You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > Benteke out?
June 27 2022 4.11am

Benteke out?

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 16 of 18 < 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 >

 

View MrRobbo's Profile MrRobbo Flag Purley 20 Jan 22 9.39am Send a Private Message to MrRobbo Add MrRobbo as a friend

Originally posted by Lanzo-Ad

The Extending of Benteke and Wickhams Contracts were unbelievably bad decisions by Parish, on a par with selling Murray And Jedinak,
four absolute howlers

Whilst I agree with 3 of those, Benteke is a difficult one.

Do I like him, no. Do I think he is what we need, no. BUT, strikers are had to come by, and on his day he can score. We don't have the finances to pay much money for squad players.

I'm ok him being at the club as as a plan B, just not the starting forward.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View eaglesfans's Profile eaglesfans Flag 20 Jan 22 10.00am Send a Private Message to eaglesfans Add eaglesfans as a friend

Of Course Mr Mrs Tekkers would much prefer shopping in South Norwood High street and dining in the Cherries !

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Eaglehamster's Profile Eaglehamster Flag Storrington 20 Jan 22 10.57am Send a Private Message to Eaglehamster Add Eaglehamster as a friend

I suspect most PL players in Lancs teams (Sorry for me Manchester is in Lancashire) reside in posh enclaves in Cheshire. As I suspect no Palace players reside in South Norwood.

 


I have now sufficient funds to last me the rest of my life. Provided I don't buy anything.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Slimey Toad's Profile Slimey Toad Flag Karsiyaka, North Cyprus 20 Jan 22 11.14am Send a Private Message to Slimey Toad Add Slimey Toad as a friend

Originally posted by Eaglehamster

I suspect most PL players in Lancs teams (Sorry for me Manchester is in Lancashire) reside in posh enclaves in Cheshire. As I suspect no Palace players reside in South Norwood.

What noone lives in Norwood Du Sud?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Lanzo-Ad's Profile Lanzo-Ad Flag Lanzarote 20 Jan 22 11.15am Send a Private Message to Lanzo-Ad Add Lanzo-Ad as a friend

Originally posted by Eaglehamster

I suspect most PL players in Lancs teams (Sorry for me Manchester is in Lancashire) reside in posh enclaves in Cheshire. As I suspect no Palace players reside in South Norwood.

Woldingham js more like the Palace Territory for the players

 


Never be Two Faced, Always Say What You Think, keep Chilled, Man

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View sydtheeagle's Profile sydtheeagle Flag England 20 Jan 22 11.17am Send a Private Message to sydtheeagle Add sydtheeagle as a friend

Originally posted by Lanzo-Ad

The Extending of Benteke and Wickhams Contracts were unbelievably bad decisions by Parish, on a par with selling Murray And Jedinak,
four absolute howlers

I agree, although I'd be a little more generous towards Parish.

There's no doubt selling Murray and Jedi were awful moves BUT that decision lies at the door of Pardew, who's the real villain here. As he sought to impose his enormous ego on the club, getting rid of the dominant personalities went with the territory and that's why he wanted rid of those two dressing-room leaders. And at the time those decisions were made, Pardew was in his purple period at Palace; he had leverage. What's a chairman supposed to do in that situation? Back his manager (the man he's hired to deal with the players) or back his own judgment (when he's a businessman, not a football man). I can see why Parish went with the former. It wasn't the right decision, certainly given Pardew's rapid demise the next season, but it was probably a decision you'd want your owner to make. We all know what happens when chairmen start making football decisions. So the departures of FFS and Jedi, for me can't be laid at Parish's door.

With regard to Wickham and Benteke, again, the chairman is usually only giving the manager what he's asked for. Would we really be happy if Vieira wanted a player and the chairman refused? Hardly the best way to retain your manager. That said, slightly different cases. Wickham, as I recall, was in his very best period when he signed the contract and at the time, he was starting to look like a real handful. However, given his injury even then, the contract was an enormous risk. I can see why Parish gave him the deal but in light of Wickham's injury history and, by all accounts, the fact that he was known not to be the world's hardest trainer, I think the decision wasn't a good one. That deal can probably be chalked up as a net minus on the Parish balance sheet.

Benteke I disagree. Presuming the deal fits in our budget (this is key), he's been decent this year and worth signing. First, we all need to get over the fact that Benteke isn't the player who had two glorious years at Aston Villa. That version of Benteke is long gone, and judging Benteke now against Benteke then is pointless. Second, he's a good role player. He does one thing very well (heading the ball and providing an aerial threat), he works hard, he defends, and his hold-up play is reasonable. Is he a 20-goal a year leader of the line in the Premier League? No, obviously. But as long as we're not giving him a Harry Kane-sized contract, that's not relevant. We shouldn't expect him to be that. As a squad player who starts maybe half the games and comes off the bench for the other half, Benteke is an experienced, capable, top-notch second-tier Premier League forward and his points of comparison are really players like Wood or Pukki. I'd have Beneteke over either of those. He'll give us ten or so goals a year in his present role and that's perfectly acceptable for the second rank forward in your squad. He also seems to be a good, committed member of the team; happy and a positive influence on those around him. Re-signing Benteke was a good move as long as he's on a sensible contract and there's no reason to think he isn't.

 


Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Eaglecoops's Profile Eaglecoops Flag CR3 20 Jan 22 11.41am Send a Private Message to Eaglecoops Add Eaglecoops as a friend

Originally posted by Lanzo-Ad

Woldingham js more like the Palace Territory for the players

Lord no, we donít have footballers in Woldingham lol. Pardew is still in Warlingham I think. There are a few live around the nicer bits of Shirley, Addington and Beckenham which is no surprise given the proximity to the training ground.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Den1923's Profile Den1923 Flag 20 Jan 22 12.43pm Send a Private Message to Den1923 Add Den1923 as a friend

Originally posted by sydtheeagle

Benteke's continuing presence is your fault and mine. At least as much as anyone else's.

The fact is, and it's been said openly by players everywhere from Gallagher on down, players right now love it at Palace. The fans are behind them, the manager is someone everyone wants to play for, the club is in London where they all want to live, we play the sort of football players want to play, and we're on the up. There's now a palpable sense of respect for and excitement around Palace. If a big four/six team isn't in for you, we're fast becoming THE destination of choice. And that includes you, Newcastle and Everton. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that we may be at the start of a golden age for Palace.

And you think Benteke, who's earned millions over his career so is hardly broke, is going to leave all that for an extra 5% at Burnley? Have you ever f***ing been to Burnley away? Do you think Mrs. Benteke is gonna hit the shops at that "mall" between Manchester Road and Turf Moor? Dream on. We are now a club players don't want to leave unless the destination they're going to is the very top of the game. And that isn't Burnley.

Edited by sydtheeagle (19 Jan 2022 8.29pm)

Edited by sydtheeagle (19 Jan 2022 11.52pm)

plus he would have to re-learn where all the speed cameras are!

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Den1923's Profile Den1923 Flag 20 Jan 22 12.46pm Send a Private Message to Den1923 Add Den1923 as a friend

Originally posted by MrRobbo

Whilst I agree with 3 of those, Benteke is a difficult one.

Do I like him, no. Do I think he is what we need, no. BUT, strikers are had to come by, and on his day he can score. We don't have the finances to pay much money for squad players.

I'm ok him being at the club as as a plan B, just not the starting forward.

but is that really worth and good value for the salary that the media are saying we are paying him?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View sydtheeagle's Profile sydtheeagle Flag England 20 Jan 22 1.27pm Send a Private Message to sydtheeagle Add sydtheeagle as a friend

Originally posted by Den1923

but is that really worth and good value for the salary that the media are saying we are paying him?

My view: Benteke earns roughly £6 million a year. In comparison and for context:

Ings - £6.7 million
Lacazette - £9.5 million
Iheanacho - £3.4 million
Moura - £4.1 million
Antonio - £2.4 million
Calum Wilson - £2.5 million

I would say Benteke is definitely paid more than he's worth, but not horribly so. He obviously adds something to the group, perhaps in ways that are less obvious to fans. Otherwise, we wouldn't have retained him. So did we overpay him? Yes. Is he the biggest waste of money and space in the league? No. His contract clearly favours the player but it's not the worst in history. It's not awful. And it's only two years so we probably paid a premium because he's an experienced and good bridge to whoever comes next; the long-term answer we'll develop alongside Eze, Olise, et al in the next generation team. I'm fine with the Benteke deal; it's not a great one but I can understand why we offered it and I have no serious problems with it.

 


Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View MrRobbo's Profile MrRobbo Flag Purley 20 Jan 22 2.12pm Send a Private Message to MrRobbo Add MrRobbo as a friend

Originally posted by Den1923

but is that really worth and good value for the salary that the media are saying we are paying him?

Value for money is a difficult one. Probably not...

I bet a few others at the club are miffed with the money he is reportedly on.

But with the variability of form, injuries and contract renewals its such a difficult one to gauge.

Some weeks Wilf is worth his money, some he isn't.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View CrazyBadger's Profile CrazyBadger Flag Ware 20 Jan 22 2.19pm Send a Private Message to CrazyBadger Add CrazyBadger as a friend

Originally posted by sydtheeagle

I agree, although I'd be a little more generous towards Parish.

There's no doubt selling Murray and Jedi were awful moves BUT that decision lies at the door of Pardew, who's the real villain here. As he sought to impose his enormous ego on the club, getting rid of the dominant personalities went with the territory and that's why he wanted rid of those two dressing-room leaders. And at the time those decisions were made, Pardew was in his purple period at Palace; he had leverage. What's a chairman supposed to do in that situation? Back his manager (the man he's hired to deal with the players) or back his own judgment (when he's a businessman, not a football man). I can see why Parish went with the former. It wasn't the right decision, certainly given Pardew's rapid demise the next season, but it was probably a decision you'd want your owner to make. We all know what happens when chairmen start making football decisions. So the departures of FFS and Jedi, for me can't be laid at Parish's door.

With regard to Wickham and Benteke, again, the chairman is usually only giving the manager what he's asked for. Would we really be happy if Vieira wanted a player and the chairman refused? Hardly the best way to retain your manager. That said, slightly different cases. Wickham, as I recall, was in his very best period when he signed the contract and at the time, he was starting to look like a real handful. However, given his injury even then, the contract was an enormous risk. I can see why Parish gave him the deal but in light of Wickham's injury history and, by all accounts, the fact that he was known not to be the world's hardest trainer, I think the decision wasn't a good one. That deal can probably be chalked up as a net minus on the Parish balance sheet.

Benteke I disagree. Presuming the deal fits in our budget (this is key), he's been decent this year and worth signing. First, we all need to get over the fact that Benteke isn't the player who had two glorious years at Aston Villa. That version of Benteke is long gone, and judging Benteke now against Benteke then is pointless. Second, he's a good role player. He does one thing very well (heading the ball and providing an aerial threat), he works hard, he defends, and his hold-up play is reasonable. Is he a 20-goal a year leader of the line in the Premier League? No, obviously. But as long as we're not giving him a Harry Kane-sized contract, that's not relevant. We shouldn't expect him to be that. As a squad player who starts maybe half the games and comes off the bench for the other half, Benteke is an experienced, capable, top-notch second-tier Premier League forward and his points of comparison are really players like Wood or Pukki. I'd have Beneteke over either of those. He'll give us ten or so goals a year in his present role and that's perfectly acceptable for the second rank forward in your squad. He also seems to be a good, committed member of the team; happy and a positive influence on those around him. Re-signing Benteke was a good move as long as he's on a sensible contract and there's no reason to think he isn't.

I agree with all of this.
I Would also add that as an incoming Manager, when asked 'Can we sell Benteke', he would almost certainly say 'No'. He's one of the highest profile players at the club, and Vieira may have thought that he wanted some time with him to re Ignite his Form.
It's a big risk coming to a new club - so you want all current players - 1st 11 especially - to stay, to give you the best chance to transistion, and to find and make the correct changes.

I found it odd, therefore, that we sold Andros - but perhaps we needed the fee, and there was the compromise (especially when no bid for tekkers was forthcoming!)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 16 of 18 < 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > Benteke out?