against
« Reply #75 on: February 15, 2017, 12:15:39 PM »
Why sign him when it was known just what he was like though ?

Because for all of his traits, he is still a goalscorer - and we needed a striker. It's not like we handed out a 3 year deal straight up. Had it worked out, he'd be here next season as well.

It was the same with Timms as well, had proven he is a goalkeeper yet with so much previous, why did we even go close there. Of course, there is the debate of 'a leopard cannot changes it spots' & the counter of 'give people a second chance' but with track records such as both of these guys it does seem like we should have avoided both.  I do agree, we still need a proven goalscorer but at this stage of the season finding any is going to be a hard task. Positive here is that at least he got rid quick rather than having someone that could quite possibly have a negative impact in the dressing room, and the team seems to be improving steadily.

Pilgrim86

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5163
    • View Profile
Re: Brodie against
« Reply #76 on: February 15, 2017, 12:21:03 PM »
Sometimes it just works - Garner was unwanted at Cambridge and that didn't turn out badly!
I create YouTube videos (BUFC/FM/CM 01-02), and stream Football Manager on Twitch as BostonUnitedFM.

http://bufm.co.uk/

Maxross

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 284
    • View Profile
Re: Brodie against
« Reply #77 on: February 15, 2017, 12:47:03 PM »
In my humble opinion it was absolutely the right decision to take a punt on him.  The guy clearly has talent as his previous record shows, along with the big fee's paid for his services in the past. At 29, I think most people would think he still has time to prove it.  For whatever reason though, his career has gone off the rails in recent years.  There are numerous examples in the past of players not performing who have come to a new club and given themselves a new lease of life.  Conversely there are plenty for whom it hasn't worked out and they've nose dived into oblivion.  I personally see Brodie as falling sadly into the latter case, a player with bags of potential when he was younger, but now tragically unable to cut it in the Conference North.

It hasn't worked out and the manager has acted decisively for which he deserves credit.  However, with all that previous potential I don't think you could blame AM for taking a punt on him in the hope of him rediscovering some of his past form.  And for what it's worth, just because Colin Davy has been proven right in this case, it doesn't make him correct in judging a player based on watching him for 45 minutes!

green hats mate

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
    • View Profile
Re: Brodie against
« Reply #78 on: March 10, 2017, 10:30:59 AM »
Notice that although the player profile section on the OS has been updated recently Brodie still appears on it .     Anyone know the reason?

Burgh Boy

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1090
  • Norwich United 1903-2023. Thanks for the memories.
    • View Profile
Re: Brodie against
« Reply #79 on: March 10, 2017, 07:48:31 PM »
Has Mr Brodie actually gone? Do BUFC still hold his registration? Is he playing for another club under dual registration?
Alan Partridge: "I bet I've got more friends than you've got cows. How many cows have you got?"
Farmer: "I've got 100 cows."
AP: "Well, I've got 104 friends!"

Pilgrim86

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5163
    • View Profile
Re: Brodie against
« Reply #80 on: March 10, 2017, 09:52:59 PM »
It's possible that he has contested his sacking, via employment tribunal. He cannot play for anyone else if he is still contracted to us, unless we loan him out.
I create YouTube videos (BUFC/FM/CM 01-02), and stream Football Manager on Twitch as BostonUnitedFM.

http://bufm.co.uk/

green hats mate

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
    • View Profile
Re: Brodie against
« Reply #81 on: March 14, 2017, 02:24:02 PM »
It's possible that he has contested his sacking, via employment tribunal. He cannot play for anyone else if he is still contracted to us, unless we loan him out.

Sounds as though it will cost either way .

green hats mate

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
    • View Profile
Re: Brodie against
« Reply #82 on: March 19, 2017, 12:00:33 PM »
Brodie was removed from the OS site a couple of days ago .

Unused sub for Southport yesterday .

youngchubby69

  • Guest
Re: Brodie against
« Reply #83 on: March 20, 2017, 06:57:26 PM »
I suppose it will be down to if he is in breech of his contract or are BUFC.
I know that in normal working life you can't claim unfair dismal until you have worked for them for a minimum of 2 years.

Pilgrim86

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5163
    • View Profile
Re: Brodie against
« Reply #84 on: March 20, 2017, 07:33:59 PM »
From what I've heard, he was refusing to train because he felt he had an injury. However, this injury was not found by the medical department, therefore BUFC were insisting he turned up (and I guess he didn't).

Not sure how true this is.
I create YouTube videos (BUFC/FM/CM 01-02), and stream Football Manager on Twitch as BostonUnitedFM.

http://bufm.co.uk/