Dorrans watch

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
He would be the missing piece of the jigsaw, an upgrade on Wes in the same role as he played on Saturday and if he's up for it he can make mugs out of championship defenders.
Very excited about this!
 
I don't get this, not Dorrans himself I'm very excited about him, but why are WBA now going to loan after refusing to sell?
They didn't let us buy him because of the Olsson quid pro quo but now they're willing to let us have him on loan. So we get the best of both worlds.
If they really didn't see him as having a future, why call off the deal because of Ollson when it became clear that wouldn't happen?
 
Bath-Canary said:
I don't get this, not Dorrans himself I'm very excited about him, but why are WBA now going to loan after refusing to sell?
They didn't let us buy him because of the Olsson quid pro quo but now they're willing to let us have him on loan. So we get the best of both worlds.
If they really didn't see him as having a future, why call off the deal because of Ollson when it became clear that wouldn't happen?
Click to expand...
Agreed, Bath. It sounds as if WBA decided to penalise NCFC by witholding Dorrans (who had apparently passed a medical and agreed terms) just because they couldn't agree personal terms with one of our players. How can Norwich be responsible for Olsson's personal demands, ffs <doh>
 
There are two reasons I can think of but both aren't great.

First is as our offer was tied up in the players values we didn't have cash amounts agreed, just the difference between the two. I can't see that we'd have struggled to meet cash demands though

The other is that they still want him come the summer and didn't want to give up a bargaining chip. But loaning him to us increases our chance of promotion after which we may be less keen on selling MO.

Ultimately I agree it feels like they were penalising us because they couldn't agree a deal.
 
Why the confusion? The statement clearly says they'll let us have him if Mulumbu comes back fit. They obviously weren't prepared to sell him with Mulumbu away, and a shallower squad.
 
Cromercanary said:
Get a grip! It's no fun unless there's smoke, mirrors and subterfuge involved! :emoticon-0105-wink:
Click to expand...

Ha! Apologies, I've been MIA from the forum for a while (mostly avoiding my self-appointed responsibility of updating the 'RickyWatch' thread) and have forgotten the usual protocols!
 
I think JK is probably closest to this, especially as it agrees with what James Nursey said (Nursey being a fairly reliable source). WBA did make some positive noises about a loan after the deal fell through.
 
JKCanary said:
Why the confusion? The statement clearly says they'll let us have him if Mulumbu comes back fit. They obviously weren't prepared to sell him with Mulumbu away, and a shallower squad.
Click to expand...

But he got to colney, agreed terms, passed a medical and was basically waiting for the go ahead to sign.
Olsson is exactly going to help them whether or not Mulumbu was fit. Plus they brought in fletcher so alread had cover.
I can see now that Mulumbu could be a factor but on deadline day he surely wasn't a consideration.
 
I think it was probably more financial to be honest. We probably didn't want to stump up £4m up front so wanted to offset it against Olsson's value, leaving us a bit of a surplus which we were using to chase Noone from Cardiff.
That's how I looked at it anyway.
 
Probably true Tony. Plus we get all tne advantages with none of the downsides.
Can see why we would aim for this as our ideal outcome
 
I can see Olsson's side to this West Brom have a fairly good chance of being relegated we have a fairly good chance of promotion, if he carries on playing and we go up then he will be playing Prem football anyway and I thought he wanted a relegation get out clause.
He didn't force the move by putting in a transfer request and maybe didn't see the move as being that big a step up .
 
  • Like
Reactions: wi-exile
I think we've come out of this very well actually, if we get Dorrans in.

There have been question marks (for me at least) about Olsson's commitment - it was no secret he wanted out in the Summer, which you have to accept. While there was only the Swansea rumour and our valuations being miles apart, I didn't really feel that helped Olsson - it always looks a bit like we're not willing to sell. And for me his form was very wayward, I honestly felt he was dodging his fair share of the blame for our defensive frailties and would happily have seen Garrido take his place.

As it is, we've made it clear we will let him go for the right price and it's been his choice not to go (as SN says, it's understandable from his POV given that what would be the point in leaving for six months in the Prem then back to square one again if they're relegated - now, he knows that he will likely get a full season in the Prem next year one way or another).

All that means I feel Olsson is much more likely to be committed for the second half of the season, with no need to be resentful about Norwich holding him back and plenty of reason to perform well to get a good move in the Summer if we don't get promoted.
 
I think Dorrans will arrive on 22nd February on a 93 day initial lone so he will be able to take part in the play off final if we reach it .
Very sensible .
 
Canary Rob said:
I think we've come out of this very well actually, if we get Dorrans in.

There have been question marks (for me at least) about Olsson's commitment - it was no secret he wanted out in the Summer, which you have to accept. While there was only the Swansea rumour and our valuations being miles apart, I didn't really feel that helped Olsson - it always looks a bit like we're not willing to sell. And for me his form was very wayward, I honestly felt he was dodging his fair share of the blame for our defensive frailties and would happily have seen Garrido take his place.

As it is, we've made it clear we will let him go for the right price and it's been his choice not to go (as SN says, it's understandable from his POV given that what would be the point in leaving for six months in the Prem then back to square one again if they're relegated - now, he knows that he will likely get a full season in the Prem next year one way or another).

All that means I feel Olsson is much more likely to be committed for the second half of the season, with no need to be resentful about Norwich holding him back and plenty of reason to perform well to get a good move in the Summer if we don't get promoted.
Click to expand...
At least the only person he can blame for his transfer falling through is himself. So if he did have that in his mind it'll be gone now
 
  • Like
Reactions: Canary Rob
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back