Transfer Rumours Summer Transfer Thread 21/22

  • 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!
originallambrettaman said:
Players going into their final year, who we don't want any more, will be shipped out rather than loaned out, unless we get to the end of the window and it looks like we're going to get stuck with them.

Loans with a view to a sale really don't work when the player is out of contract at the end of the loan, it's very rare to get a fee in those circumstances (Jordy was the exception that proves the rule). In addition, loaning senior players is something we very rarely do, generally if we want a player gone, he goes permanently.

Worth bearing in mind, they're all back on Championship money now (at varying levels) and shifting someone like Eaves to a League One club paying his wages in full won't be easy.
Click to expand...

Maybe a bit tangential, but I've never understood the expression 'the exception that proves the rule'. If it's an example of something that doesn't align with the rule, how indeed does it 'prove' the rule?

And on the topic of JDW, didn't we have an option in our favour of an additional year which is how we wrangled a fee? And even if not, with players we may not want, as SS suggested, we could loan for a year and if the club wants them, we can trigger the year and get a small fee, and if they don't then we release the player having not had to pay their entire wage for the season. We won't get a L1 club paying their full wage, but partially offsetting it is worthwhile if we don't see a future for them at the club.
 
Howdentiger2 said:
God I hope not, especially with the fee Boro would expect
Click to expand...
Not a great return last season, but there's always a chance that will change.
Magennis is a prime example.... Equally, Eaves showed how a "prolific" striker can prove otherwise.....
 
SydneyTiger14 said:
Maybe a bit tangential, but I've never understood the expression 'the exception that proves the rule'. If it's an example of something that doesn't align with the rule, how indeed does it 'prove' the rule?

And on the topic of JDW, didn't we have an option in our favour of an additional year which is how we wrangled a fee? And even if not, with players we may not want, as SS suggested, we could loan for a year and if the club wants them, we can trigger the year and get a small fee, and if they don't then we release the player having not had to pay their entire wage for the season. We won't get a L1 club paying their full wage, but partially offsetting it is worthwhile if we don't see a future for them at the club.
Click to expand...

Courtesy of the Oxford English Dictionary - The exception proves the rule originally this meant that the recognition of something as an exception proved the existence of a rule, but it is now more often used or understood as justifying divergence from a rule.

We're not going to trigger another year for a player we want rid of, at least you'd hope not, hopefully the Henriksen fiasco put paid to doing daft things like that. Sending players out on loan, with a clause that generates a small fee if they decide to sign them permanently, is potentially an option, but it's not common and generally happens with players who go out in the January window.

We did it with Jordy this season and Peterborough did it with us with Maddison last season, but off the top of my head, I don't remember us being involved in any deal like this on any other occasion.
 
originallambrettaman said:
Courtesy of the Oxford English Dictionary - The exception proves the rule originally this meant that the recognition of something as an exception proved the existence of a rule, but it is now more often used or understood as justifying divergence from a rule.

We're not going to trigger another year for a player we want rid of, at least you'd hope not, hopefully the Henriksen fiasco put paid to doing daft things like that. Sending players out on loan, with a clause that generates a small fee if they decide to sign them permanently, is potentially an option, but it's not common and generally happens with players who go out in the January window.

We did it with Jordy this season and Peterborough did it with us with Maddison last season, but off the top of my head, I don't remember us being involved in any deal like this on any other occasion.
Click to expand...

I understand the definition, but as it points out the common usage now is just to justify divergence which seems to go against the point of the expression. But as I said that's a bit of a tangent so never mind.

No, but you would trigger the year extension if a club wanted to buy them in order to get a fee. So for instance if we were expressing interest in signing Crowley it would be strange to see Birmingham release him (as they have done) when they could have got a fee out of us. Presumably indicates we aren't looking to sign him.

It's definitely less common at this level, seems a favourite in Italy though.
 
SydneyTiger14 said:
I think the approach will be somewhere in the middle, but calling someone a ****ing idiot for making a reasoned point is a bit over the top. You can disagree with them without getting personal.

I do tend to think a few of our players need to be playing and probably need a loan in League One to get any value out of them if we look to move them on. Scott, Flores, McLaughlin are the ones that immediately come to mind, possibly Mayer too (although he's injured and we might just keep him around and then release him if there isn't much interest). Assume Festus will be out on loan again too so there's 4/5 names that quite reasonably could be loaned out.

I do think we should be looking to bring in at most 2/3 permanents with a view to pinching some loans from the prem, which could end up meaning 5-6 players come in. That's not quite as busy as SS is suggesting, but there's plenty of opportunity to find value.
Click to expand...

I didn't think it was a stupid point. Flores, Mayer & Eaves I don't see having any future with us. They've all got 1 year left with an option. Eaves will be the trickest to shift wage wise, the other 2 won't be on much even with the promotion boosts. They were salary cap signings and we had to be creative to fill holes in the squad without spending very much at all.

I think 8-10 is possible but I'm certainly not expecting the calibre of signings most supporters are. We've been linked with Akpom today but there's no chance we can get close to him wage wise. Top-end L1 players would be good, I'd happily take Rathbone as a Honeyman backup and Randell Williams too as long as we brought in another winger. Neither would be expensive signings but would improve the squad.

If we try competing pound for pound at championship level, it'll be a long season, we have to be creative and do things that other sides aren't to give us any sort of advantage.
 
SydneyTiger14 said:
I understand the definition, but as it points out the common usage now is just to justify divergence which seems to go against the point of the expression. But as I said that's a bit of a tangent so never mind.

No, but you would trigger the year extension if a club wanted to buy them in order to get a fee. So for instance if we were expressing interest in signing Crowley it would be strange to see Birmingham release him (as they have done) when they could have got a fee out of us. Presumably indicates we aren't looking to sign him.

It's definitely less common at this level, seems a favourite in Italy though.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty certain we won't trigger an extra year for any player we want rid of, just as Birmingham wouldn't risk triggering another year for a player they wanted rid of, regardless of any potential interest from us.

We won't loan out a load of senior players either, we never do.

And we won't sign Chuba Akpom (unless it's on loan and even that's highly unlikely).
 
Ok, Chelski loan out players that are good, or have potential, if they’re ****, they let them go for free, or if they’re lucky, a few 100k. Same as Utd, we’ve picked up some class players from Utd over the years & with the possible exception of Brady, don’t think we’ve paid more than a few 100k tops.
We loan out younger players to lower league/non league teams, can’t remember us loaning out too many first team players over recent years. Olifinjana, Deano & JDW are the ones that spring to mind for me.
We’re not a team, very few are outside the PL, who loan out players to teams to try & get a fee for them. If McCann wants rid of Eaves, Flores, Clark or whoever else, then they’ll either be sold if anyone will buy them, or released by mutual consent. If someone did want to loan out one of ours, then there probably would be a loan fee, maybe a deal where they sign them permanently. Whatever happens, I think 99% of the time, we won’t be triggering any clauses to try & get a fee, in most cases, any fee probably wouldn’t cover the players wages, also there’d be no guarantee of a sale either.
Tying up money to try & get a fee for a player the club wants rid of simply not going to happen, unless that player is a genuine talent.
The contracts that will be earmarked for renewal will be the first team players & any youngsters who have talent. Judging by McCann’s end of season team choices, I don’t see Eaves as being an option of new contract or pulling on that extra year extension. Emmanuel, may well be another, not because he hasn’t got the talent or ability, but because I would expect him to be wanting first team football.
 
I do think we'd be in a good position to poach some of the lower-half League 1 teams' best players, like Scott Fraser from MK Dons or Ollie Rathbone from Rochdale. They'd be good additions, especially Fraser who got 14 goals this season, and their clubs would probably agree to sell for a decent six-figure sum. Question is, do we try and sign the likes of Fraser and Rathbone or stick with who we know and go for Crowley and Slater?

Striker-wise, I'd rather go for the lad at Accrington Stanley than Akpom. Akpom's return this season hasn't been great, he's one of Boro's highest earners and he cost £2.75 million and has two years left on his contract. It would be an expensive risk. Not saying he's crap, but they'd probably want to recoup some of their losses and his wages would probably make him our highest earner. It doesn't make sense as a transfer for us at this time. It would be a Proschwitz-esque signing all over again. We have a good set of lads who got us promoted, and even with their promotion wage-increases they'll all be earning less than a new signing who had a poor season in the Championship? Nah, don't see it happening.

As for loans, we're not in a position to be allowing 8-10 outgoings and bringing in 8-10 replacements. The lads going out on loan will be academy players to League 1 and 2. Max Clark is looking to buy property in the East Yorkshire area. Whether that means he's signing a new contract, I don't know. Flores, Eaves, Scott, McLaughlin are all somewhat decent squad players. If McLaughlin leaves, we have Burke, Greaves and Alfie Jones at centre-half and an injury to any one of them would leave us in a ****e position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HullPhil
Plum said:
If we could merge Crowley's footballing brain with Wilks's natural talents we'd have a real gem on our hands!
Click to expand...
Crowley's naturally very talented too. More a question of whether or not he really fits into McCann's Plan A.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back