I know this has been touched upon on another thread but think it should possibly be discussed further. Now it seems obvious to one and all that we have been crying out for a quality striker all season (not incuding our injured Charlie boy). Why is it then that we agreed, i guess on Remy's request, to loan him out to Newcastle ? Could we not of said to him that as the club that pays his wages and in effect 'own' him, that he HAS to play for us, even in the Championship. I mean, what could he of done ? Played badly ? ......Still better than what we've got. Gone on strike ?.....Well that would certainly of f***ed up his World Cup hopes. Play out of his skin and score a hatful of goals ?.... Go to the World Cup young man. I just don't get what benefit loaning him out has done in our desperate time of need. Any ideas or thoughts gents (and lady)
I thought the relegation clause was only related to him being sold. I'm with you in what you said in your OP regarding making him play for us. The only other reason I can think that we shifted him is because of this FFP ****e. Which may not even come into play anyway. I'm sure that the goals Remy would score for us and ensure us getting promoted and the financial benefits of that, would outweigh the finances of covering his wages
I actually think this is one situation TF and HR have got right. As I see it, we had three options with Remy as soon as we got relegated. 1) keep hold of him and hope he destroys the Championship but risk him wanting to go ASAP and be back in the top flight somewhere, 2) sell him and get our money back, 3) loan him out so he is happy, and he keeps or increases his value, but then still have the opportunity to bring him back to the club in the future. If we go up, Remy returns and we get to benefit, if we don't go up, he won't have lost any value and so we can sell him for a good fee. Worst case scenario would have been him playing with a bad attitude, and being not playing well, in the Championship, and losing value, and that has been avoided...so I think they have done a good job.
I guess there are details we just don't know and never will. I would luv it if we get him back, luv it.
Dave, i'm afraid that, IMO, your thoughts on seeing Loic Remy ever play again in our beloved hoops, even if we do go up, is surely misjudged. I would rather of got one decent season out of him, score the goals that take us up (not a given of course) and then sell him to Arsenal....Than to be in the position we now find ourselves, wondering if we'll even make the play-offs.
But, as i said in my OP, would that not of been detrimental to his own chances of playing in the World Cup ? Of course he could of dug his heels in and said, eff it...but then he loses his possible only chance to play in the biggest football competition in the World. Surely that would be the biggest case of 'cutting your nose off to spite your face', in the games history.
I think that what Stainsy said in his OP about it being a World Cup year that he would have no choice but to perform.
World Cup year made it even less likely he would stay though...France are unlikely to pick a player from the English second tier, no matter how many he scores. Loaning was the only way we might possibly have the smallest chance of seeing him in blue and white hoops again.
Can't believe it is as clear cut and easy as that. He had/has a release clause. He also had a rape charge hanging over his head, meaning no one woud risk buying him. For the club to upheld our part of the deal a loan was the only option. That is my calculated guess. Think Dave makes a lot of valid points.
Might have made the squad, but the team, I'm not so sure with Giroud scoring well in the prem that a great season in the Championship would cut it.
When exactly does his loan end? Was a bit of talk yesterday in the pub before the game that he would be eligible for the play offs...
NO idea was the club was thinking I would have paid him 100K a week plus... well anything to stay if possible. World Cup? Contract? If we get up (when) and we then sell him then I will find it hard to understand this ... Austin us a fair player but not in the league of Remy
I agree. He should of weighed all of this up before he signed for us. It was his choice to sign for a relegation bound club on huge wages. If that club were still relegated with this knowledge then surely he had a duty of care to still honour that lucrative contract in whichever division we ended up in. Talk about have your cake and eat it. Remy was in a no lose situation.
Not one profanity...................doesn't count as a post. Pfftttt. Think of the children and the waste of letters.
Jaysus Belly, are you drunk mate? Chill and come back tomorrow fresh and relaxed. No offence, all the best mate.
Nines, I know you're hurting but in the cold light of day, you'll realise that that's not been your finest moment. Big players will always have a clause inserted in their contract if they're going to a sh*t Club at the bottom of the league, should they be relegated. Its not Remy's fault that that was agreed at the time. He would never have signed otherwise. Its common practice. The truth is, we had no right to have a player like that in the first place. We were too small a Club to have signed him. Why would he play in the 2nd tier of English football when he could play almost anywhere else? I know its difficult right now but we must endeavor to separate emotion from reality.
