Wouldn’t puertas contract have been agreed and signed when he came on loan, Therefore he’s already registered isn’t he Baz also said “appeal@ is the word they are using but felt it’s more about finding away that works for them and the club going forward. So all deals are checked by them, so aslong as they can the restrictions may well be lifted
I think Baz gets too much stick a lot of the time and I defend him a lot, but I do think sometimes he has a tendency to state something authoritatively as a fact, when he maybe doesn't mean to or doesn't understand it as well as he should. For example last winter when he kept saying that we had to get rid of players before we could sign any more because the 25-man squad was full, that was totally wrong and proved to be so, and I think he'd maybe just oversimplified the rules in his own head and then kept repeating his flawed understanding of them. My feeling and hope is that he's done the same with this Puerta thing, because as others have said, the EFL being able to order that he reverts to being legally Leverkusen's player weeks after we've bought him from them would be absolutely bizarre.
Don't Jones & McLoughlin only have a year left on their contracts? Doubt they'd be that keen on signing an extention so we'll need to cash in on them. Can't afford to let them leave on a free next year.
When Semi came in it seemed likely that one of our CB's would move on. Thought Macca did generally okay last season - although at times he has a turning circle of a tank - and if he goes to Blackburn, he'll probably have a blinder when we play them next season Be utter madness to let both him and Jones go, though
“Gustavo Puerta (21) will leave #HullCity. The team has an EFL ban preventing it from registering new players, which is why he hasn't been involved in the friendlies The Colombian will change clubs this summer and offers are already being considered.” So who currently owns him? Would we be getting any fee? From what was said when his transfer was triggered, it was only triggered because we were selling him on for a profit anyway. Is there anything I’ve missed that would make this make sense?
We either get the fee or we dont Thats up for debate and at least those on the outside are not fully sure But its pretty conclusive he wont play for us again either way
Assuming he remains ineligible to play for us, it will put us in an even worse negotiating position for selling him, and we'll presumably make less of a profit (if any?) than we might've done.
He’s contracted to 2028 so I suppose we could just loan him out instead. With Laalaoui, we could loan him back to FUS Rabat or even Maribor for six months or a year (depending if we get the fee restriction reduced). In Laalaoui’s case, it’s not ideal as Steven Toast seems to think he was signed to be used in the first team this season, albeit gradually eased in.
Depends how many clubs want him. Assuming it’s quite a few, it shouldn’t really make any difference. Only if we were struggling to find a taker.
If we don’t get a sensible offer (assuming we own him!) then just don’t sell and play him post embargo. In the meantime North Stand bar could take another server…
I think the club is working on a principle of taking as much in transfer fees as possible and then replacing with higher wage earners, thus, temporarily balancing the books, but effectively selling our future spending. (Unless we were promoted)
I think you're spot on with this. He seems to say something once, then repeat it over and over and convince himself it's correct regardless. It was like him repeatedly saying Hughes had no Championship experience despite him playing a fair few games for Wigan at that level.