UCF2008 0 Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Mitchell was a decent prospect and was a standout in 2 or 3 of his 9 competitive appearances for us. Such a low number of appearances speaks volumes as to where he's fitted into our plans though. He was also one of five players who's contract expires in the Summer and his services were unlikely to be called upon in the remainder of the season. It makes sense for him to move on now. Best of luck to him 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Amazing how we all see things differently. I didn't see anything - at all - when Mitchell played for us (in the 4th tier, remember) that suggested he was anything more than ordinary. I certainly saw about half a dozen RB's playing for the opposition who looked better. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Amazing how we all see things differently. I didn't see anything - at all - when Mitchell played for us (in the 4th tier, remember) that suggested he was anything more than ordinary. I certainly saw about half a dozen RB's playing for the opposition who looked better. strong, good on the ball, able to play on either side and get up and down the line with ease and very very quick. he also got about 4 motm awards and the two i was at they were very well deserved. comfortably the best player on the park. i know jim chapman loved having him at annan and feels if he can keep him he can get promotion. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Amazing how we all see things differently. I didn't see anything - at all - when Mitchell played for us (in the 4th tier, remember) that suggested he was anything more than ordinary. I certainly saw about half a dozen RB's playing for the opposition who looked better. Why keep him for so long then? Scott Gallagher is another strange one. The guy is almost 25 and has played barely a handful of matches. I know keepers peak a bit later, but it's pretty bizarre to be honest. If he's good enough, he should have been getting much more exposure a long time ago. If not with us then at a a club in the SPL or first division. Or lower English leagues. If he isn't getting a look in now, he isn't ever. We don't seem to be keeping him for backup and we certainly won't be keeping him to make money out of him because it's guaranteed we won't make any. He will leave when his contract expires or he will get paid off. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 I don't know whether he would have made it at Ibrox under a different regime, but we should be taking these decisions earlier. Surely by 17/18 it can be seen if the lad will be a player, it would save money and give the youngster a chance of making it elsewhere, in football or another walk of life. I feel we keep lads on just to fill up teams. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 I don't know whether he would have made it at Ibrox under a different regime, but we should be taking these decisions earlier. Surely by 17/18 it can be seen if the lad will be a player, it would save money and give the youngster a chance of making it elsewhere, in football or another walk of life. I feel we keep lads on just to fill up teams. This is what really annoys me. We keep the likes of Gallagher, Loy, Little, McMillan etc well into being 22/23/24 with hardly any exposure. Then usually release them for nothing or even pay them off, wasting years of wages. Fair enough Little gets game time now, but that's only really out of necessity and he's hardly going to have much of a long term future with us. I reckon we keep about 95% of our youth players just to fill up numbers and have absolutely no intention of doing anything with them. Andrew Shinnie as well. Kept him until 21 and played him once or twice. What the hell is that about? We seem to think players in their 20's are 17 year olds? The horrible irony with Shinnie being he went on to score left, right and centre for ICT, including against us and now plays in the championship. he's actually one of the few good players we have produced. What did we make out of him? Nada. As I've said countless times on here we should be integrating all youth players long before 21 and getting rid if not good enough. I don't think the coaching staff would have a clue if a young player was a player and us developing one is through sheer chance. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Why keep him for so long then? Scott Gallagher is another strange one. The guy is almost 25 and has played barely a handful of matches. I know keepers peak a bit later, but it's pretty bizarre to be honest. If he's good enough, he should have been getting much more exposure a long time ago. If not with us then at a a club in the SPL or first division. Or lower English leagues. If he isn't getting a look in now, he isn't ever. We don't seem to be keeping him for backup and we certainly won't be keeping him to make money out of him because it's guaranteed we won't make any. He will leave when his contract expires or he will get paid off. I think I'm right in saying that we have 5 goalkeepers now, maybe we'll start a trend and play one of them in the outfield? Seriously, the Mitchell and Gallagher situations demonstrate the utter folly of short term loans; because when the player comes back both the player and the Club are snookered as he only has two places to go. If Gallagher was only going on loan for a few months then there was absolutely no reason to sign Simonsen; the others could have taken turns to sit on the bench. If we are going to loan out players we should stipulate that it has to be for a full season. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amms 0 Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 I don't know whether he would have made it at Ibrox under a different regime, but we should be taking these decisions earlier. Surely by 17/18 it can be seen if the lad will be a player, it would save money and give the youngster a chance of making it elsewhere, in football or another walk of life. I feel we keep lads on just to fill up teams. Mitchell didn't join us until he was 18, he was at Manchester City as a youth and released by them. We were his 'elsewhere'. I think the fact Annan want to keep him tells us what his level is. Good luck to him but it wouldn't have made sense to offer him a new contract. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Mitchell didn't join us until he was 18, he was at Manchester City as a youth and released by them. We were his 'elsewhere'. I think the fact Annan want to keep him tells us what his level is. Good luck to him but it wouldn't have made sense to offer him a new contract. The fact remains that at 18 he was evaluated as being good enough to have a future with us. Then almost 3 years later, with hardly any first team football, he gets punted. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,494 Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 The fact remains that at 18 he was evaluated as being good enough to have a future with us. Then almost 3 years later, with hardly any first team football, he gets punted. It has taken me 30 years to find out the wife is not up to scratch. Too late to punt her now though as my youth system has disintegrated. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.