Mariners Squad - HAL 13 - 2017- 2018

[Capt. Awesome]

Great pickup. Was starting to think we had missed our opportunity to sign him. We have always had a youth policy but we now seem to be signing quality youth instead of risky NPL players.

 

[scottmac]

Id say the loan deal is why it took months to get this one done. We wanted him but could only get a loan deal done. Good for both parties. Shame the game against the jets today is behind closed doors. Wonder if he'll get time today? Is he even there yet?

 

[localpom]

Very good news. I'm sure will be a good pick up. Just a quality striker short of a pretty decent starting 11 now.

 

[Wombat]

Is the behind closed doors game at Pluim today? I saw a few Mariners shirts when I drove past.

 

[Big Al]

Risky Izzo 2.0

19 with limited playing time, but talented. A very Mariners and even more a Paolo signing.

Marquess (youth) wonder if he has been signed for youth or this is the end for him? Gives us 3 GK under 23 in the club if signed and a broken down scumme

Funny Cisak was signed yesterday by SFC.

 

[McGr1m3]

Well done Mariners, a quality loan deal / signing...........building slowly & surely towards October.

 

[localpom]

Risky Izzo 2.0

19 with limited playing time, but talented. A very Mariners and even more a Paolo signing.

Marquess (youth) wonder if he has been signed for youth or this is the end for him? Gives us 3 GK under 23 in the club if signed and a broken down scumme

Funny Cisak was signed yesterday by SFC.

Much less risky than Izzo IMO. He has been with Spurs a while and would have played some high quality games and been around excellent coaches and players. Spurs obviously rate him otherwise would have let him go.

 

[scottmac]

Has played quite a bit in the youth set up at spurs and had been training with the first team on and off. They obviously rate him highly to have put as much into him as they have.

 

[Coach]

Unfortunately this is not what it seems. Firstly, if Spurs wanted him they would not have loaned him out. He has a contract that Spurs need to honour and therefore they can loan him out and get some coin back. He trialed at Sydney, Crawley wasn't interested, he then was off back to Spurs but Kalac offered him a trial that came to nothing. For Glover it was back to Spurs with an uncertain future. We came in at that point which was only two weeks ago. We were his last choice.

 

[nebakke]

Unfortunately this is not what it seems. Firstly, if Spurs wanted him they would not have loaned him out. He has a contract that Spurs need to honour and therefore they can loan him out and get some coin back. He trialed at Sydney, Crawley wasn't interested, he then was off back to Spurs but Kalac offered him a trial that came to nothing. For Glover it was back to Spurs with an uncertain future. We came in at that point which was only two weeks ago. We were his last choice.

In all fairness - I think a club like the Smurfs is a lot more risk-averse with regards to youth, than they care to admit. For all of the accolades Arnie got for having brought youth in when he coached for us, it was a matter of necessity... Look at the sort of players they're signing now, he's putting the money towards experienced signings rather than youth. It's hardly surprising that for a last-ditch defence spot like the goalie, he'd go for age and experience. Much as ability obviously is the main factor, I'm not sure that Glover's age and lack of first team experience wouldn't have put them off.
I think the drive-bys are in a similar situation tbh - hence the GK swaps between the two clubs last season... I'm not sure all of that reflects as badly on Glover as you think.
He's a youth player, if Everton were certain they didn't want him, they would've just cut him lose, contract or no... There's not much to be made from holding on to him if they have no faith in him... Especially not if there were clubs sniffing around for him.

 

[scottmac]

Crawly not interested because they had Cisak? Nice way to avoid facts there coach.

Glover is f**king 19. He's been at spurs since he was 14. They've put an enormous amount into him over 5yrs. But hey, uncertain future......... He's not going to be sitting on the bench at spurs as a19yr old. They obviously want to see him play first team football but not there. They could have released him because we wanted to sign him longer. As we did with DDS.

He'll play for us as 1st choice for sure. Especially seeing at though Kennedy is not fit. Let's see how he goes.

 

[Bladesman]

Great signing. Glover will be 1st choice keeper for us I have no doubt.

There is no way Spurs would have or be keeping him around if they did not rate him. There would also be nothing in it for Spurs to let him come here to sit on the bench, he would be better staying over there. Given that Mat Ryan has made a very successful career path from young A-League keeper to premier league I think that would have played on the decision by Spurs to let him come here (they way we have defended over the last few years he will also get plenty of practice so not sure if that played a part in the decision )

The level he has played and trained at over there will mean he has no issues with the A-League standard.

 

[pjennings]

I'm finding it interesting that we have 4 keepers (including Marques at the academy) with 3 of them 20 or younger . You would think that Spurs want Glover to get a lot more game time to aid his development. If he does it is good for us because he must be playing well, it is also good for Tom because a standout season will get him thought about as a regular part of the Spurs match day squad. In the mean time, even if Glover performs well and only ends up being here for a season, it gives the other two young keepers time to further develop.

 

[Big Al]

In all fairness - I think a club like the Smurfs is a lot more risk-averse with regards to youth, than they care to admit. For all of the accolades Arnie got for having brought youth in when he coached for us, it was a matter of necessity... Look at the sort of players they're signing now, he's putting the money towards experienced signings rather than youth. It's hardly surprising that for a last-ditch defence spot like the goalie, he'd go for age and experience. Much as ability obviously is the main factor, I'm not sure that Glover's age and lack of first team experience wouldn't have put them off.
I think the drive-bys are in a similar situation tbh - hence the GK swaps between the two clubs last season... I'm not sure all of that reflects as badly on Glover as you think.
He's a youth player, if Everton were certain they didn't want him, they would've just cut him lose, contract or no... There's not much to be made from holding on to him if they have no faith in him... Especially not if there were clubs sniffing around for him.

Arnie wanted to play youth but you just can't at SFC. They demand success eaxh year not every 3 say. They have had to abandon youth. If they are special they will get a gig but thats it. As you after Danny being superb last year they were not going to take the risk.

WSW have 3 or 4 in the Olyroos so are also playing some but they have got John Hall and Glover might not have liked it if behind Janjetovic. If you going to sit on a bench make sure its Tottenhams.

 

[Big Al]

Who knows what Spurs thinking is but could also be he's an asset and he might get signed somewhere if plays well instead of his contract just running out.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Unfortunately this is not what it seems. Firstly, if Spurs wanted him they would not have loaned him out. He has a contract that Spurs need to honour and therefore they can loan him out and get some coin back. He trialed at Sydney, Crawley wasn't interested, he then was off back to Spurs but Kalac offered him a trial that came to nothing. For Glover it was back to Spurs with an uncertain future. We came in at that point which was only two weeks ago. We were his last choice.

1) How do you know we only came in 2 weeks?
2) Why do you assume they would not want him if they loaned him? The 2 aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Capt. Awesome]

1) How do you know we only came in 2 weeks?
2) Why do you assume they would not want him if they loaned him? The 2 aren't mutually exclusive.

I Think he meant to say 2 months

Glover said. “It’s been a long time coming because I’ve been in talks with Paolo for a couple of months now and it’s great to have everything confirmed.

 

[Coach]

Crawly not interested because they had Cisak? Nice way to avoid facts there coach.

Glover is f**king 19. He's been at spurs since he was 14. They've put an enormous amount into him over 5yrs. But hey, uncertain future......... He's not going to be sitting on the bench at spurs as a19yr old. They obviously want to see him play first team football but not there. They could have released him because we wanted to sign him longer. As we did with DDS.

He'll play for us as 1st choice for sure. Especially seeing at though Kennedy is not fit. Let's see how he goes.

Now thats funny. So I am avoiding the facts, lets try this out for facts;

'Your facts

'Crawly not interested because they had Cisak?' - So Crawley had Cisak before he trialled Glover and the Trial was just for fun?
'He's been at Spurs since he was 14' - Wrong since he was 16, he signed there in 2014
'They've put an enormous amount into him over 5yrs' - Wrong - Try 3 years
'He's not going to be sitting on the bench at spurs as a19yr old' - Wrong he did last year as an 18yr old twice!
'They obviously want to see him play first team football but not there' - really - you know that because? (apart from it suits your argument)
'They could have released him because we wanted to sign him longer' - Really - So Glover was seeking a release?

I'm happy to have a spirited debate with you particularly if you question my 'facts' but criticisng from a point of ignorance please.....

 

[Capt. Awesome]

Now thats funny. So I am avoiding the facts, lets try this out for facts;

'Your facts

'Crawly not interested because they had Cisak?' - So Crawley had Cisak before he trialled Glover and the Trial was just for fun?
'He's been at Spurs since he was 14' - Wrong since he was 16, he signed there in 2014
'They've put an enormous amount into him over 5yrs' - Wrong - Try 3 years
'He's not going to be sitting on the bench at spurs as a19yr old' - Wrong he did last year as an 18yr old twice!
'They obviously want to see him play first team football but not there' - really - you know that because? (apart from it suits your argument)
'They could have released him because we wanted to sign him longer' - Really - So Glover was seeking a release?

I'm happy to have a spirited debate with you particularly if you question my 'facts' but criticisng from a point of ignorance please.....

Oh... how I love pre-season on this forum

 

[Coach]

1) How do you know we only came in 2 weeks?
2) Why do you assume they would not want him if they loaned him? The 2 aren't mutually exclusive.

Hi BB, Much better questions;
1. He was at WSW training 3 weeks ago and was heading back to England empty handed
2. Not mutually exclusive - Glover will not accept a release and Spurs have no immediate place for him, it was up to him to find a gig. Spurs would not arrange a loan with an A-League club for two reasons, they don't rate the league and he is too far away if actually needed!