Eckersley

[Forza Fred]

The original deal with Eckersley was that his contract finished on 8th January, so unless it has been extended and I have missed it, then he will depart without having appeared for us.

While I have faith in Alan Stubbs, and consider Eckersley to have been a decent player, if he does leave in the next couple of days then surely it can only be classed as a strange signing from Hibs point of view.

We signed him reportedly on a 'short term deal' knowing he would be off in a few months, but fully knowledgeable that he was injured at the time.

He has appeared on the bench very occasionally, and I a unable to ascertain how any games he played in the development team.

A strange signing.

[Andy74]

The original deal with Eckersley was that his contract finished on 8th January, so unless it has been extended and I have missed it, then he will depart without having appeared for us.

While I have faith in Alan Stubbs, and consider Eckersley to have been a decent player, if he does leave in the next couple of days then surely it can only be classed as a strange signing from Hibs point of view.

We signed him reportedly on a 'short term deal' knowing he would be off in a few months, but fully knowledgeable that he was injured at the time.

He has appeared on the bench very occasionally, and I a unable to ascertain how any games he played in the development team.

A strange signing.

Maybe but I think it was just opportune and not a priority at the time. He was local and knew the league. I wouldn't be surprised if we kept him until the end of the season.

[Forza Fred]

Maybe but I think it was just opportune and not a priority at the time. He was local and knew the league. I wouldn't be surprised if we kept him until the end of the season.

Do we know how many times he appeared for the development team?

Can I find it anywhere?

[Jack]

Yes, very odd. One day we'll find out what was behind it.

[Gordy M]

I think he was signed as cover for left back. It was outwith the transfer window, he didnt have a club and agreed to go to the MLS in january i think? He prob didnt cost us very much, but as lewis has been playing well and not injured then eckersly hasnt played. I look on it as the same as signing a reserve goalie, there in case of emergency.

[JT Fae The Toon]

Yes, very odd. One day we'll find out what was behind it.

Championship winner in & around the dressing room?

[heretoday]

Eckersley - the wilderness years. Or should that be wilderness - the Eckersley years?

[Saturday Boy]

I think he was signed as cover for left back. It was outwith the transfer window, he didnt have a club and agreed to go to the MLS in january i think? He prob didnt cost us very much, but as lewis has been playing well and not injured then eckersly hasnt played. I look on it as the same as signing a reserve goalie, there in case of emergency.

I'm the same. I cant understand why so many posters don't understand the concept of cover. Maybe they are just too young and have never bought insurance :wink:.

I've had home contents insurance for 30 years and only made one claim: that Eckersly is just an amateur if he's only been here six months without an appearance. :wink:

[Forza Fred]

I'm the same. I cant understand why so many posters don't understand the concept of cover. Maybe they are just too young and have never bought insurance :wink:.

I've had home contents insurance for 30 years and only made one claim: that Eckersly is just an amateur if he's only been here six months without an appearance. :wink:

Maybe it IS as you say ny tender years that make me not understand the concept of cover, but the premium paid for an insurance policy, doesn't equate to 3 months wages.

Especially as when signed he could not kick a ball because he was injured.

If I take out a short term insurance policy, I want to know I am covered from day 1.

This clearly wasn't the case here.

[Brightside]

I assume people know how much he has earned in wages from Hibs in that time? I expect him to stay, and continue to provide cover for Lewis.

[Forza Fred]

I assume people know how much he has earned in wages from Hibs in that time? I expect him to stay, and continue to provide cover for Lewis.

Some no doubt will, I don't

I can't even find how many times he played for the development squad.

[Forza Fred]

I mistakenly said in my original post that Eckersley's original contract expired on January 8.

For the record, it actually expires on January 10.

[lord bunberry]

It's not that strange really, he was signed as cover for Stevenson and Stevenson hasn't missed a game, so he hasn't been needed.

[silverhibee]

It's not that strange really, he was signed as cover for Stevenson and Stevenson hasn't missed a game, so he hasn't been needed.

Just as well, Ecks has been injured most of the time he has been here, still a bit baffling that we signed a player who had only a few days before he was signed had just had surgery.

[ozhibs]

I mistakenly said in my original post that Eckersley's original contract expired on January 8.

For the record, it actually expires on January 10.

Speaking to my Jambo brother in law's brother he reckons if we DO get the chance to extend his contract we should, He said he would take him back min a "hert" beat as he is far better than the Nigerian they have at the moment.

[Forza Fred]

It's not that strange really, he was signed as cover for Stevenson and Stevenson hasn't missed a game, so he hasn't been needed.

He may have played more, but I can only find reference to a 53 minute 'return' in October in a development match against Rangers at Murray Park.

Even if he played the odd other youth game, then concerns about match fitness would not be unfounded.

I am also surprised that he hasn't even been named on the bench recently.

[Forza Fred]

Speaking to my Jambo brother in law's brother he reckons if we DO get the chance to extend his contract we should, He said he would take him back min a "hert" beat as he is far better than the Nigerian they have at the moment.

That's the feedback I'm getting from the only half sensible jambo I know.

Not questioning, Eckersley's ability, just the principle of signing players on short term deals when injured.

Not related in any way, but his release without having played for us, brought back memories of Dave Beaumont collecting a League Cup Winners medal without having played for us in the League Cup!

[ozhibs]

That's the feedback I'm getting from the only half sensible jambo I know.

Not questioning, Eckersley's ability, just the principle of signing players on short term deals when injured.

Not related in any way, but his release without having played for us, brought back memories of Dave Beaumont collecting a League Cup Winners medal without having played for us in the League Cup!

That's seem to be the way this season, I did think it strange when we signed him.

[SonOfDavidFrancey]

I mistakenly said in my original post that Eckersley's original contract expired on January 8.

For the record, it actually expires on January 10.

That changes everything. Petrie!

[Ronniekirk]

It's not that strange really, he was signed as cover for Stevenson and Stevenson hasn't missed a game, so he hasn't been needed.

But if he had been needed he wouldn't of been available most of the time as was out injured or recovering from injury .Am sure Silver a Posted that he hasn't been on the bench recently has picked up a knock in training .So if we do extend his contractt he Backroom staff need to be sure he is back fit and isn't going to continually on the treatment table

[MB62]

Is he definitely away?
The last I heard was the American league was only one possible option for him and that he was talking about staying on with us until the end of the season.

[Arch Stanton]

It's not clear what's been argued here - should we have opted not to have cover for Stevenson?

Or should we have paid the extra and brought in a fully fit player from day 1? Since it follows that less money would be available for other players wouldn't we be going down the Jim Duffy path of having plenty of cover but all second rate?

[Forza Fred]

It's not clear what's been argued here - should we have opted not to have cover for Stevenson?

Or should we have paid the extra and brought in a fully fit player from day 1? Since it follows that less money would be available for other players wouldn't we be going down the Jim Duffy path of having plenty of cover but all second rate?

I wasn't arguing anything other than to me at least, it is strange when a club sign a player on a very short term contract, when he is injured, and his contract expires without him having kicked a ball for the club.

I'm not sure many clubs in Scotland can afford such luxuries to be honest.

Also, I have searched but been unable to find any report of when he actually DID kick a ball for us, ....in a part appearance in a development squad game in October, so if he WAS signed as cover, he would be toiling when it came to match fitness.

Again I simply make the point that it has turned out to be strange signing.

[Dalianwanda]

It's not clear what's been argued here - should we have opted not to have cover for Stevenson?

Or should we have paid the extra and brought in a fully fit player from day 1? Since it follows that less money would be available for other players wouldn't we be going down the Jim Duffy path of having plenty of cover but all second rate?

Surely it only counts as cover if he was available...maybe we have this the wrong way round and Lewis is cover for Eckersley:greengrin

[Arch Stanton]

Surely it only counts as cover if he was available...maybe we have this the wrong way round and Lewis is cover for Eckersley:greengrin

The logic seems to be that if a player is not fit at the start of the season he won't be fit and available when required for cover.

Equally, if a player is fit at the start of the season he will be fit and available when required for cover.

Actually, neither of these is true.

[easty]

It's not clear what's been argued here - should we have opted not to have cover for Stevenson?

Or should we have paid the extra and brought in a fully fit player from day 1? Since it follows that less money would be available for other players wouldn't we be going down the Jim Duffy path of having plenty of cover but all second rate?

Are you saying the options available to us were,

get no cover for Lewis Stevenson

get an injured Eckersley as cover

pay the extra to bring in a fully fit player as cover


Because I would have preferred the obvious other option of, bring someone in as cover, who could play if we needed him, who would be paid the wages Eckersley has been paid.

[easty]

It's not that strange really, he was signed as cover for Stevenson and Stevenson hasn't missed a game, so he hasn't been needed.

But he was injured when he signed, so wasn't really cover for anyone. He's also been injured the majority of his short contract.

[Mcpakeisgod]

Talk about a rehash; like Groundhog Day this thread

[Brightside]

I wasn't arguing anything other than to me at least, it is strange when a club sign a player on a very short term contract, when he is injured, and his contract expires without him having kicked a ball for the club.

I'm not sure many clubs in Scotland can afford such luxuries to be honest.

Also, I have searched but been unable to find any report of when he actually DID kick a ball for us, ....in a part appearance in a development squad game in October, so if he WAS signed as cover, he would be toiling when it came to match fitness.

Again I simply make the point that it has turned out to be strange signing.

Afford? Again - how much has he been paid per his short term contract.

[Brightside]

Are you saying the options available to us were,

get no cover for Lewis Stevenson

get an injured Eckersley as cover

pay the extra to bring in a fully fit player as cover


Because I would have preferred the obvious other option of, bring someone in as cover, who could play if we needed him, who would be paid the wages Eckersley has been paid.

What wages has he been paid? We really are arguing over nothing here - its cost Hibs almost nothing. He potentially will stay longer and is thought to be a good player in the dressing room.

[jacomo]

I mistakenly said in my original post that Eckersley's original contract expired on January 8.

For the record, it actually expires on January 10.

Shocking. 2 more days' worth of wages wasted. I demand an inquiry.

[scoopyboy]

What wages has he been paid? We really are arguing over nothing here - its cost Hibs almost nothing. He potentially will stay longer and is thought to be a good player in the dressing room.

I usually agree with your posts underscore but I certainly am not on the same wavelength as you on this one.

He is thought to be a good player in the dressing room you say, well we don't play in the dressing room for a start.

If you mean he is a good influence in the dressing room then I would argue good influences don't need to be signed as players.

Virtually everybody on this thread states that he was signed as cover for Lewis Stevenson, for me though he hasn't been able to cover for Lewis cos he's never been fit enough.

We are fortunate in that Lewis has been playing well and has remained injury and suspension free, if that wasn't the case then the cover signed wouldn't have been able to cover.

[Brightside]

I usually agree with your posts underscore but I certainly am not on the same wavelength as you on this one.

He is thought to be a good player in the dressing room you say, well we don't play in the dressing room for a start.

If you mean he is a good influence in the dressing room then I would argue good influences don't need to be signed as players.

Virtually everybody on this thread states that he was signed as cover for Lewis Stevenson, for me though he hasn't been able to cover for Lewis cos he's never been fit enough.

We are fortunate in that Lewis has been playing well and has remained injury and suspension free, if that wasn't the case then the cover signed wouldn't have been able to cover.

I don't disagree that he wouldn't have been able to provide cover for Lewis. I suspect he wasn't expected to be out for quite as long as he was. But from what ive heard he has been getting almost nothing in wages from Hibs. Assuming he is now close to full fitness I would extend him. (Unless Stubbs is happy with the new lad providing cover there also - but im worried that we may have to use him a lot for Gray. I don't think Gray will last the season)

[Arch Stanton]

Are you saying the options available to us were,

get no cover for Lewis Stevenson

get an injured Eckersley as cover

pay the extra to bring in a fully fit player as cover


Because I would have preferred the obvious other option of, bring someone in as cover, who could play if we needed him, who would be paid the wages Eckersley has been paid.

Indeed, there must be plenty gadges down the labour exchange happy to play for a lot less than that even!

Put you in charge. :greengrin

[Arch Stanton]

I usually agree with your posts underscore but I certainly am not on the same wavelength as you on this one.

He is thought to be a good player in the dressing room you say, well we don't play in the dressing room for a start.

If you mean he is a good influence in the dressing room then I would argue good influences don't need to be signed as players.

Virtually everybody on this thread states that he was signed as cover for Lewis Stevenson, for me though he hasn't been able to cover for Lewis cos he's never been fit enough.

We are fortunate in that Lewis has been playing well and has remained injury and suspension free, if that wasn't the case then the cover signed wouldn't have been able to cover.

Wow, you really think that AS is such an ignoramus that he signed Eckersley knowing he would never be fit to play for us - have a word. Surely the recovery has taken a lot longer than expected - wouldn't you think?

I can just imagine the furore on here if Stevenson had a career ending injury a few weeks into the season and we had to play half the season with absolutely no cover.

[Andy74]

I usually agree with your posts underscore but I certainly am not on the same wavelength as you on this one.

He is thought to be a good player in the dressing room you say, well we don't play in the dressing room for a start.

If you mean he is a good influence in the dressing room then I would argue good influences don't need to be signed as players.

Virtually everybody on this thread states that he was signed as cover for Lewis Stevenson, for me though he hasn't been able to cover for Lewis cos he's never been fit enough.

We are fortunate in that Lewis has been playing well and has remained injury and suspension free, if that wasn't the case then the cover signed wouldn't have been able to cover.

Yeah but if you wind it back Stubbs was happy enough that we didn't have a huge need to have cover for Stevenson in.

When the window shut I believe he was happy to go as we were but Eckersley happened to be available, he was local, he knew ther league and he seems to have a good winning character.

With his injury i think it was just a case of getting him in and if he got fit he would provide good cover, if not then fine, we were happy as we were when the window closed anyway.

Back then we wouldn't have known he might pick up another injury, that can happen with anyone - i'm not so sure what people are finding strange about this one at all. I don't know what he is being paid but it all points to being something we were happy to go with on the off chance we were able to use him.

[J-C]

Wow, you really think that AS is such an ignoramus that he signed Eckersley knowing he would never be fit to play for us - have a word. Surely the recovery has taken a lot longer than expected - wouldn't you think?

I can just imagine the furore on here if Stevenson had a career ending injury a few weeks into the season and we had to play half the season with absolutely no cover.


I don't see where Scoops said AS was an ignoramus, bit on the strong side eh?

He clearly pointed out that if he's signed for cover, then he hasn't really provided that as he's not been fit enough to do so for the majority of the time here.

I'd like to know what the deal was he signed, was it a weekly wage or a pay as you play. If it was weekly then it's been a wasted wage but if pay as you play, then it's cost us nothing. I could see the later being the case as he was looking to stay fit till January when he would be off to the States anyway.

[scoopyboy]

Wow, you really think that AS is such an ignoramus that he signed Eckersley knowing he would never be fit to play for us - have a word. Surely the recovery has taken a lot longer than expected - wouldn't you think?

I can just imagine the furore on here if Stevenson had a career ending injury a few weeks into the season and we had to play half the season with absolutely no cover.

Where did I say that AS was an ignoramus, so really it is you that should have a word.

Your last point makes no sense whatsoever, if Lewis had suffered a career ending injury then we wouldn't have been able to play Eckersley so effectively we had no cover.

[Arch Stanton]

I don't see where Scoops said AS was an ignoramus, bit on the strong side eh?

He clearly pointed out that if he's signed for cover, then he hasn't really provided that as he's not been fit enough to do so for the majority of the time here.

I'd like to know what the deal was he signed, was it a weekly wage or a pay as you play. If it was weekly then it's been a wasted wage but if pay as you play, then it's cost us nothing. I could see the later being the case as he was looking to stay fit till January when he would be off to the States anyway.

No, he didn't say AS was an ignoramus but that accusation does make him seem pretty dumb - no?

Personally I find this nitpicking of AS squad building a bit strong. Are we really so desperate to find negative things to comment on?

[Andy74]

Where did I say that AS was an ignoramus, so really it is you that should have a word.

Your last point makes no sense whatsoever, if Lewis had suffered a career ending injury then we wouldn't have been able to play Eckersley so effectively we had no cover.

I think the point is we knew that would be the case for a period but maybe didn't know at the time that he would pick up another injury.

As Stubbs was happy when the window closed I'm sure he was comfortable that having the cover at some stage would be a bonus.

I doubt anyone would be daft enough to have this limited cover available at great cost to us.

[scoopyboy]

Yeah but if you wind it back Stubbs was happy enough that we didn't have a huge need to have cover for Stevenson in.

When the window shut I believe he was happy to go as we were but Eckersley happened to be available, he was local, he knew ther league and he seems to have a good winning character.

With his injury i think it was just a case of getting him in and if he got fit he would provide good cover, if not then fine, we were happy as we were when the window closed anyway.

Back then we wouldn't have known he might pick up another injury, that can happen with anyone - i'm not so sure what people are finding strange about this one at all. I don't know what he is being paid but it all points to being something we were happy to go with on the off chance we were able to use him.

I understand what you are saying Andy in your first three paragraphs and am happy enough with that, regarding the last one however are you sure that he picked up another injury? I thought it was just that he had never fully recovered from the op.

I do appreciate that AS can't predict how long a player will be unavailable for selection but I can't help think that Adam Eckersley has not been the asset we had hoped for.

[Arch Stanton]

Where did I say that AS was an ignoramus, so really it is you that should have a word.

Your last point makes no sense whatsoever, if Lewis had suffered a career ending injury then we wouldn't have been able to play Eckersley so effectively we had no cover.

I tell you what - YOU tell ME why AS signed a player as useful to us as a dead chicken.

Just give us your best guess will do.

[scoopyboy]

No, he didn't say AS was an ignoramus but that accusation does make him seem pretty dumb - no?

Personally I find this nitpicking of AS squad building a bit strong. Are we really so desperate to find negative things to comment on?

I think AS has built a very good squad and his signings of John McGinn and Dylan McGeouch on long term contracts are excellent pieces of business.

However I don't think Adam Eckersley has been a good loan signing, I don't think for a minute it has cost us a fortune financially and it's best just put aside as a small flutter that didn't come in.

[GreenPJ]

I understand what you are saying Andy in your first three paragraphs and am happy enough with that, regarding the last one however are you sure that he picked up another injury? I thought it was just that he had never fully recovered from the op.

I do appreciate that AS can't predict how long a player will be unavailable for selection but I can't help think that Adam Eckersley has not been the asset we had hoped for.

Clearly he hasn't as he took longer to get fit than anyone wanted but that's hindsight - if he had been fit would he have featured (probably not). The question is more about now that he is fit and is an asset (albeit as cover) do we still think we need him or with Crane now being fit again and the Scandinavian boy now in is he surplus to requirements.

[BoomtownHibees]

What wages has he been paid?

You have asked that about 3 or 4 times now on this thread. Why don't you tell us since you seem to know?

[scoopyboy]

I tell you what - YOU tell ME why AS signed a player as useful to us as a dead chicken.

Just give us your best guess will do.

Dinnae get smart with me dafty.

You would have to ask Alan Stubbs that one.

My best guess would be thought that the player would be available for a large part of his contract, which he hasn't.

[BoomtownHibees]

Dinnae get smart with me dafty.

You would have to ask Alan Stubbs that one.

My best guess would be thought that the player would be available for a large part of his contract, which he hasn't.

Surely Stubbs knew he was going to get another injury throughout his short term with us??

[Brightside]

You have asked that about 3 or 4 times now on this thread. Why don't you tell us since you seem to know?

He had expenses. Treatment costs. That's it. He's not on a weekly wage.

[Brightside]

I tell you what - YOU tell ME why AS signed a player as useful to us as a dead chicken.

Just give us your best guess will do.

You need to change the S to a T on your "handle"

[BoomtownHibees]

He had expenses. Treatment costs. That's it. He's not on a weekly wage.

So a decent wee deal for us having him as cover? Just unfortunate he's picked up another injury while with us

[scoopyboy]

Surely Stubbs knew he was going to get another injury throughout his short term with us??

Has he had another injury?

AFAIK it is the recuperation period has taken longer than anticipated.

[BoomtownHibees]

Has he had another injury?

AFAIK it is the recuperation period has taken longer than anticipated.

He was on the bench for a game or 2 and then has disappeared again. I assumed that was down to another injury

[Brightside]

So a decent wee deal for us having him as cover? Just unfortunate he's picked up another injury while with us

I think as we've covered off he actually hasn't provided any cover as he has taken longer to get over the op he had. BUT I still think he could be a decent option for us this season IF he gets properly fit.

[BoomtownHibees]

I think as we've covered off he actually hasn't provided any cover as he has taken longer to get over the op he had. BUT I still think he could be a decent option for us this season IF he gets properly fit.

He has been on the bench though so must have been fit enough at some point

[Arch Stanton]

Dinnae get smart with me dafty.

You would have to ask Alan Stubbs that one.

My best guess would be thought that the player would be available for a large part of his contract, which he hasn't.

I am hardly going to ask AS what your assumptions are - I'm not that daft!

I can see we agree that AS signed a player who should by rights have been available for cover for most the first half of the season. I don't think it was a bad move but you and others seem to think it was and I have yet to see a good reason why.

[easty]

Indeed, there must be plenty gadges down the labour exchange happy to play for a lot less than that even!

Put you in charge. :greengrin

Is that where we got Eckersley?

[scoopyboy]

He was on the bench for a game or 2 and then has disappeared again. I assumed that was down to another injury

I'm not so sure it was another injury, I think it was a setback with the same injury.

Being on the bench doesn't necessarily mean fully fit, just ask poor Farid.

[scoopyboy]

I am hardly going to ask AS what your assumptions are - I'm not that daft!

I can see we agree that AS signed a player who should by rights have been available for cover for most the first half of the season. I don't think it was a bad move but you and others seem to think it was and I have yet to see a good reason why.

I think Eckersley as a player is fine, that is not what I am getting at.

The fact he hasn't kicked a ball for us is the reason why, not because he isn't good enough but because he hasn't been available.

[J-C]

He had expenses. Treatment costs. That's it. He's not on a weekly wage.


Thanks for clearing that up, I asked the question in my post above and you're the only one to answer.

If it was purely expenses and some treatment, then no big deal.

As for injuries, as far as can see it was the original operation he had which has taken a lot longer to get over, he has played in a few development games but that's it as far as I can see.

[easty]

I think Eckersley as a player is fine, that is not what I am getting at.

The fact he hasn't kicked a ball for us is the reason why, not because he isn't good enough but because he hasn't been available.

The point you're making makes absolute sense Scoop.

Has he been a good signing? No, based on the fact that he was brought in as cover, and hasn't been available as cover if he were needed. Does that mean Stubbs transfer/signing policy is altogether bad? No, not at all, just this one signing has been proven to be unsuccessful. That's basically how I see it.

[Andy74]

I think Eckersley as a player is fine, that is not what I am getting at.

The fact he hasn't kicked a ball for us is the reason why, not because he isn't good enough but because he hasn't been available.

That can't have been known at the time though.

If the conversation is about whether it has been a great deal and we have had value from it then I doubt many people would argue that it hasn't worked out so far.

That doesn't appear to be the extent of the discussion though, some are arguing that from the outset this was a strange deal and shouldn't have been done at the time. I think that one isn't quite as clear with what was known at the time.

[J-C]

The point you're making makes absolute sense Scoop.

Has he been a good signing? No, based on the fact that he was brought in as cover, and hasn't been available as cover if he were needed. Does that mean Stubbs transfer/signing policy is altogether bad? No, not at all, just this one signing has been proven to be unsuccessful. That's basically how I see it.



Is that not exactly what Scoops said, not a bad signing but one that's not worked out due to not being fit.

[easty]

He had expenses. Treatment costs. That's it. He's not on a weekly wage.

Do you know this as a fact, or is it a hibs.net "fact"?

Obviously if he's getting zero wages, then there's little to complain about.

[easty]

Is that not exactly what Scoops said, not a bad signing but one that's not worked out due to not being fit.

Yeah, I was agreeing with him.

[J-C]

Yeah, I was agreeing with him.

My fault for having old man eyes hahaha, I read it as " making no sense " I added a NO in there for some reason, sorry.:greengrin

[scoopyboy]

That can't have been known at the time though.

If the conversation is about whether it has been a great deal and we have had value from it then I doubt many people would argue that it hasn't worked out so far.

That doesn't appear to be the extent of the discussion though, some are arguing that from the outset this was a strange deal and shouldn't have been done at the time. I think that one isn't quite as clear with what was known at the time.

Can't (and won't) argue with any of that Andy.

Nobody in their right mind would accuse Alan Stubbs of signing a player who wasn't going to be able to play during the entire length of his contract. He may get an extension to his contract and I am not really fussed if he does or not.

If his contract isn't renewed or extended then for me it was a small gamble that didn't work out.

If it is extended and he helps us to promotion and cup runs then his second contract will outweigh any loss incurred during his first.

[Frogga]

Maybe he was on a low pay deal or pay as you play? I mean he probably wouldn't have been looking for megabucks if he could avoid moving house again and then get his dream move to the States in 6 months time. Generally the deal seemed to suit both him and us well.

[Brightside]

Do you know this as a fact, or is it a hibs.net "fact"?

Obviously if he's getting zero wages, then there's little to complain about.

Based on a conversation with staff. I've not seen his pay slip or his contract.

[Arch Stanton]

Is that not exactly what Scoops said, not a bad signing but one that's not worked out due to not being fit.

The OP said it was a 'strange signing' based on the fact he hasn't been fit to play for us and a few others echoed that view, including, apparently, scoopyboy -




Virtually everybody on this thread states that he was signed as cover for Lewis Stevenson, for me though he hasn't been able to cover for Lewis cos he's never been fit enough.

We are fortunate in that Lewis has been playing well and has remained injury and suspension free, if that wasn't the case then the cover signed wouldn't have been able to cover.

We seem to now agree however that it wasn't a strange signing at all which is fair enough by me.

[scoopyboy]

The OP said it was a 'strange signing' based on the fact he hasn't been fit to play for us and a few others echoed that view, including, apparently, scoopyboy -



We seem to now agree however that it wasn't a strange signing at all which is fair enough by me.

I never once said it was a strange signing, it was the fact that people were claiming that it didn't really matter as he was only signed as cover and my point is / was that he wasn't able to cover cos he wasn't fit enough to.

No conspiracy theory or anything else untoward.

[HappyHanlon]

He can GTF. Made it clear he was using us to get a move to America - hope it all falls through and he's left on the scrapheap.

As for cover - Niklas Gunnarsson can play there if Lewy is unavailable.

[Andy74]

I never once said it was a strange signing, it was the fact that people were claiming that it didn't really matter as he was only signed as cover and my point is / was that he wasn't able to cover cos he wasn't fit enough to.

No conspiracy theory or anything else untoward.

You didn't but the thread was started with post saying this was a strange signing, which is what we are all now discussing.

[scoopyboy]

You didn't but the thread was started with post saying this was a strange signing, which is what we are all now discussing.

Correct, I was merely pointing out to the poster who stated that I agreed that it was a strange signing that I said no such thing.

[J-C]

He can GTF. Made it clear he was using us to get a move to America - hope it all falls through and he's left on the scrapheap.

As for cover - Niklas Gunnarsson can play there if Lewy is unavailable.


He wasn't using us to get a move to the States, that move was already on but he couldn't go till their season starts, Hibs offered him a deal as cover to keep him fit and hopefully be available to play as cover when needed, it's the latter part people are talking about.

[Arch Stanton]

I never once said it was a strange signing, it was the fact that people were claiming that it didn't really matter as he was only signed as cover and my point is / was that he wasn't able to cover cos he wasn't fit enough to.

No conspiracy theory or anything else untoward.

Backtracking isn't obviously your best subject. :agree:

You say that it does matter we signed an unfit player but you have also said that it was reasonable for AS to assume he would become fit.

You are rather on both sides of the fence aren't you? Good signing but thereagain not good because he wasn't fit. Which is it?

[J-C]

Backtracking isn't obviously your best subject. :agree:

You say that it does matter we signed an unfit player but you have also said that it was reasonable for AS to assume he would become fit.

You are rather on both sides of the fence aren't you? Good signing but thereagain not good because he wasn't fit. Which is it?


Surely this is Scoops main point, he was a good signing but because he hasn't been fit to act as cover, ultimately he's turned out not to be a good signing.

At the time he signed we all thought, good decent cover for Lewis until Crane gets back to full fitness in the new year but his recovery from his operation has been diabolically slow and he's never been fit enough to actually come in as cover.

What more can Scoops or anyone else add, he's not back tracking just pointing out the facts, looks more like your just looking for an argument out of nothing.

[scoopyboy]

Backtracking isn't obviously your best subject. :agree:

You say that it does matter we signed an unfit player but you have also said that it was reasonable for AS to assume he would become fit.

You are rather on both sides of the fence aren't you? Good signing but thereagain not good because he wasn't fit. Which is it?

You losing your marbles?

I said I thought Eckersley was / is a decent enough player who if fit would have been an adequate signing for the duration of his deal.

He hasn't been fit though so in my opinion he has served no purpose as a first team player or a player signed as cover.

Logic being if he cannot pull a Hibs jersey on and do us a turn on the pitch during the entire length of his contract then he cannot be regarded as a good signing.

No backtracking from me at all.

You could sign the best player in the world but if he doesn't kick a ball for you does that make him a good signing?

[GreenPJ]

You losing your marbles?

I said I thought Eckersley was / is a decent enough player who if fit would have been an adequate signing for the duration of his deal.

He hasn't been fit though so in my opinion he has served no purpose as a first team player or a player signed as cover.

Logic being if he cannot pull a Hibs jersey on and do us a turn on the pitch during the entire length of his contract then he cannot be regarded as a good signing.

No backtracking from me at all.

You could sign the best player in the world but if he doesn't kick a ball for you does that make him a good signing?

Aye but nobody signs anyone in the assumption that they wouldn't be fit enough (ever) to kick a ball for them. Its just bad luck but that doesn't make the initial decision to sign him bad particularly as the costs were mitigated with very little/no wage.

[Arch Stanton]

Surely this is Scoops main point, he was a good signing but because he hasn't been fit to act as cover, ultimately he's turned out not to be a good signing.

At the time he signed we all thought, good decent cover for Lewis until Crane gets back to full fitness in the new year but his recovery from his operation has been diabolically slow and he's never been fit enough to actually come in as cover.

What more can Scoops or anyone else add, he's not back tracking just pointing out the facts, looks more like your just looking for an argument out of nothing.

My point is that scoops has not said he was a good signing - the point he keeps utterring over and over is that he couldn't be called 'cover' since he wasn't fit!

The reason I'm arguing is because it was a perfectly decent signing and all this negative witterring about him not being available is a pain in the b*m.

[scoopyboy]

My point is that scoops has not said he was a good signing - the point he keeps utterring over and over is that he couldn't be called 'cover' since he wasn't fit!

The reason I'm arguing is because it was a perfectly decent signing and all this negative witterring about him not being available is a pain in the b*m.

But that is the whole point, he hasn't been available so how the hell can he be classed as a good Hibs signing, people are judged as Hibs players by what they do on the park for Hibs.

I think he is a good enough player but the fact he hasn't played he can't possibly be looked upon as a good signing.

[Arch Stanton]

You losing your marbles?

I said I thought Eckersley was / is a decent enough player who if fit would have been an adequate signing for the duration of his deal.

He hasn't been fit though so in my opinion he has served no purpose as a first team player or a player signed as cover.

Logic being if he cannot pull a Hibs jersey on and do us a turn on the pitch during the entire length of his contract then he cannot be regarded as a good signing.

No backtracking from me at all.

You could sign the best player in the world but if he doesn't kick a ball for you does that make him a good signing?

That's your second personal insult so I think I'll just leave this thread.

I can only guess you have some bee in your bonnet about unfit players not counting as players which totally bemuses me since all players go through cycles of being fit, unfit and fit again.

It is not even clear what you think AS should have done. Did he have better options that he didn't take? What exactly?

[J-C]

My point is that scoops has not said he was a good signing - the point he keeps utterring over and over is that he couldn't be called 'cover' since he wasn't fit!

The reason I'm arguing is because it was a perfectly decent signing and all this negative witterring about him not being available is a pain in the b*m.


You cannot highlight part of a sentence for your own agenda and miss the rest of it which makes my point, did you get out of the wrong side of bed today as you have a right bee in yer bonnet the day, maybe time to go and have a cup of tea and chill for a bit.

[J-C]

That's your second personal insult so I think I'll just leave this thread.

I can only guess you have some bee in your bonnet about unfit players not counting as players which totally bemuses me since all players go through cycles of being fit, unfit and fit again.

It is not even clear what you think AS should have done. Did he have better options that he didn't take? What exactly?



Hahahahahaha and you don't even see the irony here. :aok:

[Bracksy]

Enjoyed Eckersley playing at Easter Road, last time he did, Boyle tore him a new one and I must say it was most pleasing and very entertaining

[scoopyboy]

That's your second personal insult so I think I'll just leave this thread.

I can only guess you have some bee in your bonnet about unfit players not counting as players which totally bemuses me since all players go through cycles of being fit, unfit and fit again.

It is not even clear what you think AS should have done. Did he have better options that he didn't take? What exactly?

Good.

[silverhibee]

Has he had another injury?

AFAIK it is the recuperation period has taken longer than anticipated.

He trained for a couple of days then pulled up with another injury was what i heard. :aok:

[silverhibee]

I am hardly going to ask AS what your assumptions are - I'm not that daft!

I can see we agree that AS signed a player who should by rights have been available for cover for most the first half of the season. I don't think it was a bad move but you and others seem to think it was and I have yet to see a good reason why.

He wasn't injured when we signed him, he had just had surgery a few days before we signed him.

There must have been another defender out there that we could have brought in who was close to be being fit.

[bawheid]

Have you lot seriously spent all day discussing this pish? I'm yet to work out what you're all arguing about!

[FitbaFolkKen]

I don't think Stubbs should be questioned on this. If anyone it should be the medical team that assess the players prior to signing?

We employ professionals and he will have taken on board their expert opinion.

I'm not trying to start a witch-hunt on the physios and club doctors! Simply unlucky in that he hasnt been available but lucky that we haven't needed him.

[Andy74]

He wasn't injured when we signed him, he had just had surgery a few days before we signed him.

There must have been another defender out there that we could have brought in who was close to be being fit.

Stubbs had previously said he wasn't too bothered about the cover so looking for another defender wasn't really the point.

I think it brings us back to the assertion that this was just opportune, cheap enough and fitted in with working for everyone. Yeah I'm sure we would have hoped he had been fit more quickly but that won't have been known at the time.

[Lago]

Have you lot seriously spent all day discussing this pish? I'm yet to work out what you're all arguing about!
I am with you, just a load of assumtions that are pointless.

[BOB MARLEYS DUG]

He's away and wont be getting an extension. Going to Canada.

[Ronniekirk]

He's away and wont be getting an extension. Going to Canada.

But is he fit


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Thecat23]

Never recovered from his original injury simple as that. Stubbs clearly thought he'd be good cover (if fit) but sadly for him he had a few setbacks.

Good luck to him wherever he goes.

[Brightside]

But is he fit


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Nope! So maybe he is joining the Mounties?

[Lago]

He came and then he left. Bizarre.

[Andy74]

Who was the last player signed for the first team that didn't play a single minute?

[Sergey]

Who was the last player signed for the first team that didn't play a single minute?

Cherny is one that springs to mind.

[greenlex]

But if he had been needed he wouldn't of been available most of the time as was out injured or recovering from injury .Am sure Silver a Posted that he hasn't been on the bench recently has picked up a knock in training .So if we do extend his contractt he Backroom staff need to be sure he is back fit and isn't going to continually on the treatment table
He's been on he bench a bit.

[scoopyboy]

Who was the last player signed for the first team that didn't play a single minute?

Damn good question that.

Tomas Cerny as already identified by Sergey and Reguero is in with a chance.

Both goalies so maybe not too surprising but I can't think of an outfield player.

[Forza Fred]

I can't recall another first team squad outfield player leaving the club without having played a single minute.

This may become a pub quiz question to rival Dave Beaumont's achievement.

[Gmack7]

Who was the last player signed for the first team that didn't play a single minute?

Tim clancy (nearly)

[.Sean.]

Good riddance to the wage theif Hearts ****

[Bostonhibby]

Good riddance to the wage theif Hearts ****

We offered him a deal, nae evidence he came to us and said let me steal some wages from you. Boy might have been a player, Thief? I doubt it, we don't know but we took the gamble.

[majorhibs]

I can't recall another first team squad outfield player leaving the club without having played a single minute.

This may become a pub quiz question to rival Dave Beaumont's achievement.

There is lots to refer to in a huge & varied history, but that idiot & that achievement plays into idiots from the wrong side of Edinburgh with incorrect numbers of fingers & toes being pleasured by an imbecile playing for Hibernian who did not & indeed was incapable of carrying out his job. Wage theif. Who then became a polisman cos he knew he was not up to his job. Enough said, confined to nowhere.

[truehibernian]

Tim clancy (nearly)

Spent more minutes on Twitter talking about Celtic than on a pitch in a Hibs jersey - only thing I ever gave him kudos for was whilst taking a shy at Tynecastle annoying them by telling them they smell ! His ONLY Hibs high !

[Bostonhibby]

There is lots to refer to in a huge & varied history, but that idiot & that achievement plays into idiots from the wrong side of Edinburgh with incorrect numbers of fingers & toes being pleasured by an imbecile playing for Hibernian who did not & indeed was incapable of carrying out his job. Wage theif. Who then became a polisman cos he knew he was not up to his job. Enough said, confined to nowhere.

Dave Beaumont?

I'm going to be a bit controversial here and say that I can see why the Hibs team I followed in 86/87 might have seen a member of Dundee Utds very successful squad at that time who had actually played in the run up to a major European final and the final itself might have been a reasonable addition to our squad at the time? Its always a gamble.


Sorry about the spelling:thumbsup:

[Wee Scottie Dug]

He's been on he bench a bit.

100% win record as a sub ..... 3/3 ........ :greengrin

[Eyrie]

I'm going to be a bit controversial here and say that I can see why the Hibs team I followed in 86/87 might have seen a member of Dundee Utds very successful squad at that time who had actually played in the run up to a major European final and the final itself might have been a reasonable addition to our squad at the time? Its always a gamble.


Sorry about the spelling:thumbsup:

We didn't sign Beaumont until 1991 though.

[Bostonhibby]

We didn't sign Beaumont until 1991 though.

Indeed - just wondered how he popped up on this thread in the tone I was responding to - never worked out but over the period he was hardly the worst signing we've made, or the worst pedigree..............

[truehibernian]

We didn't sign Beaumont until 1991 though.

Definitely not the worst player I've seen in a Hibs jersey - Beaumont has evolved into a wee bit of a myth (as a poor player).....he wasn't ever a player who would set heather on fire but wasn't the worst. Decent lad too.

You compare what Ed de Graaf was paid and how he 'performed' against Dave - Matt Thornhill anyone ? Joe Keenan ? Hurtado ? Boeteng ?

[Brooster]

Eckersley was a strange signing at the time and remains so. A waste of time and money.

[truehibernian]

Eckersley was a strange signing at the time and remains so. A waste of time and money.

I hoped Hibs had gone for Graham Carey brooster but he went down south and by all accounts is doing really well at Plymouth.....always thought he'd compliment the defence like Gray - wicked delivery too, which often lets Lewis down.

[Brooster]

I hoped Hibs had gone for Graham Carey brooster but he went down south and by all accounts is doing really well at Plymouth.....always thought he'd compliment the defence like Gray - wicked delivery too, which often lets Lewis down.

I agree. Would love to see a LB equally as good as Gray

[Forza Fred]

Indeed - just wondered how he popped up on this thread in the tone I was responding to - never worked out but over the period he was hardly the worst signing we've made, or the worst pedigree..............

Didn't mean to start a debate on Beaumont's footballing ability or otherwise, but mentioned him for being someone who climbed the steps at Hampden to receive a League Cup winners medal, without actually have played in any game leading up to, or in the final.

In Aus we'd call it "doing a Bradbury".........a term used basically to explain someone winning by simply managing not to fall over and win.......after an Oz skater who won an Olympic gold medal after the rest of the field did exactly that.

[NRW_Hibbie]

Opinions... I wish we had a right back as good as Stevenson. I've nothing against Gray but don't think he's been that great for a while now.

[truehibernian]

Opinions... I wish we had a right back as good as Stevenson. I've nothing against Gray but don't think he's been that great for a while now.

I've always lauded Lewis, huge fan and always will be - his effort, professionalism, humility alone - he's also seen some horrendous managing and seen terrible squads - yet good coaches kept him, played him and he's still here under a very good coach.

I do though think he needs good competition and sometimes a rest - I was a huge critic of Hanlon but have to admit I've been wrong - he, like Lewy, was over worked, over played, and badly managed - he's now thriving but also has good competition to urge him on - and can be rested if there's a niggle.

Lewis needs the same competition

[kaimendhibs]

I hoped Hibs had gone for Graham Carey brooster but he went down south and by all accounts is doing really well at Plymouth.....always thought he'd compliment the defence like Gray - wicked delivery too, which often lets Lewis down.

I wanted us to sign him too

[Bostonhibby]

Didn't mean to start a debate on Beaumont's footballing ability or otherwise, but mentioned him for being someone who climbed the steps at Hampden to receive a League Cup winners medal, without actually have played in any game leading up to, or in the final.

In Aus we'd call it "doing a Bradbury".........a term used basically to explain someone winning by simply managing not to fall over and win.......after an Oz skater who won an Olympic gold medal after the rest of the field did exactly that.

Nae problem, my reply was to the post I linked, though see where you are coming from, Thing is DB played in a Final at Wembley as well! This thread was about Eckersley and in Hibs terms he's contributed nowt, but am not convinced he tricked his way into ER!

Best wishes down under.

[Forza Fred]

Nae problem, my reply was to the post I linked, though see where you are coming from, Thing is DB played in a Final at Wembley as well! This thread was about Eckersley and in Hibs terms he's contributed nowt, but am not convinced he tricked his way into ER!

Best wishes down under.

I don't think he 'tricked' his way into E.R. Either, but I would be interested to know exactly what degree of 'medical' we give players before signing them.

If as suggested he simply never recovered fully from two recently completed knee operations, predictive medical science must not be as far forward as one would like it to be...or the depth of our 'medicals' perhaps need reviewing.

[Andy74]

I don't think he 'tricked' his way into E.R. Either, but I would be interested to know exactly what degree of 'medical' we give players before signing them.

If as suggested he simply never recovered fully from two recently completed knee operations, predictive medical science must not be as far forward as one would like it to be...or the depth of our 'medicals' perhaps need reviewing.

Or maybe people are over reviewing a situation that just didn't work out?

[silverhibee]

Eckersley was a strange signing at the time and remains so. A waste of time and money.

Not really Brooster, I think 2 o'clock in the afternoon is a decent time to sign a guy limping in to EM. :greengrin

[Thecat23]

Eckersley was a strange signing at the time and remains so. A waste of time and money.

He was one of Hearts best players, in the side weekly that won the league. Sadly he got injured and that's just one of those things in football. I don't think Stubbs would go out and sign someone who he didn't think would ever play.

Now signing someone like Junior Agoggo or whatever he was called, that's a strange singing.

[truehibernian]

He was one of Hearts best players, in the side weekly that won the league. Sadly he got injured and that's just one of those things in football. I don't think Stubbs would go out and sign someone who he didn't think would ever play.

Now signing someone like Junior Agoggo or whatever he was called, that's a strange singing.

TC can I re-evaluate my worst Hibs player choice now you've (sadly) reminded me of Junior Agogo !!!!!

[Thecat23]

TC can I re-evaluate my worst Hibs player choice now you've (sadly) reminded me of Junior Agogo !!!!!

Yes you may 😂👍🏼

[Diclonius]

Eckersley was signed in case Stevenson was injured/suspended. He wasn't, so he didn't play.

I don't see what's so hard to understand.

[Forza Fred]

Or maybe people are over reviewing a situation that just didn't work out?

Possibly, but I don't think it does any organisation to ask itself the questions as to why it didn't, with the aim being...is there anything we could do/different better next time to ensure a better outcome?

Continuous Improvement and all that, and Yes I am the first to positively agree that much has improved in recent times.

Hibs basically got no value out of this signing, and as some suggest, it may have been up preventable and just the way it worked out.

However if it could have been avoided,....possibly by more advanced medical examinations, then it would obviously have been in the best interests of the club.

[AZhibee]

Was only a waste if someone knows how much he was paid. I find it odd that his picture never appeared on the official site while Gunnarsson's appears within days of signing. It suggests that his status was different and perhaps he wasn't on the payroll and was simply trying to get fit and developing a backup plan. If he was only minimally paid then an experienced backup for peanuts would be a good deal.

[portyhibernian]

Fairly sure he'll be away now that Gunnarson has come in. Doubt we were paying him a great deal since he was without a club and it was a short term contract. No damage done to us. As for players who never played a minute, Kuqi springs to mind.

[Forza Fred]

Fairly sure he'll be away now that Gunnarson has come in. Doubt we were paying him a great deal since he was without a club and it was a short term contract. No damage done to us. As for players who never played a minute, Kuqi springs to mind.

I read a quote attributed to Stubbs this morning saying that Forster was likely going out on loan and Eckersley had departed and he was ....'trying to fix something up in Canada" and that
he wished him well.

So he's gone.

[Forza Fred]

Fairly sure he'll be away now that Gunnarson has come in. Doubt we were paying him a great deal since he was without a club and it was a short term contract. No damage done to us. As for players who never played a minute, Kuqi springs to mind.

Maybe ever played good for a minute, but appeared a total of 14 times, although only two starts.

[JimBHibees]

Or maybe people are over reviewing a situation that just didn't work out?

Totally agree hardly seems worth the energy.

[Andy74]

Fairly sure he'll be away now that Gunnarson has come in. Doubt we were paying him a great deal since he was without a club and it was a short term contract. No damage done to us. As for players who never played a minute, Kuqi springs to mind.

Kuqi played.

[BoomtownHibees]

Kuqi played.

Think that's a bit of an exaggeration

[Eric]

No statement as yet from Hibs on Eckersley but his entry on the list of players on the Official Site has been removed.

[stantonhibby]

Think that's a bit of an exaggeration

Indeed......not the most mobile I recall.

[AZhibee]

No statement as yet from Hibs on Eckersley but his entry on the list of players on the Official Site has been removed.

Dont believe it was ever there. Never saw it and checked periodically.

[Dashing Bob S]

Pity it didn't work out with Eckersley due to his injuries. Had he been fully fit he would almost certainly have been in the team. A better all round full back than Stevenson, without a shadow of a doubt.

However, it's not to be.

[allezsauzee]

Pity it didn't work out with Eckersley due to his injuries. Had he been fully fit he would almost certainly have been in the team. A better all round full back than Stevenson, without a shadow of a doubt.

However, it's not to be.

Naw, he would have been cover for Lewis

[blackpoolhibs]

I still cant quite get my head around signing a player as cover, and that player never being fit enough to use should the player he was signed to come in as cover for ever got injured or suspended? :confused:

FWIW i was all for him signing at the time, but did not know he was injured when he did.

[GreenOnions]

Well - as Stewie Griffin might say about Eckersley's time at Hibs - "That was a whole lotta nuthin'"

PS - IMO Eckersley was solely brought in as cover for Lewis and would never have been a first pick. He always seemed to me to be one of Hearts' weaker links last season when he stood in for McHattie and, when we played them and he was in the team, I felt we could get some joy down their left side.

[Forza Fred]

I still cant quite get my head around signing a player as cover, and that player never being fit enough to use should the player he was signed to come in as cover for ever got injured or suspended? :confused:

FWIW i was all for him signing at the time, but did not know he was injured when he did.

And that basically was the whole point of my post.

I DO wonder what level of medical examination incoming players undergo......if indeed in this instance there WAS a club medical.

The whole thing has probably been done to death, with many apparently not bothered that we sign a player, presumably pay him wages for 3 months, without him kicking a ball for us.

Again, I wonder what sort of medical scrutiny we put potential signings under, if any.

[hibs0666]

It's good that one of our biggest grumbles these days is about the fitness of a squad player signed for 6 months.

Happy days. :thumbsup:

[Andy74]

And that basically was the whole point of my post.

I DO wonder what level of medical examination incoming players undergo......if indeed in this instance there WAS a club medical.

The whole thing has probably been done to death, with many apparently not bothered that we sign a player, presumably pay him wages for 3 months, without him kicking a ball for us.

Again, I wonder what sort of medical scrutiny we put potential signings under, if any.

We knew he was injured - there was a story in the Evening News in November about how he was now fit and ready to go so obviously he either got a new injury or a set back that wasn't expected.

It happens and I think the whole point of this signing is that Hibs knew that it was just a punt on a short term bit of cover that they knew might not be available for a while.

No big deal and I don't really follow why people can't understand the nature of this one. It didn't work out but so what really?

[BSEJVT]

Never in the field of internet boredom has so much been written by so few about so little.

And yes I am aware I have added to it :-)

[RMQ1967]

Never in the field of internet boredom has so much been written by so few about so little.

And yes I am aware I have added to it :-)

:not worth Excellent summary of this thread :)