Adam Marriott departs

[hoofer2]

I saw someone on here describe Bromley as a "bankrolled" club. My question is: does that mean Barnet is not? There were certainly times in the past when opposing fans claimed we were.

Bromley are clearly spending more than they did in the past (hence how they've progressed into the division's upper echelons), but I've never thought of them in the 'bankrolled' category, a la Wrexham, Solihull, former NL teams Fleetwood, Salford, FGR etc.

They seem like a club who are partly growing organically (increased crowds, and I noticed a few off the pitch facilities last time I was there) and presumably have an owner putting a few quid in (but not a crazy amount like the clubs above).

In a way, almost every National League club is in that bracket - it's very difficult to run a team and break even at this level (and I think when you try to, you end up in the table's lower reaches - like us, Aldershot etc).

The break even bit is very interesting. If, and only, if, that is true, why is it so important to TK to do so when other owners are clearly happy to push the boat out? If this is the case, then TK certainly doesn't view the football club as a tax write-off.

I think TK did provide a larger budget in previous seasons with little success on the pitch. Think having Hive effectively shut during lockdown would have hit income streams and reserves...

[Norfolkbee]

I saw someone on here describe Bromley as a "bankrolled" club. My question is: does that mean Barnet is not? There were certainly times in the past when opposing fans claimed we were.

Bromley are clearly spending more than they did in the past (hence how they've progressed into the division's upper echelons), but I've never thought of them in the 'bankrolled' category, a la Wrexham, Solihull, former NL teams Fleetwood, Salford, FGR etc.

They seem like a club who are partly growing organically (increased crowds, and I noticed a few off the pitch facilities last time I was there) and presumably have an owner putting a few quid in (but not a crazy amount like the clubs above).

In a way, almost every National League club is in that bracket - it's very difficult to run a team and break even at this level (and I think when you try to, you end up in the table's lower reaches - like us, Aldershot etc).

The break even bit is very interesting. If, and only, if, that is true, why is it so important to TK to do so when other owners are clearly happy to push the boat out? If this is the case, then TK certainly doesn't view the football club as a tax write-off.

I think TK did provide a larger budget in previous seasons with little success on the pitch. Think having Hive effectively shut during lockdown would have hit income streams and reserves...

The pandemic was a football-wide issue, all clubs lost revenue, but some obviously dealt with it more.proactively than others.

[foxy]

In that aspect I guess BFC/TK would have had bigger losses too compared to other clubs based on the cost of his bigger asset base!

[BigBee]

100k should pay the salaries for a couple of fairly senior players for a year.

Barnet may be looking at far higher numbers if there are any sell ons fees forthcoming from Peterborough. Could be interesting.

Really. !!!

£1000 per week each.

Akinde was on £2500 per week during his last contract with us.

[Mikel Bee]

Still plenty of time to bring in attacking players.
The club would have looked ahead and had targets in case AM didn't sign. Pre-season still a few weeks away. No need to panic.

It's not a case of panic with me. It's more a case of "oh no, not again". It's the same every year, a neverending story of completely rebuilding the squad with an ever-decreasing budget. Surely, if you get a decent player, you move heaven and earth to keep them.

There comes a point where you don't blow your budget on one player though. Especially for one who only in the last few months of the season looked worth keeping. Would it be worth it if the same pattern happened next season?

Marriott was offered a decent wedge to stay by DB, Bromley wanted him more. Time will tell if it works out. It didn't for Skeffington unfortunately. Talking of whom, is he still a free agent?

[Norfolkbee]

Still plenty of time to bring in attacking players.
The club would have looked ahead and had targets in case AM didn't sign. Pre-season still a few weeks away. No need to panic.

It's not a case of panic with me. It's more a case of "oh no, not again". It's the same every year, a neverending story of completely rebuilding the squad with an ever-decreasing budget. Surely, if you get a decent player, you move heaven and earth to keep them.

There comes a point where you don't blow your budget on one player though. Especially for one who only in the last few months of the season looked worth keeping. Would it be worth it if the same pattern happened next season?

Marriott was offered a decent wedge to stay by DB, Bromley wanted him more. Time will tell if it works out. It didn't for Skeffington unfortunately. Talking of whom, is he still a free agent?

The key phrase here is "wanted him more". Shouldn't Barnet be adopting the same attitude to signings?

[Modernist]

A thing no one has mentioned is the deal at Bromley is for two years. I assume we only offered a year. That might have been the clincher for a player of AM age. Given the age range 24-28 DB is looking for, perhaps it was felt 2 years on a good wage was too much of a gamble. Obviously the new CB Diarra is in his 30's but in defence i think far less of a gamble.

[BarneyBee]

Another point worth making is that Marriott was injured/out of the team a fair bit. He often came off the bench. Could be due to being 'tired' or injured/injury prone but also as mentioned earlier because DB didn't fancy him or his style of play.

Clearly we should have tried to keep him - which it appears we did - but if we go out and get two decent strikers (proven at this level or above) with good records in terms of injury, we will be in a better position going into the new season than we were when last season ended.

So, for me, I will hold back on judging TK (on this specific point only!) and DB until all of their business has been concluded.

I'm sure they've got their eyes on some candidates as they must have known that Marriott was unlikely to re-sign...

[becbee]

A thing no one has mentioned is the deal at Bromley is for two years. I assume we only offered a year. That might have been the clincher for a player of AM age. Given the age range 24-28 DB is looking for, perhaps it was felt 2 years on a good wage was too much of a gamble. Obviously the new CB Diarra is in his 30's but in defence i think far less of a gamble.

Very good point. The length of contract for a player, especially one aged over 30 years old will be just as important - maybe even more so - than the wages. A 2 year contract would have been a gamble. We have to remember to judge Marriott on his full season with us, not just the good bits.

[adher36]

Not even TK would have been daft enough to only offer Adam a 1 year deal and expect that to be accepted by player and agent. Brennan would have let him know as such.

2 years on a goal scorer is not a gamble, we should have just offered the bloke 3 years to secure his services. He's not quite as irreplaceable as Akinde was, but nonetheless as good as we could have gotten. Having to find a new striker will just take more of Brennan's time that should be used in trying to strengthen other areas i.e ensuring that Ayeman Azaze never has to play another game for us again.

I try and stick up for TK a bit as I know it isn't easy building a competitive squad when crowds are quite as low as they are, but this situation letting him go to a divisional rival and smaller club is all down to his incompetence and dithering.

[Norfolkbee]

A thing no one has mentioned is the deal at Bromley is for two years. I assume we only offered a year. That might have been the clincher for a player of AM age. Given the age range 24-28 DB is looking for, perhaps it was felt 2 years on a good wage was too much of a gamble. Obviously the new CB Diarra is in his 30's but in defence i think far less of a gamble.

Very good point. The length of contract for a player, especially one aged over 30 years old will be just as important - maybe even more so - than the wages. A 2 year contract would have been a gamble. We have to remember to judge Marriott on his full season with us, not just the good bits.

There is nothing wrong with giving two-year deals to players, regardless of age, providing due diligence is carried out on their injury record, attitude etc. Such a deal for Marriott should've been a no-brainer because the club knew full well what it would be getting. Injury or loss of form can strike down players at any time, regardless of length of contract and is one of the risks that goes with the game.
My personal take is that TK wariness over longer deals has more to do with John Still's last crop of signings and the problems on and off the pitch surrounding some of them. This, coupled with a few Kabba suite regulars, who crept through the net, seem to have weighed heavy on our chairman's take on signings, throwing up an obstacle that need not be there.
It could be argued that a player will settle more quickly in the knowledge that his future is more secure, rather than having to turn his thoughts to his future employment with the arrival of spring. Securing a decent player on a longer deal also strengthens the club's hand by ensuring a transfer fee would be needed if thing didn't work out. It would also to some degree stop agents from turning players' heads every summer in order to line their pockets.
The major downside to players on longer deals comes when clubs keep chopping and changing manager with each bringing in their own type of player and sidelining existing ones. Barnet has certain had its share of this in recent years.

[KneesBees99]

Have we all calmed down yet?

[CambsBee]

Do we know he was only offered a one year deal? Do we know what we offered v Bromley?

[Norfolkbee]

Do we know he was only offered a one year deal? Do we know what we offered v Bromley?

Knowing TK, he probably offered him two bob and a free voucher for Pecking Order.

[hoppy]

Not even TK would have been daft enough to only offer Adam a 1 year deal and expect that to be accepted by player and agent. Brennan would have let him know as such.

2 years on a goal scorer is not a gamble, we should have just offered the bloke 3 years to secure his services. He's not quite as irreplaceable as Akinde was, but nonetheless as good as we could have gotten. Having to find a new striker will just take more of Brennan's time that should be used in trying to strengthen other areas i.e ensuring that Ayeman Azaze never has to play another game for us again.

I try and stick up for TK a bit as I know it isn't easy building a competitive squad when crowds are quite as low as they are, but this situation letting him go to a divisional rival and smaller club is all down to his incompetence and dithering.

Aymen Azaze suffered a dreadful injury in the away game at Sutton in April 2021. He was 19 then, he is 20 now.
Such was the injury he was only able to play in the first team some 11months later. He must have missed a huge amount of training and, in truth, he was only selected due to the injury to our regular keeper.
Young keepers in the NL are very rare because they are not physically strong and, obviously, do not have much in the way of experience. Patience is needed with young keepers and comments like the ones in adher36's penultimate paragraph will only knock his confidence more.
Hopefully Aymen will have a good pre-season and some game time in the PSF's and on loan and then subsequently develop into a very good keeper.