sheehan gone

[Legend_in_blue]

I'm a little disappointed by this move.

Sheehan was the best player we had at delivering from a dead-ball situation. Fact.

Defensively, I would agree that he was shaky at times, and not quite up to it, but with a fresh start, new manager etc he could have turned it round and put in consistently good performances.

I would take Harte though now tbh. I seem to remember that he's pretty good from dead-ball situations too. And he has some experience without being too old for the task.

If he doesn't come in, I'll be annoyed. Sheehan out and Harte in would please me.

[Daggers]

Can anyone explain why Ian Harte offers anything more than Clemence did?

I must be the only one not to be getting all hyped up at the mention of his name - the only reason he'd be coming here is for the cash and I think I've seen enough players of that type recently. Keane released him, with the rest, because of their attitude. I've no worries about Harte being able to play in the Tird Division...but I worry about signing someone with big pockets and an attitude.

Maybe he'll be one to come and inject a bit of bollocks into the squad, maybe I'll be eating my words - but I just can't see it.

[Joe.]

Can anyone explain why Ian Harte offers anything more than Clemence did?

I must be the only one not to be getting all hyped up at the mention of his name - the only reason he'd be coming here is for the cash and I think I've seen enough players of that type recently. Keane released him, with the rest, because of their attitude. I've no worries about Harte being able to play in the Tird Division...but I worry about signing someone with big pockets and an attitude.

Maybe he'll be one to come and inject a bit of bollocks into the squad, maybe I'll be eating my words - but I just can't see it.

You're not alone. I'd much rather go for a more unproven lower league player such as the ones we've already signed. We should have learnt after last season's comedy act that "experience" doesn't always do it. And besides, what does Harte have to offer other than a left foot for set-pieces? Ring any bells anybody?

[Floating Fox]

What a Tw*t.

I hate people that lie. I hope he gets Aids.

[Daggers]

What a Tw*t.

I hate people thatwho lie. I hope he gets Aids.

Who lied?

[Floating Fox]

Who lied?

Sheehan told me to my face that he was staying and that leeds were a "bunch of cu*ts".

I HATE people that lie. What a cu*t. What a ****ing stupid beard he has as well.

[Daggers]

Sheehan told me to my face that he was staying and that leeds were a "bunch of cu*ts".

I HATE people that lie. What a cu*t. What a ****ing stupid beard he has as well.

[Sparky]

Dissapointed to lose the lad but we will get over it . I wanna see players here who wanna be here

[Thracian]

Dissapointed to lose the lad but we will get over it . I wanna see players here who wanna be here

Who says he didn't want to be here as such?

He gave the impression he wanted to be here until Holloway arrived. Not only did he become a regular in the first team but he was always down at the matches on reserve team nights, usually with Weso and Richard Stearman.

He also gave 100% every time he turned out for the reserves and it was clear he loved the crack of being among his pals.

The situation changed with Holloway as it did for other youngsters like Weso and King.

As Daggers suggested, Sheehan was almost certainly offered a token contract and Leeds showed exactly what they thought of him by offering a three-year deal.

I doubt anyone on this forum would have taken a one year option at Leicester when they'd treated you as a fall guy against a three-year deal at Leeds where the manager had sung your praises.

I'll be interested to note his progress but it's time to move on.

[dandannieldanok]

We're looking pretty thin in the left-back position now with just Mattock (likely to leave) and Beswick who isn't necessarily a natural left-back anyway. Although I've been saying we should avoid older players, I didn't see the harm in offering Clapham another year, granted he wasn't brilliant but he'd certainly be competent in this division.

[Father Ted]

We now know Leeds' weakness!

[Thracian]

We're looking pretty thin in the left-back position now with just Mattock (likely to leave) and Beswick who isn't necessarily a natural left-back anyway. Although I've been saying we should avoid older players, I didn't see the harm in offering Clapham another year, granted he wasn't brilliant but he'd certainly be competent in this division.

It's hard to be sure Beswick is genuine full-back material. He's mostly played as a wide attacking midfielder but one who could roam comfortably.

However when I saw him play left-back for the reserves behind Laczko he was fine - and still a far greater threat in attack than the Hungarian ever was.

In fact he still made goals just as he would had he played on the wing and later changed position and scored if I remember right.

Given the choice between Clapham or Beswick I'd have the youngster every time. Okay he might have to adjust to being a full-time attacking left-back but pre-season should sort that out and there's no question he's different League to Clapham in possession.

I don't mean he's a whiz-kid dribbler. Beswick is a first time passer, a person who sees runs and delivers the right ball without preamble. Sometimes you hardly see him but when you assess a goal that's just been scored he's nearly always found to have had a hand in some way.

While it is hard to remember Clapham making one incisive pass during his considerable number of appearances, Beswick rarely goes a game without having some positive impact with either a deft or defence-splitting pass, a well-flighted free-kick or a shot from any angle.

Beswick has been an out and out goalscoring winger but he's bulked up considerably these last 12 months or so and I don't think he'd have any great problem dealing with the physical aspect of defending now. Converted wingers can be a Godsend at full-back in modern football.

Yes, you might have Clapham as a mature understudy but why? Surely, if Mattock doesn't stay there are more positive alternatives out there. It's not what Clapham does that frustrates me, it's what he doesn't do. And if we want to go up we need positive, potentially creative players everywhere.

[Father Ted]

It's hard to be sure Beswick is genuine full-back material. He's mostly played as a wide attacking midfielder but one who could roam comfortably.

However when I saw him play left-back for the reserves behind Laczko he was fine - and still a far greater threat in attack than the Hungarian ever was.

In fact he still made goals just as he would had he played on the wing and later changed position and scored if I remember right.

Given the choice between Clapham or Beswick I'd have the youngster every time. Okay he might have to adjust to being a full-time attacking left-back but pre-season should sort that out and there's no question he's different League to Clapham in possession.

I don't mean he's a whiz-kid dribbler. Beswick is a first time passer, a person who sees runs and delivers the right ball without preamble. Sometimes you hardly see him but when you assess a goal that's just been scored he's nearly always found to have had a hand in some way.

While it is hard to remember Clapham making one incisive pass during his considerable number of appearances, Beswick rarely goes a game without having some positive impact with either a deft or defence-splitting pass, a well-flighted free-kick or a shot from any angle.

Beswick has been an out and out goalscoring winger but he's bulked up considerably these last 12 months or so and I don't think he'd have any great problem dealing with the physical aspect of defending now.

Yes, you might have Clapham as a mature understudy but why? Surely, if Mattock doesn't stay there are more positive alternatives out there. It's not what Clapham does that frustrates me, it's what he doesn't do. And if we want to go up we need positive, potentially creative players everywhere.

Exactly. We don't need Clapham but I'm not sure Beswick is the answer at left-back although Mattock definitely could be if we can hold onto him.

[Daggers]

We now know Leeds' weakness!

There's not many - a powerful team if Gary Mac can keep them focussed on the title again. Fingers crossed a bit of complacency will kick in though and leave us something to aim at otherwise I reckon they could tie up an automatic spot before we've started.

In short - I'd rather have their squad than ours.

[Thracian]

Exactly. We don't need Clapham but I'm not sure Beswick is the answer at left-back although Mattock definitely could be if we can hold onto him.

Mattock is still young for a move and there's no reason Beswick and Mattock couldn't develop together.

But Mattock, so far, has still not shown his real potential in the left-back berth and his positioning when dealing with diagonal crosses still concerns me. However, Mattock has plenty of time to learn and we all know that Clapham will always be what he is, steady but forgettable.

Comparing Beswick to Mattock you have to remember the two have played in the same successful Academy team and I think I'm right in saying Mattock was moved to full-back from wide left-midfield so that Beswick could be accommodated.

In all the games I watched both play I'd never say that Mattock was more influential than Beswick. They made a formidable partnership on the left not least because they could switch positions so easily. But, player ratings-wise, Beswick would probably have shaded it though memory fades as time passes.

What is certain is that, in all those games, Mattock would regularly be seen on the edge of the opposition box and even getting to the opposition goalline, happy that Beswick - who rarely finished an under 18 match without a goal or assist - would provide cover. Mattock rarely does that for the first team, mostly, I'm sure, because he can never rely on getting adequate cover.

[Ultra]

There's not many - a powerful team if Gary Mac can keep them focussed on the title again. Fingers crossed a bit of complacency will kick in though and leave us something to aim at otherwise I reckon they could tie up an automatic spot before we've started.

In short - I'd rather have their squad than ours.

They've probably picked the last piece in their title-winning jigsaw today.

The best we can hope for is second place.

If the signings settle well (famous last words!), it's not entirely beyond us.

[Nationwider]

It's pure poetry.

We bring a player through the ranks - a dead ball specialist, a left-footer even. He gets some first XI starts, shows some promise, gets some U21 recognition, a bit rough around the edges but worth a further look.

So we marginalise him and then he ends up with our no.1 rivals for 08/09.

Brilliant. Well done everybody.

I hope he goes on to bigger and better things than Leeds.

[Durnerz]

Thank god hes cleared off, another limited waster of a player with an ego the size of the midlands.

Have fun with the rest of the scum

[Raj]

I thought he was half decent.

We should have kept him.

Thats my input for today.

Savour it and devour with pleasure.

BYE BYE

[Manager]

It's pure poetry.

We bring a player through the ranks - a dead ball specialist, a left-footer even. He gets some first XI starts, shows some promise, gets some U21 recognition, a bit rough around the edges but worth a further look.

So we marginalise him and then he ends up with our no.1 rivals for 08/09.

Brilliant. Well done everybody.

I hope he goes on to bigger and better things than Leeds.

a bit rough around the edges but nothing that proper coaching could not sharpen . . .

. . . but Hollowhead would prefer the old boys that he thought would cover up his lack of coaching ability.

They didn't and we are about to lose a generation of developing players that the club had invested time and effort into.

That's his real crime - not relegation - now we start buying (cheaper) young ones to replace our young ones - good business but bad football.

Asset stripping is what is going on - but maybe Pearson can coach and we will get by despite these crazy decisions.

[Thracian]

a bit rough around the edges but nothing that proper coaching could not sharpen . . .

. . . but Hollowhead would prefer the old boys that he thought would cover up his lack of coaching ability.

They didn't and we are about to lose a generation of developing players that the club had invested time and effort into.

That's his real crime - not relegation - now we start buying (cheaper) young ones to replace our young ones - good business but bad football.

Asset stripping is what is going on - but maybe Pearson can coach and we will get by despite these crazy decisions.

I hope it doesn't pan out quite as badly as you suggest but there's much in what you say.

[l444ry]

Probably the best dead ball exponent in the division is allowed to leave with a whimper and some on here say good riddance, whilst lauding lower league players they have never even seen. Unbelievable.

[teblin]

Despite sheehans great delivery and set pieces, i have to say he's who i would play on when we play leeds, defensivly he is poor and lacks pace. He may well improve that side of him game, but anyone with pace will show him up.

[eaststandtom]

It's pure poetry.

We bring a player through the ranks - a dead ball specialist, a left-footer even. He gets some first XI starts, shows some promise, gets some U21 recognition, a bit rough around the edges but worth a further look.

So we marginalise him and then he ends up with our no.1 rivals for 08/09.

Brilliant. Well done everybody.

I hope he goes on to bigger and better things than Leeds.

agreed....apart from the last line!!!

for all that happened, he should have been playing for us last season

[Ric Flair]

Look, if he didn't want to stay, then what can we do? He hardly covered himself with gold when he was here anyway. I admit, he'll be decent in this league, but other than his quality set pieces he doesn't offer anything defensively that we couldn't get from someone else.

I just hope we get a player in who has Sheehan's set piece ability alongside the correct attributes they need to play in their position.