Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
John Sullivan
- Thread starter Gav1901
- Start date
Brighton Breezy
New member
I agree.
I would rather have let Kuipers go and kept Sullivan as a cheap back-up while he develops.
I would rather have let Kuipers go and kept Sullivan as a cheap back-up while he develops.
- Jul 7, 2003
- 48,653
Great, but does that really need a separate thread?
severnside gull
Well-known member
I will agree or not after I've seen who RS is bringing in as the replacement
Bluejuice
Lazy as a rug on Valium
I must admit that of all the players we've let go this for me is the most disappointing.
He was always rated highly and is still only very young for a 'keeper. Only a few off games, he was generally fairly decent between the sticks when given a chance.
I thought he'd be our long term replacement for FDM but sadly it seems unlikely.
I guess the problem is that goalies take so much longer to develop into top class players (at this level) so it's easier to let them go when they're young, knowing that they probably won't be getting regular games in the side for a few years, all of which you're paying them for.
Also, it means we need to buy a new goalkeeper for next season and that's never easy because instantly they're competing with Kuipers who doesn't like losing his place, but if we bring someone in as an understudy alone, why get rid of Sullivan?
He was always rated highly and is still only very young for a 'keeper. Only a few off games, he was generally fairly decent between the sticks when given a chance.
I thought he'd be our long term replacement for FDM but sadly it seems unlikely.
I guess the problem is that goalies take so much longer to develop into top class players (at this level) so it's easier to let them go when they're young, knowing that they probably won't be getting regular games in the side for a few years, all of which you're paying them for.
Also, it means we need to buy a new goalkeeper for next season and that's never easy because instantly they're competing with Kuipers who doesn't like losing his place, but if we bring someone in as an understudy alone, why get rid of Sullivan?
mona
The Glory Game
I agree with you.
But a lot of people thought we made a mistake in releasing Crawley reserve, Sam Rents.
But a lot of people thought we made a mistake in releasing Crawley reserve, Sam Rents.
Knotty
Well-known member
Only if he is playing at a higher level than us and could be described as better than whoever is playing for us.
Hot Gossiper
New member
- Jun 26, 2008
- 52
I think this may indicate Kuipers will be number two next season.
Gritt23
New member
Seems wrong to me. A couple of years ago, we were looking at two highly rated young keepers coming through. Martin was released, presumably because we reckoned Sullivan was the better bet, and now he's gone as well, leaving us with just one injury-prone keeper on the books.
Assuming we are not about to launch Pelling into the fray we now either need to sign 2 keepers this summer, or just get 1 and be ready to grab a loanee for the bench, as soon as FDM gets a knock.
Why not just keep Sullivan on? I wasn't at all worried seeing him step in when Kuipers was out last season, whereas that lanky fella we got on loan was shite. Surely Sullivan wasn't on much of a wage, so why haven't we kept him on and continued to see him develop.
This is a strange one for me.
Assuming we are not about to launch Pelling into the fray we now either need to sign 2 keepers this summer, or just get 1 and be ready to grab a loanee for the bench, as soon as FDM gets a knock.
Why not just keep Sullivan on? I wasn't at all worried seeing him step in when Kuipers was out last season, whereas that lanky fella we got on loan was shite. Surely Sullivan wasn't on much of a wage, so why haven't we kept him on and continued to see him develop.
This is a strange one for me.
Knotty
Well-known member
My take on this is that they are looking to bring in a keeper better than either FDM or Sully and, in that case, the cheaper option is to let Sully go as FDM still has another year on his contract.
Gritt23
New member
Who is to say we didn't make a mistake?
A year later, we are still without a left back to start next season, and whatever form Rents has shown at Crawley would have been hampered by the massive knock to his confidence that he got last year.
sir danny cullip
New member
Can't believe Sullivan has gone. Can only assume Slade has got another first choice keeper in mind to bring in meaning he couldn't afford two goalkeepers on big wages as well as Sullivan on slightly less which leaves him no option other than to get rid of Sullivan as his contract was up. I would suspect his ideal scenario would have been to get FDM off the wage bill and bring in a new number one but that obviously isn't possible.
BensGrandad
New member
My take on this is that Slade wants a new number 1 and sees FDM as the back up and thinks that John Sullivan is not ready or good enough for the No 1 if he was needed. He did bring in the keeper from Reading so obviously has reservations about Sullivan.
No he didn't, White did.
Hungry Joe
SINNEN
Always sad to see a local lad go, especially when they do seem to have potential. Good luck at wherever you go next John.
Horton's halftime iceberg
Blooming Marvellous
Very Sad to see Sully go, I am sure he will be snapped up by a club and carry on playing where he left off. A great prospect for the future and to take over from Kuipers one day as no 1. Good luck to him where ever he goes.
bhaexpress
New member
I bet Flinders is on his way here.
sir danny cullip
New member
Liverpool showed serious interest in signing Martin after his trial but the club scared them off with a huge price tag (250k i think) which is all well and good....but then we went and released him.