Why? We just gave him a 1 year deal. If we loan him out for the entire season he goes for free at the end of that loan. Perhaps we do a short term loan deal but no more, anymore than that and you might as well just sell him and get what you can get for him now.
Because he'll be behind Robertson and Fig? Reckon maybe a year long loan and if he's fine in January we extend his contract by two years.
Interesting.. anyone see this from about a week ago? "Hull City could loan £2.6m striker Nick Proschwitz to Dundee United for a year as a sweetener as they continue their pursuit of left-back Andrew Robertson." - BBC Scotland Wonder if that may still be on the cards?
Thats just not something any team would do. You have an asset there worth something, you dont loan him out for a year when he has only a year left and risk losing all of his value. There is no chance that we send him out on a season long loan. The only time that occurs is when you get a fee such as the Ince loan or Stewarts loan. The intent for both of those loans was that they would sign with their loan teams, so it was basically a sale in the first place.
You mean like Man City did with Gareth Barry? Thus the whole "Sign him a new contract in January" when he still has 6 months on the deal.
We are not Man City. You loan him out for a season long loan with 1 year left on his contract that is the last you will see of him. You know it wont happen. It might be a thing you would do if you were in their place but you know it wont occur. So rather than say its what you think will happen just say its what you would do.
I'm still not sure what you're missing. Why would it be the last we see of him? Loan him out for the year, and halfway through the year enter negotiations with him about extending. He's still our player. You can recall players in January from their loans, and if there's doubt about him coming back, then we pull him back, and look to sell straight away. You honestly reckon he'll sit in the Reserves waiting for Fig or Robertson to get injured?
You loan him for a year. The team he goes to has a year to make him feel welcome, make him feel wanted, a year to make friends with him. We are the club that purchased someone to take the position he plays and then sends him away for the rest of his contract. He wont come back to us Man City is the type of team that someone comes back to. I see 2 ways that a loan works. Way 1. You send him on a short term loan to regain match fitness and prove he is the player he was. We enter negotiations with him at the end of that loan and could even extend the loan for the rest of the season as long as he signs that new deal. Way 2. We send him on a season long loan with no intention of him playing for us again. We did it so he could train with us, regain his fitness because we are being nice to the lad. We then find him a team to play for they pick up his cost once again simply because we are being nice to a player who got injured playing for us. I dont think he will sit in the reserves. I think we send him out on a short term loan with the possibility of recalling him. My point is that your way isnt an impossibility, its just to much of a financial risk to do and HOPE that we can convince him to sign a new deal. He is worth what? 2 mill maybe? We cant risk 2 mill on a hope that he signs instead of leaving on a free.
We're the team that helped him through 16 months of knee issues and offered him a one year extension. If he doesn't want to come back then he can **** off. He's not that sort of person. Very very nice, stand up sort of guy. Way 1 is basically exactly what I'm suggesting, I'd just rather give him the stability of a year long loan and enter negotiations mid-way through. Your way he potentially ends up jumping around to a couple of different clubs on loan and not getting a stable season under his belt. Way 2 is stupid. Why short term with the possibility of recalling? That's an even worse idea.
A, you dont know him, you dont know what sort of man he is. You dont know what he would do in that situation unless you are a psychic. Which I am guessing you are not. First of all all short term loans have the possibility of recal after 28 days. So "thats an even worse idea" is in itself a stupid statement. You want to risk a club asset worth millions on a hunch that he would come back to play for us? Your idea is really dumb, sorry but its dumb. I am not saying you are dumb though so dont take it that way.
Well I do know him because I've met him. Wasn't a lengthy talk so I can't say I know his life story, but I can only go off what I know. Well it's not, because that's even less stability for him when this season he needs to focus on playing. Worth millions? He's not worth s**t coming off the sort of lay off he's had.
It is not ideal but it is less ideal to send him out on a season long loan and risk him leaving on a free. Or we could just keep him and give him a run of games in the FA Cup, Europa, and the League Cup. Plenty of games there to get back in the swing of things. He is potentially worth millions if he goes off on loan and plays close to what he did for us. Right now at this very second I agree he isnt worth much. We are signing a league 1 RB for 3 mill including add-ons right now who has never played a championship game. So yes, while he has been injured and currently has minimal value, if he plays even close to how he did his value is very very real. So it is a big risk to a club with our debt.
Yeah ok and just shut Fig out? He's in the last year of his deal, but it's ok to let him leave on a free I presume. Right at this instance Fig is worth more than Dudge btw. Yeah, and that's when we recall him in January and sell him if he doesn't want to sign a new deal. I'm not sure what's confusing about that. Robertson is a LB, and it's 2m + add ons. Just to be clear this is what I'm proposing: One year loan to Championship club (e.g. Huddersfield). Give him a steady run of games in a stable team where he can focus on getting back to his best. Come January, say he's played 20 games. We call him in to the KC and say "Listen Joe, you've gone out and done exactly what we've hoped. You've stayed fit, you've looked great, and we'd love to tie you down long term because we see a big future for you here. Here's the dotted line." He says, "Thanks but no thanks. You pricks sent me out on loan and didn't give me PL games right off my injury." We say "Fair enough matey, we're recalling you and we'll ship you off to the highest bidder in that case." If he does sign, he stays on at Huddersfield, keeps playing, and comes back at the end having played in a settled line up and champing at the bit for next season. If he doesn't sign, we recall and sell and sell him for the six months of value left on his deal. Which we would be doing your way anyway if he refused to sign an extension.
I wouldnt let anyone leave on a free. Unless it was a Koren situation. One does have to do some sort of calculation though on if having someone run their contract out is better than selling them. We do need Figy this year with our extra games, just like I think we need Dudge, but I would do everything in my power to make sure I let no one go for free. Your way works if there is no fee paid for the season long loan. If a fee is paid I dont think you can recall him and sell him. It is basically the exact same thing I was also proposing just the nature of the length of the loan. I just do not like the season long loan as it is implied that he is gone for a season. I just dont think your idea is going to happen. If it does happen I will bow to your wisdom on situations like this. Lets stay forum pals though.
If we get a loan fee and he signs for them after the season loan, it's basically as if we sold him now. (Incidentally, this is something I don't understand about loan fees in the final year of their contract). Yeah haha I've got nothing against you, just clearly have different ideas on loans.
Robertson (if you thought the Fail was crap....): http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/s...the-race-for-dundee-united-defender-1.488839? http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/s...with-hull-city-for-andrew-robertson-1.490577?
Robertson fee agreed if not already posted: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/...-news/dundee-united-strike-rich-agree-3910531 http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/s...-with-hull-city-for-andrew-robertson-1.490577
