Spenny signings

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: mikkyx, uncovered

User avatar
D_F_C
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 8:43 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Spenny signings

Post by D_F_C » Fri May 27, 2016 3:46 pm

Spenny sign:
Armstrong
Chandler
Ramshaw
Andy Johnson (not the one we had)
Curtis

What a team they have

Quakerz
Posts: 20958
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Spenny signings

Post by Quakerz » Fri May 27, 2016 3:52 pm

Chandler AND Ramshaw?

Fucking hell.

Mind you, we all thought signing McReady was unbelievable and look how that turned out.
Image

“Everybody knows where that club is going now, so I’m out of the way. They can carry on, it’s their club, they can keep it." - Raj Singh, 2017

User avatar
D_F_C
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 8:43 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Spenny signings

Post by D_F_C » Fri May 27, 2016 3:56 pm

They must be favourites now. I can't think of a weak link in their team. Maybe keeper

Quakerz
Posts: 20958
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Spenny signings

Post by Quakerz » Fri May 27, 2016 3:58 pm

Their weak link is their mentality - they've always crumbled against Darlo.
Image

“Everybody knows where that club is going now, so I’m out of the way. They can carry on, it’s their club, they can keep it." - Raj Singh, 2017

al_quaker
Posts: 5942
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Spenny signings

Post by al_quaker » Fri May 27, 2016 4:27 pm

Superb signings - would mean it would be a failure if they don't win the Evo Prem now.

Definitely not bankrolled though. Absolutely not.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 6717
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Spenny signings

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Fri May 27, 2016 4:37 pm

Re Chandler and Ramshaw.

Did they get offered better deals at S'moor, or did they not fit into Gray's plans?
Profile pic ↗️
Feethams the Panda. 28 Jan 2012.
Now extinct!

JE93
Posts: 1855
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:48 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Spenny signings

Post by JE93 » Fri May 27, 2016 4:52 pm

theoriginalfatcat wrote:Re Chandler and Ramshaw.

Did they get offered better deals at S'moor, or did they not fit into Gray's plans?
In a sense it doesn't matter. If they didn't fit into Gray's plans then so be it. He has made enough good decisions for me.to trust his judgement. Or if they've been offered better deals then they have chosen not to play at the highest level possible for financial gain and I don't want that either.

They are huge signings for that level though. I'm sure Blyth will have been gutted to miss out on some of them. Spenny have shown they're willing to spend to get a good squad. They have to make it work on the pitch now and prove it was worth it.

AndyPark
Posts: 12155
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:08 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Darlington

Re: Spenny signings

Post by AndyPark » Fri May 27, 2016 5:07 pm

Wouldn't shock me if Sam Russell ended up there also.

Emdubya
Posts: 1117
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 9:31 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Spenny signings

Post by Emdubya » Fri May 27, 2016 6:24 pm

I said after watching the play off win they were a long way off for the prem,but after the clear out last week and today's signings they must be among the favourites.After what they did for us last month I can only wish them all the best but I still fancy Frickley to go for it next season.

User avatar
D_F_C
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 8:43 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Spenny signings

Post by D_F_C » Fri May 27, 2016 6:28 pm

Emdubya wrote:I said after watching the play off win they were a long way off for the prem,but after the clear out last week and today's signings they must be among the favourites.After what they did for us last month I can only wish them all the best but I still fancy Frickley to go for it next season.
I think this sums it up. Spenny have only ever been supportive of us, so hopefully people won't criticise them. I thought frickley weren't particularly good when we played them. It wasn't until a 25 yard screamer that they did anything. Had to be spenny favourites. They could perhaps do with another big strong centre forward but now have Armstrong fisher and Dowson

Darlofan97
Posts: 5690
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Spenny signings

Post by Darlofan97 » Fri May 27, 2016 10:15 pm

Disappointing that Chandler has decided to sign for Spennymoor rather than us. He did always say that he had a lot to give in the game but sadly for him I can't see Spennymoor going higher than the Conference North. Whether he's chose to play with his mates, (ironically ones deemed not good enough for us), or just for a better wage I do not know. His priorties certainly don't seem to be to play at the highest possible semi-professional level so take from that what you will.

Good to see however that Gray has not chucked silly money at it. Adam Boyd did similar with us and Spennymoor in the Northern League season and they ended up signing him. We want players here for the right reasons; like Watson who sees it as a chance to move up the leagues, Wearmouth who's mind was made up after it was made public there was interest, Nightingale who turned down Halifax and Marrs who rang Gray to sign etc etc...

Darlo_Pete
Posts: 14080
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Spenny signings

Post by Darlo_Pete » Sat May 28, 2016 7:46 am

Also Gray likes to get players who haven't reached there peak.

lo36789
Posts: 10927
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Spenny signings

Post by lo36789 » Sat May 28, 2016 8:27 am

Darlo_Pete wrote:Also Gray likes to get players who haven't reached there peak.
Forgot Alan White and Graeme Armstrong were up and coming youngsters. Gray likes to get the players that he feels we need to get the job done - irrespective of age.

User avatar
Breedon
Posts: 1840
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:10 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Spenny signings

Post by Breedon » Sat May 28, 2016 8:33 am

Would Chandler at this point actually go straight into our midfield? I don't think so based on how strong we were there last season. Maybe a couple of the lads don't make the step up and he'd have played his way in, but who do you drop for him after how formidable Turnbull, Scott and Portas have been? You can only have so many first team quality players in one position, the lads that aren't playing will soon get sick and want away. That could have been a factor. If Jamie is wanting to definitely play every week, Spenny is a good move. Armstrong is also a wicked signing for them. They could well win that league next season.

DFCAnth
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:01 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Stockton-On-Tees

Re: Spenny signings

Post by DFCAnth » Sat May 28, 2016 8:36 am

Darlo_Pete wrote:Also Gray likes to get players who haven't reached there peak.
If by peak you mean highest level they have played at then I would disagree. Gray signs players who will improve the team in the long run regardless of whether or not they have reached their peak. Alan White, Liam Hatch, Phil Turnbull and others all played at higher levels before coming to us and realistically wouldn't achieve that level again (maybe Turnbull). Although signing hungry players who want to play at the highest possible level is good, you need those more experienced heads in there as well.

If you mean peak as in age then again I would again disagree, Chandler and Ramshaw both haven't hit that yet, and on the flip side again White and Hatch were well past 26-29.

lo36789
Posts: 10927
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Spenny signings

Post by lo36789 » Sat May 28, 2016 9:10 am

Breedon wrote:Would Chandler at this point actually go straight into our midfield? I don't think so based on how strong we were there last season.
I guess i'd considered Chandler an upgrade on Leon Scott. Scott was fantastic but what I remember of Chandler from times before he would have been a better version of (just as combative, better distribution).

If he was holding out for money or just wanted to play with Watson and Fisher then so be it...I trust that if Gray really wanted him he would have got him. The fact we haven't means Gray wasn't that bothered.

My opinion
Posts: 765
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 12:13 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Spenny signings

Post by My opinion » Sat May 28, 2016 9:22 am

lo36789 wrote:
Breedon wrote:Would Chandler at this point actually go straight into our midfield? I don't think so based on how strong we were there last season.
I guess i'd considered Chandler an upgrade on Leon Scott. Scott was fantastic but what I remember of Chandler from times before he would have been a better version of (just as combative, better distribution).

If he was holding out for money or just wanted to play with Watson and Fisher then so be it...I trust that if Gray really wanted him he would have got him. The fact we haven't means Gray wasn't that bothered.
Yeah, I agree with you on this lo..If we had signed both Chandler and Ramshaw i think a lot of people on here would have been saying that we will be challenging for promotion next season instead of consolidating...(well, I would)..Both very good players for that level and ours.
Come christmas time I think we will have had two or three of our squad leave as they will not be playing as much as they would have liked..And as they leave I think others will replace them...
Just my opinion though.

Darlogramps
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Spenny signings

Post by Darlogramps » Sat May 28, 2016 10:24 am

lo36789 wrote:
Breedon wrote:Would Chandler at this point actually go straight into our midfield? I don't think so based on how strong we were there last season.
I guess i'd considered Chandler an upgrade on Leon Scott. Scott was fantastic but what I remember of Chandler from times before he would have been a better version of (just as combative, better distribution).
Undoubtedly. Chandler would walk straight into our team - harsh as that is on Scott and Portas, Chandler has the experience of playing higher up and as you say, is a better player.

And Chandler has experience of playing with Turnbull too.

But we're carrying an expanded squad next season and central midfield wasn't an area that urgently needed attention.

Gray and the board are not averse to spending big on players (despite what some would have you believe) but clearly this was one too far.

Thing that makes me laugh is Spennymoor fans continuing to deny they're bankrolled, and they're claiming they'd be happy with top 10 even after these signings.

If they don't finish top 3 minimum after these signings, there's a big problem there.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

Ingleby
Posts: 1512
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:08 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Spenny signings

Post by Ingleby » Sat May 28, 2016 11:40 am

Chandler wouldn't have walked into our team at all. Delusional.

Everyone was the same with Fisher and look how that one worked out.
For you to insult me, I must first value your opinion.

Quakerz
Posts: 20958
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Spenny signings

Post by Quakerz » Sat May 28, 2016 11:51 am

Chandler is a true Conference Premier standard player like Turnbull is.

Of course he'd be first choice - no disrespect intended to Scott and Portas.

We'd have simply had to have started with a midfield of Turnbull and Chandler, if we'd signed Chandler.

To be fair to Portas, he is a bloody superb player at the levels we have been playing at, and maybe, just maybe, he might turn out to be as good as Chandler in the end - but we'll have to see how he copes with the step up.
Image

“Everybody knows where that club is going now, so I’m out of the way. They can carry on, it’s their club, they can keep it." - Raj Singh, 2017

Ingleby
Posts: 1512
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:08 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Spenny signings

Post by Ingleby » Sat May 28, 2016 11:53 am

No he's actually a conference reject. Next step the Northern League.
For you to insult me, I must first value your opinion.

Darlogramps
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Spenny signings

Post by Darlogramps » Sat May 28, 2016 12:25 pm

Ingleby wrote:Chandler wouldn't have walked into our team at all. Delusional.

Everyone was the same with Fisher and look how that one worked out.
Aww, poor Ingleby doesn't like it when someone has a different opinion to him.

Chandler would have been first choice had we signed him. He's a better player than Scott and Portas (again no disrespect to those two), has more experience of a higher level, and experience of playing with Turnbull.

Put another way, Chandler wouldn't drop a level or two to sit on the bench. He'd have been confident that at least in the opening games, he'd be starting.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

Quakerz
Posts: 20958
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Spenny signings

Post by Quakerz » Sat May 28, 2016 1:52 pm

Ingleby wrote:No he's actually a conference reject. Next step the Northern League.
He's not a conference reject at all, I suggest you do some research. Clown.
Image

“Everybody knows where that club is going now, so I’m out of the way. They can carry on, it’s their club, they can keep it." - Raj Singh, 2017

Curry_LG
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:13 pm
Team Supported: Spennymoor & Notts County
Location: Spennymoor

Re: Spenny signings

Post by Curry_LG » Sat May 28, 2016 1:58 pm

Ta for Armstrong!

Commiserations for not getting Chandler like :mrgreen:

al_quaker
Posts: 5942
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Spenny signings

Post by al_quaker » Sat May 28, 2016 2:07 pm

While Chandler would have improved us, if it's true he (or any other target - there must be at least one based on that Echo interview the other week) was playing us off against Spennymoor to get more money then I'm glad we didn't sign him. We are still in a position where we are very attractive to players, and as such I'd rather players who want to play for us rather than for the biggest pay check.

Now, I'm in no way saying our players aren't well paid - they probably are. I'm also not blaming any player wanting to make as much money as possible. But one of the reasons I think we've had success is the spirit in the squad, with players who seem desperate to play for us.

Spennymoor fans who are desperately trying to say they aren't now massive favourites are making me laugh though.

Darlogramps
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Spenny signings

Post by Darlogramps » Sat May 28, 2016 2:33 pm

al_quaker wrote:While Chandler would have improved us, if it's true he (or any other target - there must be at least one based on that Echo interview the other week) was playing us off against Spennymoor to get more money then I'm glad we didn't sign him. We are still in a position where we are very attractive to players, and as such I'd rather players who want to play for us rather than for the biggest pay check.

Now, I'm in no way saying our players aren't well paid - they probably are. I'm also not blaming any player wanting to make as much money as possible. But one of the reasons I think we've had success is the spirit in the squad, with players who seem desperate to play for us.

Spennymoor fans who are desperately trying to say they aren't now massive favourites are making me laugh though.
The funniest Spenny fans are the ones who for no reason bring Darlington up, especially when it comes to finances.

The latest is handifan on NBZ (who's usually quite reasonable). But when told these signings prove Spenny are completely bankrolled, his response is essentially "Yeah, but.... but....but.....Darlo spend a lot too." http://nonleaguezone.com/viewtopic.php? ... 24#p972224

Spenny fans are so sensitive when it comes to talking about their finances.

They don't seem to get there's a difference between raising funds through having a larger fanbase and attendances, to having one wealthy owner pumping hundreds of thousands of pounds into the club.

I'm not saying it's wrong they're totally bankrolled by uncle Brad Groves. I couldn't care less where their money comes from. The people running the club clearly are decent people with its interests at heart.

But it's so weird the majority of their fans have to deny the obvious facts about the extent to which they're bankrolled.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

Ingleby
Posts: 1512
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:08 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Spenny signings

Post by Ingleby » Sat May 28, 2016 2:42 pm

You think Chandler had a chance to stay ha. No chance. Was pushed he had no offer from Gateshead. Unlike Turnbull. Clown.

His 'statement' he put out was to save face. He was lucky to get a one year deal last year and knew his time was up.
For you to insult me, I must first value your opinion.

Darlofan97
Posts: 5690
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Spenny signings

Post by Darlofan97 » Sat May 28, 2016 4:05 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
al_quaker wrote:While Chandler would have improved us, if it's true he (or any other target - there must be at least one based on that Echo interview the other week) was playing us off against Spennymoor to get more money then I'm glad we didn't sign him. We are still in a position where we are very attractive to players, and as such I'd rather players who want to play for us rather than for the biggest pay check.

Now, I'm in no way saying our players aren't well paid - they probably are. I'm also not blaming any player wanting to make as much money as possible. But one of the reasons I think we've had success is the spirit in the squad, with players who seem desperate to play for us.

Spennymoor fans who are desperately trying to say they aren't now massive favourites are making me laugh though.
The funniest Spenny fans are the ones who for no reason bring Darlington up, especially when it comes to finances.

The latest is handifan on NBZ (who's usually quite reasonable). But when told these signings prove Spenny are completely bankrolled, his response is essentially "Yeah, but.... but....but.....Darlo spend a lot too." http://nonleaguezone.com/viewtopic.php? ... 24#p972224
Agreed.

What made me laugh was Handifan saying we have a "massive squad", and sign players on transfer fees. We scraped through last season with a squad of 18, and ALL of our signings this summer have been free transfers.

The point about transfer fees should be void anyway given that they spent good money on Tait, Gott, Dowson & Johnson.

They've also quite regularly outbid us for certain players, such as; Henry, McReady, Chandler and Boyd.

shawry
Posts: 2600
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:55 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Spenny signings

Post by shawry » Sat May 28, 2016 4:16 pm

Darlogramps wrote: They don't seem to get there's a difference between raising funds through having a larger fanbase and attendances, to having one wealthy owner pumping hundreds of thousands of pounds into the club.

I'm not saying it's wrong they're totally bankrolled by uncle Brad Groves. I couldn't care less where their money comes from. The people running the club clearly are decent people with its interests at heart.

But it's so weird the majority of their fans have to deny the obvious facts about the extent to which they're bankrolled.
I have no idea the extent of their bankrolling; but when I go to their ground there seems to be an awful lot of advertising, while that wont cover it all, it is still probably quite a lot of cash.

On the other point, for me there is absolutely no difference between having a larger fanbase and a wealthy owner, the only really relevant factor is the quality of the owner.

Curry_LG
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:13 pm
Team Supported: Spennymoor & Notts County
Location: Spennymoor

Re: Spenny signings

Post by Curry_LG » Sat May 28, 2016 4:30 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
al_quaker wrote:While Chandler would have improved us, if it's true he (or any other target - there must be at least one based on that Echo interview the other week) was playing us off against Spennymoor to get more money then I'm glad we didn't sign him. We are still in a position where we are very attractive to players, and as such I'd rather players who want to play for us rather than for the biggest pay check.

Now, I'm in no way saying our players aren't well paid - they probably are. I'm also not blaming any player wanting to make as much money as possible. But one of the reasons I think we've had success is the spirit in the squad, with players who seem desperate to play for us.

Spennymoor fans who are desperately trying to say they aren't now massive favourites are making me laugh though.
The funniest Spenny fans are the ones who for no reason bring Darlington up, especially when it comes to finances.

The latest is handifan on NBZ (who's usually quite reasonable). But when told these signings prove Spenny are completely bankrolled, his response is essentially "Yeah, but.... but....but.....Darlo spend a lot too." http://nonleaguezone.com/viewtopic.php? ... 24#p972224

Spenny fans are so sensitive when it comes to talking about their finances.

They don't seem to get there's a difference between raising funds through having a larger fanbase and attendances, to having one wealthy owner pumping hundreds of thousands of pounds into the club.

I'm not saying it's wrong they're totally bankrolled by uncle Brad Groves. I couldn't care less where their money comes from. The people running the club clearly are decent people with its interests at heart.

But it's so weird the majority of their fans have to deny the obvious facts about the extent to which they're bankrolled.
Howay then, Gramps. What are the obvious facts?

Post Reply