Simonsen Vs Gordon

[NeoGeo7 10,627]

Can you believe that our management team in the summer opted to give Simonsen an extension rather than booting him and signing Gordon?

Before Gordon's injury he was Scotland's number 1 and what has Simonsen achieved in his career? Our goalkeeping coach, physics and training facilities helped Gordon get back to fitness and then we just say cheerio. What a missed opportunity to create some real competition for Bell.

There are numerous points in the last three years where the decisions made have sent us down the wrong path, I just cannot wait to get a new management team that knows quality when they see it whether it's established players or youth, so that incidents like this and Charlie Telfer are eventually forgotten.

[The Godfather 72,649]

A good few people were saying we didn't need Gordon and it's a wage not worth paying.

People would have moaned either way IMO.

[Tontospal 1,116]

No surprise and also no surprise we got him fit at the club's expense.

Should have invoiced him for the use of our facilities and staff.

[BlueSuedeSambas 54,439]

Hindsight is 20-20.

I remember a significant number of people moaning at the idea of McCoist giving Gordon a deal when it was reported as being something he was considering doing.

That's before you even consider that had we signed Gordon we would have had two expensive goalkeepers on the books when only one can play at a time when we simply couldn't afford it

[johanhentze 14,312]

Hindsight is a great thing. He is a great keeper, not many people would disagree with that, but, his injury record was probably what made most peoples mind up in regards to signing him.. he appears to have stayed injury free and is showing glimpses of his old self..

[B1872 21,080]

Did we offer him a contract?

[Jack The Flipper 5,936]

A good few people were saying we didn't need Gordon and it's a wage not worth paying.

People would have moaned either way IMO.

Yup, I was one of them

We had enough options at that time in comparison to other positions, and Gordon's injury history made me think taking him on would have been a gamble. Definitely seems I was wrong, can only hope my initial assessment was true and he gets injured for the scum.

[Clemdog 39,389]

As much as Gordon was a tricky one to call at the time, what wasn't was letting Simonsen go and then running back to him.

Simply unbelievable.

[NeoGeo7 10,627]

I don't want to speculate on how much Gordon would have been paid versus Simonsen but unless it was two or three times that of Simonsen the surely it would have been better to bring in Gordon?

I think his summers signings were beyond atrocious. No effort was made to find new talent, we just went and signed old players who are also old or just not good enough. Did we need foster and smith? Did we need Boyd and Miller?

Mccoist never had a medium to long term plan, he was probably always going to leave after this season anyway, just enough gas in the tank to get to premiership then leave the next manager with an ageing squad with overinflated contracts or the other half of the team being out of contract. I think resigning Simonsen falls into that bracket also. It was the easier option, much in the way it was easier to sign Kevin Kyle than say Rory Mcallister in division 3.

[Creampuff 22,628]

A good few people were saying we didn't need Gordon and it's a wage not worth paying.

People would have moaned either way IMO.

People were fuming that we were letting Gordon train with us, so looking back now and saying we were wrong not to give him a contract is pointless. It's easy to make great decisions 6 months later once you've seen the outcomes.

Celtic could afford to give him a contract and take the risk he would fall to bits, we couldn't. That's very probably the reason we didn't sign him.

[The Godfather 72,649]

Yup, I was one of them

We had enough options at that time in comparison to other positions, and Gordon's injury history made me think taking him on would have been a gamble. Definitely seems I was wrong, can only hope my initial assessment was true and he gets injured for the scum.

As was I if I remember.

His injury record and reported wage made it seems far too risky given we were in the lower divisons and who is to say we could have kept him given we had to sell Lewis to keep the lights on?

You win some and lose some, we got this one wrong but it's not like there were no warning signs with him. He could easily have gone to them and got injured again ect.

Most of us felt Bell was enough given our current objectives.

[NeoGeo7 10,627]

Hindsight is a great thing. He is a great keeper, not many people would disagree with that, but, his injury record was probably what made most peoples mind up in regards to signing him.. he appears to have stayed injury free and is showing glimpses of his old self..

Is it really hindsight though? At the time bell was fit so replacing Simonsen as back up with Craig Gordon as back up would have been low risk. Also did injury history stop us signing Kevin Kyle?

[The Godfather 72,649]

Is it really hindsight though? At the time bell was fit so replacing Simonsen as back up with Craig Gordon as back up would have been low risk. Also did injury history stop us signing Kevin Kyle?

Gordon would be on a good deal more than Simonsen, it's not like it would be like for like. I also don't think he wanted to be just back-up either.

Competition for places is great but we were and are not in the position to have more high earners who might not be first picks (at the time Bell was our No 1). Simonsen seemed happy to have a back up only role.

Again Kyle would have been a low cost option compared to Gordon on a short term deal.

[Tontospal 1,116]

How ironic that Bell has been out for months.

The football god is certainly having a laugh at our expense just now.

[NeoGeo7 10,627]

Gordon would be on a good deal more than Simonsen, it's not like it would be like for like. I also don't think he wanted to be just back-up either.

Competition for places is great but we were and are not in the position to have more high earners who might not be first picks (at the time Bell was our No 1). Simonsen seemed happy to have a back up only role.

Again Kyle would have been a low cost option compared to Gordon on a short term deal.

If you believe what Kyle had said in his interview I'd question whether he was low cost option. Surely using the likes of Little, Hemmings, Gallagher etc. would have been the low cost option.

At the very least if we didn't sign Gordon surely we have better options in our youth ranks as cover? Then bell gets injured and we sign Robinson so evidently not.......that's assuming our management team knows a good player when they see one.....missed the ball with Telfer (and it's not like we are years down the line when you see how good he is we are talking months) so I really have no faith in he management in spotting a good player when they see one.

[Prso's headband 35,928]

Its no even the fact of Simonsen or Gordon but Simonsen is literally horrendous. We had Scott Gallagher and we have Liam Kelly.

Why we needed a 35 year old goalie probably on about 2-4k a week when we let Scott Gallagher go to Hearts is honestly beyond me. He literally has no goalkeeping attributes besides bravery for hammering himself of the post. All he can do is kick the ball and even at that its poor.

Having said that I thought Lee Robinson played well when he played against Dumbarton I thought his distribution was great and really sped up the play. He should get a chance also

[The Godfather 72,649]

If you believe what Kyle had said in his interview I'd question whether he was low cost option. Surely using the likes of Little, Hemmings, Gallagher etc. would have been the low cost option.

At the very least if we didn't sign Gordon surely we have better options in our youth ranks as cover? Then bell gets injured and we sign Robinson so evidently not.......that's assuming our management team knows a good player when they see one.....missed the ball with Telfer (and it's not like we are years down the line when you see how good he is we are talking months) so I really have no faith in he management in spotting a good player when they see one.

Well Gordon isn't really about spotting a good player as he was known about for a while plus maybe we couldn't meet his wage demands? I doubt he's on a pittance at the kid touchers.

We probably looked at it like we needed a second choice keeper but Gordon would no doubt have been on more than our first choice one which wouldn't be ideal especially in our case.

Simonsen and Robinson would have been cheap stop gaps that would have been more realistic given we are in the division below the top and Bell is a more than able keeper so we would expect him to be playing the majority of games.

[Raligt 2,541]

[Raligt 2,541]

To be fair, if he stayed here our training regime would've probably made him worse not better

[Smile 26,622]

We should never be letting our training ground be used like a sports centre to get players fit for the scum.

I still dont rate Gordon but simonsen not good at all.

[BlueSuedeSambas 54,439]

The whole not having a young keeper on the bench as back up thing is one decision I actually back McCoist on.

Obviously it's all about personal opinion but if I was managing a football club I'd rather have a more experienced head on the bench to call upon as the back up than a youth team player.

Unless a young keeper is a ridiculous talent and can go straight into the first team at 17,18 (which is a rare occurrence) than I think they are far better off in the long run being out on loan playing games, gaining experience and getting better than they are sitting on the bench for 95% of games just in case something happens to the esthablished first choice.

This is probably the best example in world football but would Courtouis be the player he is today if he'd spent the past three years watching Chelsea's games from the bench as back up to Cech?

[GWR1979 1,987]

I agree that we didn't give him a contract, we don't even know what kind of cash he was looking for.

Add to that he hadn't played a competitive game for 2 years.

Bell is our number 1, Simonsen should never have been given another contract after the Dundee United game last year.

The quicker Bell is back the better.

[geronimoo 1,491]

Even will cellik Gordon was always going to be a chance, the difference is they are miles ahead of the competition in the Premier League so even if he turned out pretty shit they would more than likely still win most of their games.

[G.E.C. 19,066]

Hibs signed Cerny recently, we should have went for him.

[Moody Blue 9,520]

Thats the benefit of hindsight, it just sticks in the throat he got fit with us and that mob reap the benefits. I probably wouldn't have wanted a gamble on wages when he hadn't proved fitness longer term. Auchenhowie should be used for Rangers players and only the benefit of Rangers (we get paid)...enough of being pals with everyone.

Forgetting Gordon, the fact Simonsen is shit, was known to be shit and had another contract given to him to the detriment of two, much younger and well regarded keepers is the other issue - let alone when Robinson was brought back!! That's the worrying and sad part that youth can't be seen as good enough as back up. No wonder they all fuck off elsewhere to get games.