Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.

You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers News » Keith Hill explains decision to release Adam Chicksen at Wanderers

Keith Hill explains decision to release Adam Chicksen at Wanderers

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

karlypants

karlypants
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Adam Chicksen has played his last game for Bolton Wanderers.

The full-back, who had made 20 appearances for the club in all competitions this season, will not have his short-term contract renewed by the club.

Chicksen featured at Rochdale on Saturday but Keith Hill said the decision to release him was based upon laying down foundations for the future.

“He has been tremendous for us and I spoke with him at length yesterday, he has been a credit, but we are going to move in a different direction,” said the Wanderers boss.

“It is not a knee-jerk, it’s an integral part of our future to get the right players in. The right players for the right-here-right-now and the right players for the future.

“We have got to start building out. We can’t be short-sighted or narrow-minded.

“There is an emphasis on dealing with the present but if you keep doing that you are not building for the future. We have to build that.

“Adam has been superb and played under the stress of having a short-term contract and knowing, basically, that after performing for us on Saturday he wasn’t going to get a contract.

“I asked him on Friday whether he wanted to play, given the circumstances, and he was brave enough. I will do everything I can to help him to secure a livelihood for him and his family but also a footballing future for someone who has done a lot for us.”

Although Hill is working under the constrictions of an embargo he insists the decision to release Chicksen was not based on budget or squad size, but on attempting to develop the team.

“From a pure footballing decision I believe we need to do better,” he said. “We have got to start building out, start looking at longer term rather than short-term. We can’t keep with six-month contracts because at the end of the season virtually every player we have got is out of contract.

“We should be looking far more into the future than six, 12, 18-months.”

Source

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Surprising, he seemed one of the better players brought in this Summer.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Natasha Whittam wrote:Surprising, he seemed one of the better players brought in this Summer.

I can't understand what is going on?

He states on the one hand we should be looking more into the future than signing players on 6, 12 or 18 month contracts - after he's just signed two players on six months contracts?

Maybe he can sign the players in the summer but that would depend on them being out of contract with their parent clubs (United and Ipswich) and of course they want to sign for us if they are free agents then and can earn more than the £2kpw wage we can offer whilst under the two year embargo.  

Fair play to Chicksen playing on the Saturday knowing he was being released the very next day - compare that to the prima donnas who wouldn't play in case they got a career ending injury (it could happen but in reality how often does it?).  I wish the bloke the best and hope he gets fixed up soon.

So who does Hill replace Chicksen with - he can't buy anyone - so unless they are out of contract or a free transfer, then all he can do is fill his shoes with another six month loan player - who we can't pay a loan fee for - so it's probably going to be a like for like for Chicksen - who may end up better or worse!

If Hill knows who he wants and is confident he can get him then I guess he's doing the right thing but it does seem to make a mockery of events unless he signs them on a two year deal.

I actually posted that the jury was out with me over Hill and what he's doing before Saturdays outburst from him and this and his rant just adds to it.

If he talks such gibberish as he does with his public interviews to the players and staff then I certainly can understand why people are not 'on the same page' as him - I'm certainly not so far.

To me he's dug himself a hole with his mouth for his signings from now on because if he isn't signing players on two year contracts or more then by his own words "we are not building for the future".

Also he's sending out the wrong signal to fans - many on social media are already talking about Hill and/or FV writing off this season and instead saving money/planning for next season in the fourth tier following relegation.

Why should a business (for that is what BWFC is) want to tell its customers that it's product is going to be inferior quality for the remaining half of a season?  

If I was a non ST holder then I'd quit going until next season rather than see my team get battered every week from now on and if I was a ST holder I'd cancel my ticket and stop my monthly payments.

I'm sure Sharon would be thrilled if the revenue dropped because of the perception people are getting based on Hill's behaviour - don't forget he sent two loan centre backs to their clubs without having adequate cover for the team in the next game we played - which of course we lost - we are also in the same position with tomorrows game looming and now we are a left back missing now as well!!!

I'm not against him being honest or even emotional but the proof as they say is in the pudding and from what I can see he seems to be costing us points by his actions of not having his bases adequately covered on the pitch despite the embargo.

He must have known he was going to be sending his two loan centre backs back at the end of their loans so should have had two ready to come in when they did.  Similar with Chicksen and a replacement for him.  Let's face it this is basic stuff for even a pub team manager let alone a professional league manager of many years standing.

So I come back to the start again in that I simply can't understand what he's doing/attempting to do?

If we seriously wanted to fight to stay up then weakening the team for Saturday and the game tomorrow isn't going to help much is it?

We somehow escaped the points deduction for the players strikes and he's immediately thrown that good fortune away in basically weakening our defence since???

I'd really be worried if all these actions are a result of money issues for FV so soon after the takeover so all I can put it down to is Hill having some master plan - and up to now I see zero proof of that.

Hope he proves me wrong - and soon!

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Something must have happened in the background as it can't be a football decision. He's been one of our most consistent performers this season. He came in with no pre-season and straight into the team and deserved a deal until the end of the season as least.

Who plays at LB tonight? Earl has gone as well so we have no cover there at all now so it will need to be one of the kids which for me is a backwards step and was avoidable.

terenceanne

terenceanne
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf
@Norpig wrote:Something must have happened in the background as it can't be a football decision. He's been one of our most consistent performers this season. He came in with no pre-season and straight into the team and deserved a deal until the end of the season as least.

Who plays at LB tonight? Earl has gone as well so we have no cover there at all now so it will need to be one of the kids which for me is a backwards step and was avoidable.
Correct you are …. on the face of it this doesn't make sense.  ..dunno.. 

I believe we will be treading water until this embargo is lifted. Not sure how you build a team with the current restrictions. What players who fancy themselves as decent want to play league two footy next season - I dunno.

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum