http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11731/7884872/Donnelly-to-leave-Swans Ok we wouldn't get millions but probably £100k or so. Seems bizarre to take this tactic especially when we're saying with Sinclair that we won't let people run down their contract.
Probably because it's cheaper in the long run, and it helps the lad to go to a club that maybe either can't afford that, or he gets a small signing on fee.
You can't really compare this to the Sinclair situation because firstly Donnelly isn't a first teamer, secondly he isn't running his contract down it's being terminated. I think it's for the best that we get rid of a player as quick as possible if we don't want him in the team. If we do want the player e.g. Sinclair then we have to do what we must to ensure he stays.
I suspect it's a kind of golden handshake that won't cost us anything. He doesn't fit into our plans, and he deserves a decent chance elsewhere. It's down to him to find somewhere now and gain a signing on fee. Good luck to him
Using that philosophy will see us relegated, you can't give people a chance if they are not good enough. Lita and Moore have scored goals in the premier, and have done a good job for us when on the field. Donnelly has played for 10 minutes in a championship game in all the time he's been with us.
I'm sorry mate but that is lunacy, we can't afford such gambles, look at McEachran from Chelsea, a complete disaster of a loan for us, he played a few games us and then got nothing as he wasn't the right player for us. He was a better player than Donnelly though
When Rodgers brought in Sig & McEachran , I think Buck thought McEachran was the one who was going to get most of the minutes . But while waiting for McEachran to finally sign , Sig's quick success sidelined plans for McEachran 's minutes . I don't think Rodgers had any inkling that Sig would make the impact he did .
