They might as well recall him now.... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...tyn-Waghorn-set-return-Leicester-January.html
Well like NP, if Waggy dont want to be here, let him go! I dont want any player here who doesnt want to be here!
Well on a positive note Mr Barmby knows he needs at least 1 striker in the transfer window to replace Waghorn. Are we allowed to send him back to Leicester immediately and not pay his wages, or does the loan deal prevent this - as there is no point having a player in the squad who could help unsettle our players.
If you read what i put i said "IF" i never said he wanted to leave i put "IF" he wanted to go. If i remember one of the main reasons he came to Hull was NP was here!
Interesting comment from AP in the YP today. However, Hull director of football operations Adam Pearson insists: “Those players want to be here and are happy to play for Nick. “The only way any players will be leaving is to good Premier League clubs. At the minute, Leicester are below us in the league and I have not seen any evidence at all that their chairman has bigger pockets than ours.”
Well you might as well say that for every player then: "There is no indication whatsoever but if all 27 of them dont want to be here they can go."
The fact that Waggy was only on loan and they've lost a striker for the season, was always going to lead to his recall, the only real surprise is that they haven't called it in early.
I guess financially if he is injuried with this hamstring, NP will wait until his fit to recall him, and let us pay his wages.
I agree, but I guess we will just have to wait until the end of the loan spell, unless there is a clause in the agreement to return him earlier if he is injured.
If we have him until the end of the loan period I say get him fit, get him on the pitch and hopefully he will start scoring for us. If he can score regularly and we are still in/around the play offs come the next window when he goes back we may be more likely to attract another striker to come to us in the window than if we're mid-table.
We agreed to take him on loan until January, we can't cancel it unless there's an injury return clause, which there doesn't seem to be, so we're lumbered with the cost. They can recall him after 28 days of the loan has passed, as that's the rule with all loans. To be fair to them, I suspect they don't want to be seen to recall a loan the minute the management team leave, so they're probably happy to wait six weeks to get him back anyway.
The reason I asked was that - after the disaster at Leeds - there was muttering (on here at least) about sending Gulasci back. Or is he here under a different loan?
Now Pearson has stated in the papers that he will be taking him, I would question Waggy's commitment to the Tigers. It is really a strange situation, as if he goes and scores goals for us and we win games, then this is basically shooting Lestra in the foot.
Why don't we get him fit and training again and then get someone (where's Simon Walton when you need him) to nobble him in training, ideally putting him out for the rest of the season, the day before we send him back?
