Evan Khouri

Quoted from diehardmariner

I think the better intent is about not looking to replace your better players directly, but upgrading the overall quality so the better players of today become the back-up of tomorrow.  Then the next stage is those 'new' better players are downgraded at the next stage of the process.

We've seen a little bit of it in action since 1878 came to take over the club but largely it's a foreign concept to this club for so long because the turnover in players is so high.

It's not amazing example but someone like Niall Maher is probably as good as we've had of this approach in last few years.  He came in and early on was identified as a key player.  He did ok, then Doug Tharme came in and took his place.  Maher dropped down the pecking order and became back-up and in turn took Luke Waterfall's place as back-up, Waterfall in turn moved on.

Maher has since moved on because we've managed to bring McJannet in, again intent of an upgrade overall rather than looking to replace your best players directly.

Conteh and JDS were certainly signed with the intent of selling them on for a decent bit of profit (immediate or future), but I don't think the approach is that we're constrained to using any profit to replace that position.  Conteh left and we signed a freebie in Thompson. But since then we've paid transfer fees (partly funded by the Conteh sale) for Tharme, JDS and McJannet - none play in Conteh's position.  

The question as to could we replace the likes of Rose, Hume, Green with better?  I'll add to that and say that the absolute ambition has to be to looking to better on everyone.  It doesn't matter if we've got a striker who gets 20 goals and 20 assists, we should be looking to bring in someone who can get 25 and 25.

That model isn't exclusive to us and it's quite literally one of the bragging points of our Lincoln threads on this very forum, how they've managed to continually sell their better players, yet manage to continually bring in better players for less.  

Throughout our whole team there's a thread of them improving.  There's a few with points to prove having had a stab at a higher level and not quite managed it (Wright, McEachran, Hume, Cass), there's those probably looking to us as a springboard from a lower standard (McJannet, JDS) and then there's those who already had and we're improving them (Khouri, Green).  

Last night there was only a single player in the matchday squad over the age of 27.  That's Danny Rose (30).  He's the second oldest player in the squad behind Curtis Thompson (31).  Until I looked at those ages I didn't realise quite how much we had lowered the age of the squad under Artell.  There's a lot to go at there.

Quoted from diehardmariner

jonny wasn't the only one who stated Khouri wasn't up to it, far from it in fact.

Quoted from HertsGTFC

I switched the ticks, crosses and gold stars thing off years ago but this is a really good synopsis of how we’re progressing 👍

Quoted from diehardmariner

I think the better intent is about not looking to replace your better players directly, but upgrading the overall quality so the better players of today become the back-up of tomorrow.  Then the next stage is those 'new' better players are downgraded at the next stage of the process.

We've seen a little bit of it in action since 1878 came to take over the club but largely it's a foreign concept to this club for so long because the turnover in players is so high.

It's not amazing example but someone like Niall Maher is probably as good as we've had of this approach in last few years.  He came in and early on was identified as a key player.  He did ok, then Doug Tharme came in and took his place.  Maher dropped down the pecking order and became back-up and in turn took Luke Waterfall's place as back-up, Waterfall in turn moved on.

Maher has since moved on because we've managed to bring McJannet in, again intent of an upgrade overall rather than looking to replace your best players directly.

Conteh and JDS were certainly signed with the intent of selling them on for a decent bit of profit (immediate or future), but I don't think the approach is that we're constrained to using any profit to replace that position.  Conteh left and we signed a freebie in Thompson. But since then we've paid transfer fees (partly funded by the Conteh sale) for Tharme, JDS and McJannet - none play in Conteh's position.  

The question as to could we replace the likes of Rose, Hume, Green with better?  I'll add to that and say that the absolute ambition has to be to looking to better on everyone.  It doesn't matter if we've got a striker who gets 20 goals and 20 assists, we should be looking to bring in someone who can get 25 and 25.

That model isn't exclusive to us and it's quite literally one of the bragging points of our Lincoln threads on this very forum, how they've managed to continually sell their better players, yet manage to continually bring in better players for less.  

Throughout our whole team there's a thread of them improving.  There's a few with points to prove having had a stab at a higher level and not quite managed it (Wright, McEachran, Hume, Cass), there's those probably looking to us as a springboard from a lower standard (McJannet, JDS) and then there's those who already had and we're improving them (Khouri, Green).  

Last night there was only a single player in the matchday squad over the age of 27.  That's Danny Rose (30).  He's the second oldest player in the squad behind Curtis Thompson (31).  Until I looked at those ages I didn't realise quite how much we had lowered the age of the squad under Artell.  There's a lot to go at there.

Quoted from forza ivano

Dont want to be negative, but when we talk of gradual improvement i am already thinking g.k. and right back are the 2 obvious areas. Warren ,so far, looks flawed n cass is severely lacking in pace