Did we fail in Rodwell bid?

Not too sure on this one.....

http://www.themag.co.uk/the-mag-art...ielder-deadline-day-jack-rodwell-will-hughes/

A bit of a curious one this, Mike Ashley’s shoddy SD News website has today mentioned in passing, that Newcastle had a failed loan offer for Jack Rodwell turned down on January transfer deadline day.

The 22 year old midfielder moved from Everton to Manchester City for a fee that could reach £15m with the various add-ons, though Rodwell has suffered with injury and being all but ignored when he has been fit . The City player only starting seven Premier League matches since the move in August 2012.

I find this one almost believable, unlike most of the rubbish transfer speculation rubbish that populates Ashley’s news website, as it is mentioned only in passing with regard to their main ‘story’, rather than making a song and dance out of it.

The report mentions Newcastle tried to bring in Rodwell as a temporary replacement for Cabaye until the end of the season, with the main thrust of their piece suggesting United will try and sign Wil Hughes.

As the eighteen year old Derby County midfielder is being linked with pretty much every Premier League club, as usual you can take the SD News ‘Exclusive’ (they put on nearly every story!) tag to their main story with a pinch of salt, along with their shoddy headline; ‘Magpies To Swoop For Midfield Man’.

In light of the Remy and De Jong deals, it would be no surprise to see Ashley increasingly make use of the loan transfer market, with it possibly appearing a short-term cheaper fix to try and ensure Premier League survival rather than committing to significant transfer fees and expensive long-term contracts.

I suppose a good question to ask yourself with regard to how you see things going under Ashley’s ‘transfer startegy’ is the following; Would you think it more likely that at the end of this season Newcastle would try and sign a £12m rated player like Will Hughes on a long-term contract, or go for a year loan deal for a player such as Jack Rodwell?

 

Kinnear did like the look of him, but nobody else knew who this 'Cack Rude-well' was, so it never went through.

 

talk is cheap when it's too late to do anything about it
so for me it never happened

 

When it comes to fat boy, everything is cheap.
Picked up a cheap Skins compression top to hold my tits in the other day... half price.
Bonus.

 

so we're just waiting for the fall out

 

Another move where the player ends up sitting in reserves or sub. Would be a starter in most other clubs (when fit).

 

Pic to prove it?

 

See, I agree completely with this. More has to be done about this. You should see just how many players Man City and Chelsea are signing that don't make the papers, who are then loaned immediately back or loaned to the 'feeder' clubs they both have. It's nothing short of disgraceful. It's one thing that their sugar daddies are buying the very best first, second and third elevens, but when they just hoover up talent left, right and centre it makes a mockery of football.

I was wondering about this whole thing - it seems impossible to cap the number of foreigners and it seems impossible to cap the amount of spending by the uber-riche. But how about a limit on the NUMBER of players you're allowed to sign in a calendar year? 3 over-21's and 3 u-21's every year is the absolute maximum you can bring in. It forces the clubs to use their academies much better and means that there is a real streamlining of the squads, so you don't have to worry quite so much about your player going. And when your player IS wanted, you know you can get a decent whack of cash. It would also stop all the silly-bugger antics of some of these lesser clubs; knowing the chances of selling are diminished, they would be less inclined to just mess about playing games.

It would also restrict agents greed, and give players like Rodwell, Scott Sinclair, etc., a chance to develop at their club. If City could have only signed three, would they bother with Rodwell? Nope. So he may have stayed at Everton and played alongside Barclay (wow!), or moved up slightly and started every game at, say, Spurs or Man U.

 

He would of made more England appearances too, This system hurts England as the the players don't get beneficial game experience.

The likes of lallana, Rodriguez, (good enough or not) Barkley etc are better off staying at their respective clubs where they can know they are probable starters. Barkley IMO will develop much better at Everton than if he moved to City or Utd although Utd could do with him right now

 

The strategy at the mega rich clubs is in reality set up to deny their league rivals access to some players in the transfer market by doing this.

 

Of course, but it's ludicrously flawed, right? And woefully understated as well. I don't expect Newcastle to be able to compete with the riches at the top table, sure. But when there's good talent around and we're being slammed because Man City's fcking training pitch has had £200m thrown at it, it's easy to sell these kids a trick. They're all confident, so believe they deserve to be there, but how many young talents are being ruined by this haphazard, unmoderated approach?

I mean, this is the problem with any governing body, be it the Government itself, FIFA, the FA, etc. - they try and look at broad, unfocused pictures of what is wrong (for example, the England team) but completely overlook for whatever reason the true 'economics' of it all - all these youngsters flying from around the world into Carrington, how much of a hindrance on English youth are they? A huge one, I'd wager. Add to that the fact City/Chelsea are probably hoovering up a lot of English kids only to discard them when they don't hit the highest heights. It's a catastrophic mess - they talk about all the good of the money that's coming in, but where's it all going??? Offshore accounts of players and management hierarchy, and all the ticket sales/commercial profits are just recycling around; there's no net new revenue being created to the benefit of the UK.

What staggers me most is that no-ones bothered. Reminds me of the flooding. Nothing's done, but no rain this year. Phew. Next year, repeat. And so on. Five years after the dredging stopped, fck me, a lot of rain, floods and damages that will cost the UK Government at least 10 times as much than if they'd fcking dredged in the first place. We all need to work out, first, that a lot of people "in charge" are incompetent fcking tw@ts and that, second, we need to actually get off our selfish @rses and do something about it before we're all swept away.

Christ, don't know where that came from, sorry folks - rant over.

 

have a break, have a Kit-Kat.

To be fair, a lot of what you've said is perfectly valid as far as i'm concerned. The authorities are too worried to tackle the money bags owners head on, for fear of what might happen, but in reality, by doing nowt they are seriously damaging the long term structure of what they keep calling 'grass roots'. It's just a tag they use. If they really, really believed in it and really, really cared about it, then they'd do something about it. Apply genuine restrictions/sanctions, not the current ones which teams can easily work around. Create an infrastructure where the young british talent can be developed. Sadly, money talks - and as you say, most of it comes from overseas and then disappears back there again, while others (including agents) benefit from 'using' the Premier League.

Grr, now where's that Kit-Kat?

 

http://www.independent.ie/sport/che...oanedout-players-have-scored-82-29964631.html

 

Jack Rodwell is hugely over-rated in my opinion... Mancini bought him while at Man City but hardly played him.

I'd rather play Ben Arfa in the AM role any day.

Bollocks to more loaned players... we need to sign quality players for Newcastle United, not develop players for the 'bigger teams'.

FFS!

 

The last thing I would want is the "Authorities" getting involved, no system is perfect and usually when government gets involved if anything the system becomes even more imperfect, if you start to put in place sanctions and restrictions the simple answer from the owners is to walk away from the English game and go play with their money elsewhere. We live in a free market economy and investment is subject to confidence in the market, you have to think that although we are fans it is not our club or our premier league, it belongs to Abromovich, Henry, Sheikh Mansur, Ashley, Short etc, tie them up in knots and they will leave, there are sure as **** plenty of other leagues in other countries that would be happy to accommodate them and the money they would bring to their game.

 

Would it be a bad thing if the mega rich trotted off to play elsewhere ?

The standard of players in the Prem would decrease, of course. Everything else (competiveness of the various teams in the league, prospects of a club breaking into the top 4, importance of gate receipts and hence the fans to the clubs, reliance on academies, entertainment value of the whole process) would probably increase. Seems a fair trade to me.

An alternative to KF's suggestion would be to limit the size of the squad as a whole: buy the best players you like but use 'em or lose 'em.

Or maybe set up a draft pick system: any senior players on a club's squad that have played less than a specified number of starts can be claimed by other teams upon that team signing a binding undertaking to use the player for more than a specified number or minutes. That would be fun: "Sorry Man City, you haven't played Rodwell and Sinclair enough, so they've been claimed by Crystal Palace and Norwich on frees."

Sigh; if only they let us make the rules.

 

I believe that NO PL team should be allowed to sign loan players.( with exception of emergency goalie ). They have 25 man squads as well as U21 teams so let them sink or swim with what they've got. No problem with loaning out players in Championship or below in order to aid their development.
Fat Mike might have to spend actual cash instead of doing things on the cheap.