General Wolves News

[Kenny]

That's it, prove me wrong again...!!

I don't actually think he will drop Batth though. His best form this season came when Williamson was here.

Once Williamson and Hause are fit I think we will go

Iorfa...Batth...Williamson. .Hause

 

[Kenny]

Or just to piss TWF off rest Iorfa and play Doherty at RB....

 

[FrankMunro-371]

Or just to piss TWF off rest Iorfa and play Doherty at RB....

I know someone who would not be impressed with that.

 

[Tony Towner]

I hope he doesn't play him at left back, but it wouldn't surprise me. Iorfa and Hause came into the side at the same time last year as full backs despite them both being centre halves growing up, Iorfa looked like a full back, Hause looked like a centre half playing full back.

 

[Kenny]

I hope he doesn't play him at left back, but it wouldn't surprise me. Iorfa and Hause came into the side at the same time last year as full backs despite them both being centre halves growing up, Iorfa looked like a full back, Hause looked like a centre half playing full back.

I agree but in the short term I think he will do that.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

Still think Iorfa will end up reverting to centre half eventually, as good as he is bombing forwards he never really produces anything when he gets there.

 

[YoungWolf]

Yeah his crossing hasn't improved in his year in the side either - he's so good one v one though he is a great option to have there. I've seen criticisms levelled at him that he isn't very good in the air but on Saturday he won pretty much everything.

 

[Tony Towner]

He's fine in the air in a battle, he's poor reading runs though. Fulham's first was a good example of him switching off

 

[Penk Wolf]

New long term deals for Graham and Hause.

Appreciate it's 2.5+2 years, but having a discussion with Youngen and Danks on Twitter about a straight 4.5 year deal for Graham.

What would people's thoughts be if it had been a straight 4.5 year deal?

 

[slink]

Don't see the problem really. Appreciate he is injured but he should come back fine and it gives him a bit more value if when he comes back he is as good. Worth the tiny risk of him not being that player imo as i can't see that he's on a massive wage. I wouldn't like us to do that with everyone but Graham worth doing it for.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Doesn't make any difference, it is a four and a half year deal if we want it to be. It's all in our favour.

 

[Penk Wolf]

Don't see the problem really. Appreciate he is injured but he should come back fine and it gives him a bit more value if when he comes back he is as good. Worth the tiny risk of him not being that player imo as i can't see that he's on a massive wage. I wouldn't like us to do that with everyone but Graham worth doing it for.

I think the current injury is irrelevant, but we should no longer be handing out contracts of 4.5 years.

That said, it's a pretty mute point as we've only committed to 2.5 years.

 

[PuntsWolf]

No problem in giving long contracts. Just because we signed shit players in the past shouldn't affect that.

 

[slink]

I think the current injury is irrelevant, but we should no longer be handing out contracts of 4.5 years.

That said, it's a pretty mute point as we've only committed to 2.5 years.

Like Punts says you can't stop doing things because you've done it with shit players in the past. Every player should be looked at differently and Graham is an asset that needs protecting. As you say it is a mute point but i would like to think there are people at the club who can make good decisions on who to give longer contracts (probably isn't anyone though)

 

[Penk Wolf]

Like Punts says you can't stop doing things because you've done it with shit players in the past. Every player should be looked at differently and Graham is an asset that needs protecting. As you say it is a mute point but i would like to think there are people at the club who can make good decisions on who to give longer contracts (probably isn't anyone though)

The problem I see with it, we gave long contracts to O'Hara and Boukari which neither were shit, but turned out very expensive due to injuries not because they were shit.

I think the longest we should give anyone is 3 years. That said, a 2.5+2 in our favour is even better.

 

[slink]

The problem I see with it, we gave long contracts to O'Hara and Boukari which neither were shit, but turned out very expensive due to injuries not because they were shit.

I think the longest we should give anyone is 3 years. That said, a 2.5+2 in our favour is even better.

I understand that and 3 years is probably enough in all fairness but you have to keep on track of those contracts then or the club has to keep moving forward or the risk of losing players for cheaper than you should becomes massive.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Works both ways, given he was a high profile player bought for a large fee, three years for Sako was arguably too short.

 

[PuntsWolf]

If you give people 3 year contracts than after 18 months you need to give them a new one if they are any good. This means your likely going to have to give them a pay rise, or even potentially lose them on the cheap as other clubs come sniffing. If your spending big fees then you have to give a long contract to protect it. If they are shit then it's your recruitments fault. If they are injured then it's just bad luck (or maybe they were injury prone before?)

As for Sako, I think he probably negotiated 3 years. We gave Boukari 4, so I guess Sako effectively wanted a get out clause, and it's worked very well for him.

 

[Papper]

Appreciate it's 2.5+2 years, but having a discussion with Youngen and Danks on Twitter about a straight 4.5 year deal for Graham.

What would people's thoughts be if it had been a straight 4.5 year deal?

2 years is fine. You have raw potential but both have much to learn.

 

[Kenny]

http://wall.wolves.co.uk/Event/Wolves_Wall

Live Blog of the FP