Lee Canoville

[beeeehive]

I'd write tiny little winger, ugly blonde bloke and massive black centre forward. There is no racist overtone just a description that fits the individual and would allow someone to identify who I was referring to, no?

Not really, if it was an equal description you'd have the word white before the first 2 descriptions. In a pure PC world you'd say massive centre foward. That's why coppers have to say white or black when describing a suspect, if they're only saying black then that would cause massive issues.

 

[NorthamptonBee]

Can you be racist and support Brentford?

 

[wanderer paul]

Can you be racist and support Brentford?

you can be what ever you like as it's still a free country...............

can we get back to discussing Lee Canoville though!

Is he any better than what we have seen already? If he is then get him in, as the cr@p i've seen play so far (Defence and Centre Mid especially) aren't up to keeping the Bees in the top half of League 2.

 

[condorman]

I don't know.. Exactly how many 'utility players' do we need? It always worries me when people say players can play in a variety of positions, it usually means they're not good enough to settle in one role. You'd have hoped that a player in his mid-twenties would have found his best position by now..

Hopefully, if he does join us, he'll prove me wrong, but I'd rather we were signing players for their ability rather than their adaptability..

sorry i meant "if he is better than our other options at left back and also have the ability to cover other positions if necessary" then this is a good thing.

i would argue that if you have a small squad then adaptability IS important but as a secondary requirement - i.e. if you have two players of similar ability but one can cover another position then they are probably a better option.

 

[Simon C]

can we get back to discussing Lee Canoville though!

Quite.

 

[Simon C]

Quite.

And anything else will just get deleted.

 

[VTG]

mr cynical, roonie plays wide or down the middle; henry wide or down the middle; kuffour played wide or down the middle.... the list is endless!

Grumpy fatfaced pleb Rooney is no Jo Kuffour though, is he?

Any word on Lee then? Signing up or what? Nothing on the OS yet.

 

[jabsco79]

Sounds decent. Is he the son of the ex-Chelsea hard nut Paul Canoville?

Don't know about calling him a 'hard nut' I never saw him make a tackle in his career. In fairness though, he had to be mentally tough - I remember seeing him make his debut for Chelsea at Palace in the early 80's when CFC still had a strong National Front connection and they booed their own player, an 18yr old making his debut !!!

 

[jlove]

... Tate is easily identified by blonde...

Wrong! Tate is a ginger to**er!

 

[homerbees]

'' LEE, LEE Canoville, LEE, LEE Canoville, LEE, LEE Canoville ''

Always thought he'd join Brentford one day, He was a decent player and being from Ealing...

Apart from his song, There's not much I particularly like about Canners. He is a right back only, Who for a few games early on whilst at Torquay played in the centre of midfield.

He got a nasty (possibly shin) injury and lost a lot of confidence and became the weak link during Torquays season in league one. It's seemingly had a lasting effect because he would have established himself at a higher level had he not got injured. He got released in the summer when Torquay lost it's League One status and has done OK at Boston.

I prefered it when Brentford signed players who left Torquay for bigger and better things. Scott Canham, Paul Gibbs, Scott Partridge, Ivar Ingimarsson, Jo Kuffour..

Especially compared to those no longer wanted at Plainmoor...Leroy, Thorpe, Connell and now possibly Canoville.

 

[Bigbee]

''
I prefered it when Brentford signed players who left Torquay for bigger and better things. Scott Canham, Paul Gibbs, Scott Partridge, Ivar Ingimarsson, Jo Kuffour..

did all these players sign from Torquay?Plus,what colour were they?

 

[homerbees]

I prefered it when Brentford signed players who left Torquay for bigger and better things. Scott Canham, Paul Gibbs, Scott Partridge, Ivar Ingimarsson, Jo Kuffour..

did all these players sign from Torquay?Plus,what colour were they?

No, Canham was on loan at Torquay from West Ham, Ivar on loan from some Icelandic club. Think both had a loan cut short as a result of joining Brentford, I know Ivar did..

Kuffour and Partridge were signed directly from Torquay.

Gibbs went onto Plymouth for a year or two, but still he left as he proved himself and moved upwards when leaving.

 

[the beast]

No, Canham was on loan at Torquay from West Ham, Ivar on loan from some Icelandic club. Think both had a loan cut short as a result of joining Brentford, I know Ivar did..

Kuffour and Partridge were signed directly from Torquay.

Gibbs went onto Plymouth for a year or two, but still he left as he proved himself and moved upwards when leaving.

what about oatway we signed him directly from Torquay as well

 

[homerbees]

what about oatway we signed him directly from Torquay as well

...Nathan Abbey as well, those two were important first teamers when Brentford signed them.

 

[Stanley]

Typical BFC...they set up Torquay as our feeder club and don't even bother to tell the fans...

 

[condorman]

if we have signed this basey fella on loan i presume we are not looking for more fullbacks right now

 

[Jimbee]

does this mean you are a little less potty?

 

[condorman]

even MORE potty now. i can do shirley bassey impressions on the touchline

 

[wanderer paul]

solid enough at right back. took time to settle into the game. worth looking at for next few matches a la Smith.

 

[Les Beeavinu]

I liked him a lot. Wonder if he can defend though :shrug:

 

[jay1310]

I thought he played well yesterday, especially going forward.

Could do a job this season, if last nights performance is anything to go by!

 

[Gee Bee]

I liked him a lot. Wonder if he can defend though :shrug:

He's had plenty of practice having played for Torquay & Boston.

 

[Nick Hester]

The one player that looks confident on the ball, good going forward and we should snap him up..

 

[VTG]

He obviously prefers going forward but appears to be able to track back too. I think we should play him in front of the back four so that he can go forward without deserting his post and leaving Heywood on his own, but then I'm completely barking so don't mind me.

 

[1 Bee]

Could Butcher be looking at a 3-5-2 formation next season. Both full backs seem attacking and with a quick centre back alongside Heywood and Mackie we could be ok for pace.

 

[Les Beeavinu]

Chronny suggests that Canoville will be next to sign. Quotes AS as saying that they'd like it sorted out sooner rather than later and have been talking for a while now.

 

[VTG]

Good. He's got talent and we need a bigger squad.

 

[Les Beeavinu]

Good. He's got talent and we need a bigger squad.

Don't know where this leaves Smith though who I would've thought would've been a bigger priority. Not sure if the budget stretches to two. :shrug:

 

[Gee Bee]

Don't know where this leaves Smith though who I would've thought would've been a bigger priority. Not sure if the budget stretches to two. :shrug:

According to Smiths mate he is prepared to take £650pw (£34K pa) and I doubt Canoville was earning that much either at Boston so you might pick both up for less than £80K which we just might still have left in the budget?

 

[West Ealing Bee]

Don't know where this leaves Smith though who I would've thought would've been a bigger priority. Not sure if the budget stretches to two. :shrug:

Does the budget stretch to one :scratch:

 

[Les Beeavinu]

According to Smiths mate he is prepared to take £650pw (£34K pa) and I doubt Canoville was earning that much either at Boston so you might pick both up for less than £80K which we just might still have left in the budget?

Wasn't Canoville signed by Boston when they were throwing big money around?

 

[Gee Bee]

Does the budget stretch to one :scratch:

I cannot believe that the likes of Thorpe & Connell were on much of a wage at Torquay & Hereford and imho only O'Connor, Heywood, Brooker & probably simon Brown are on anything over £1500K pw with many of the others being kids I suspect the avererage for the rest ranges from 300pw to maybe £1K but overall about £600pw, which works out about £500Kpa. The other 4 may be on around £375K in total leaving possibly (fag packet workings) £125K remaining.

 

[Les Beeavinu]

I cannot believe that the likes of Thorpe & Connell were on much of a wage at Torquay & Hereford and imho only O'Connor, Heywood, Brooker & probably simon Brown are on anything over £1500K pw with many of the others being kids I suspect the avererage for the rest ranges from 300pw to maybe £1K but overall about £600pw, which works out about £500Kpa. The other 4 may be on around £375K in total leaving possibly (fag packet workings) £125K remaining.

That's how I saw it tbh.

 

[Gee Bee]

Wasn't Canoville signed by Boston when they were throwing big money around?

Big money for them maybe as they only get a couple of thousand through the gate. I don't think they were throwing Noades type cash around though.

 

[Boston Bee]

We are short of quality and these guys could help. Think there's an assumption that we're going to have a bit extra to play with from the Sodje and Campbell sell-ons.

Does the budget stretch to one :scratch:

 

[Les Beeavinu]

We are short of quality and these guys could help. Think there's an assumption that we're going to have a bit extra to play with from the Sodje and Campbell sell-ons.

Not according to Keith Dickens in the Chronny. Apparently we have loan commitments to fulfill - how they're not catered for in the original break even budget though is something that I haven't grasped.

 

[Mr Cynical]

I cannot believe that the likes of Thorpe & Connell were on much of a wage at Torquay & Hereford and imho only O'Connor, Heywood, Brooker & probably simon Brown are on anything over £1500K pw with many of the others being kids I suspect the avererage for the rest ranges from 300pw to maybe £1K but overall about £600pw, which works out about £500Kpa. The other 4 may be on around £375K in total leaving possibly (fag packet workings) £125K remaining.

What about Mackie? He's probably on a reasonable wage I'd have thought...

Personally, I can't see why we'd sign a RB ahead of a midfielder when that's plainly a massive problem at the moment...

 

[ginger]

I have it on good authority (via his agent) that Mackie is on £1k a week plus £200 appearance. i would guess that he is probably the highest of all our recent signings by some way

 

[WisBee]

.........now there's a good, discreet agent..............

 

[abee]

Not according to Keith Dickens in the Chronny. Apparently we have loan commitments to fulfill - how they're not catered for in the original break even budget though is something that I haven't grasped.

Yes I noted that comment. I am not aware of any BFC loan repayments for the financial year ending May 31 2008 and of course as you say Les that begs the question that why then were they not in the original budget. I believe that KD has probably been misquoted or our intrepid reporter did not follow up with a "Oh really......what are they then and why aren't they already in there".

I did not think that we had an "original break even budget" (as you suggest) for this season. Greg Dyke said that if we were to break-even that would mean "a playing budget of only £500k which would see us in the Conference" so by that we can reasonaly conclude that if the playing budget is around the much touted £1million mark then the board has set the budget for a loss of around £500k and that a loss of this size has been nodded through by the BU board. However we now have a newly co-opted, unelected BU board member who is a man after my own heart and is a scourge of the break-even budget so fingers crossed that he is getting stuck into this........or not of course.

 

[West Ealing Bee]

Yes I noted that comment. I am not aware of any BFC loan repayments for the financial year ending May 31 2008 and of course as you say Les that begs the question that why then were they not in the original budget. I believe that KD has probably been misquoted or our intrepid reporter did not follow up with a "Oh really......what are they then and why aren't they already in there".

I haven't read the story closely so might have the wrong end of the stick.

Is it posible Mr Dickens is referring to the part of the loan agreement you mentioned that any extra unbudgeted transfer income should go to repaying those who lent money so BU could exercise the option of the takeoever.

You have mentioned this has been ignored (apologies if this is a misquote or simplification) so far, perhaps this is now been remembered :shrug:

 

[abee]

I haven't read the story closely so might have the wrong end of the stick.

Is it posible Mr Dickens is referring to the part of the loan agreement you mentioned that any extra unbudgeted transfer income should go to repaying those who lent money so BU could exercise the option of the takeoever.

You have mentioned this has been ignored (apologies if this is a misquote or simplification) so far, perhaps this is now been remembered :shrug:

I don't think so Chris. Les mentioned the comment from Keith Dickens and I read the interview when I got my Chronny yesterday....it's not particularly important and in fact the bit about windfall (not in budget) income going towards loan repayments was not finally in the small print of the original documents anyway. I don't give a monkey's actually and was just referring to Les' assumption that the original budget was "break-even". I do not believe that it is and my guess and it's purely that is that if the budget is projected to show a loss of say £500k then that is predicated upon average gates of 4250 and a worst case scenario. I would expect the board to get substantially well from above average gates plus maybe some of this windfall sell-on transfer income. I've binned the paper now but KD also referred to the ceiling imposed on League Two clubs restricting the playing budget to 60% of income or summat like that. I'm not sure if that is just gate income or total income.

They seem to have learned the lesson at last that you always promise less than you believe you can deliver and deliver more than you promised in the first place. Heck I made a career out of that philosophy.

 

[West Ealing Bee]

I .............was just referring to Les' assumption that the original budget was "break-even". I do not believe that it is and my guess and it's purely that is that if the budget is projected to show a loss of say £500k then that is predicated upon average gates of 4250 and a worst case scenario. I would expect the board to get substantially well from above average gates plus maybe some of this windfall sell-on transfer income. I've binned the paper now but KD also referred to the ceiling imposed on League Two clubs restricting the playing budget to 60% of income or summat like that. I'm not sure if that is just gate income or total income.

A break-even budget would certainly be a break from tradition, despite BU saying, and I know you remember this clearly too, in December 05 that the club (and I paraphrase) had to live within its means.

The debate about budgeting for a loss in order to be competitive on the pitch and if we budget to break-even we will perform poorly is an arguement that has gone round and round but IIRC it is what BU promised 18+ months ago.

 

[abee]

A break-even budget would certainly be a break from tradition, despite BU saying, and I know you remember this clearly too, in December 05 that the club (and I paraphrase) had to live within its means.

The debate about budgeting for a loss in order to be competitive on the pitch and if we budget to break-even we will perform poorly is an arguement that has gone round and round but IIRC it is what BU promised 18+ months ago.

Chris, everyone remembers that.

It is not generally speaking the supporters who are demanding a break-even budget..........it is the way that we were all told that the club would be run under Bees United's ownership and management.

I clearly recall Brian Burgess stating in Stripes that "The days of making losses are over. We cannot and will not go on like this".

If the considered opinion is that this declared stance is not sustainable and would mean the club sliding into the Conference and presumably to oblivion then I well understand that; I just repeat what we all know......this is not what we were told and that in a nutshell capsulizes my previous beefs with Bees United.

I say "previous" 'cos I don't really bother myself with it anymore. I hope that the club has an enormously successful season both on and off the pitch.

 

[Streetboy]

Yes I noted that comment. I am not aware of any BFC loan repayments for the financial year ending May 31 2008 and of course as you say Les that begs the question that why then were they not in the original budget. I believe that KD has probably been misquoted or our intrepid reporter did not follow up with a "Oh really......what are they then and why aren't they already in there".

I did not think that we had an "original break even budget" (as you suggest) for this season. Greg Dyke said that if we were to break-even that would mean "a playing budget of only £500k which would see us in the Conference" so by that we can reasonaly conclude that if the playing budget is around the much touted £1million mark then the board has set the budget for a loss of around £500k and that a loss of this size has been nodded through by the BU board. However we now have a newly co-opted, unelected BU board member who is a man after my own heart and is a scourge of the break-even budget so fingers crossed that he is getting stuck into this........or not of course.

When asking KD whether or not any DJ/Sodje cash would go to Butcher or to loan repayments, I meant loans from creditors such as yourself/Bees United/others, who, as I understand it, had not set a deadline for repayment but would get paid back through extra windfall items. I was merely attempting to clear up some of the speculation on this subject from the past week or so.

 

[Luton Bee]

If the considered opinion is that this declared stance is not sustainable and would mean the club sliding into the Conference and presumably to oblivion then I well understand that; I just repeat what we all know......this is not what we were told and that in a nutshell capsulizes my previous beefs with Bees United.

Perhaps it's time for a new statement from BU stating which path it intends to follow. That way those of us who are wavering can decide whether we want to continue following the club or not

I say "previous" 'cos I don't really bother myself with it anymore. I hope that the club has an enormously successful season both on and off the pitch.

Hear hear

 

[Les Beeavinu]

Wouldn't surprise me if BU disagreed with the board approach.

 

[abee]

When asking KD whether or not any DJ/Sodje cash would go to Butcher or to loan repayments, I meant loans from creditors such as yourself/Bees United/others, who, as I understand it, had not set a deadline for repayment but would get paid back through extra windfall items. I was merely attempting to clear up some of the speculation on this subject from the past week or so.

Well Tim that shows how little you understand the finances. Just about every loan has a repayment deadline.

My guess is that the BFC board will just wing it as usual and that any windfall income will go towards reducing rolling losses until January when we will then throw more dosh at the playing squad on the basis :-

1) We are in the top three and need two more players to consolidate and clinch promotion

2) We are in a play-off position and need two more players to obtain automatic promotion

3) We are just outside the play-offs and need two more players to make a final spurt to secure a play-off position

4) We are 15th in the league and need two more players to ensure that we don't slide into the relegation battle

5) We are in the bottom four and need two more players to climb out and avoid the disater of relegation.

You read it here first.

 

[West Ealing Bee]

Wouldn't surprise me if BU disagreed with the board approach.

In that case I presume they will withdraw their representatives on the board who are not carrying out their wishes

 

[Streetboy]

Well Tim that shows how little you understand the finances. Just about every loan has a repayment deadline.)

Perhaps immediate repayment I should have said. I thought no more repayments were due until Jan 2009, but that repaying loans took priority when extra windfall items came in over the playing budget. This was how I understood it before, and after speaking to KD. If this is wrong, then I have indeed misunderstood and doth the cap accordingly.