bald reynard Posted 1 September 2005 Posted 1 September 2005 I've just seen on the Blackpool Fans website (of all places - just checking up on their reaction to Wrighty's move !) that 1 to 3 month loans will still be possible between clubs (not sure throughout Euro or English football, or just the FL) from next Thursday (strange day !). We MIGHT still get Boyd or Reardon on loan then ?!!
marko Posted 1 September 2005 Posted 1 September 2005 I've just seen on the Blackpool Fans website (of all places - just checking up on their reaction to Wrighty's move !) that 1 to 3 month loans will still be possible between clubs (not sure throughout Euro or English football, or just the FL) from next Thursday (strange day !). We MIGHT still get Boyd or Reardon on loan then ?!! I would be very suprised if we did.
PRIOR09 Posted 1 September 2005 Posted 1 September 2005 We should do a deal with hibs, something like 150K to have him on loan till january, then buy him for 750k when the window opens again.
bald reynard Posted 1 September 2005 Author Posted 1 September 2005 I would be very suprised if we did. I agree, it would be extremely surprising; but, the options are there - and there's other possibilities if we're struggling with injuries/form etc. I'm amazed that no one (as far as I've seen) has mentioned the extension of the Transfer Window for Loans, up to now !
Gené and Tonic Posted 1 September 2005 Posted 1 September 2005 I think if we are stuggling to score goals, as Hume may not be an exact replacement for Connolly, Levein will move swiftly to either get a short term loan deal just to cover us until January. Or a long loan deal with a view to a permanent move, such as Riordan or Boyd (or Abbott ) Either way, Levein knows what he is doing, he has shown that wth the way he dealt with the Connolly transfer, so he will probably have a contigency plan if we struggle for goals.
Ric Flair Posted 1 September 2005 Posted 1 September 2005 I think your reading comics if you think Boyd or Riordon will be signed on loan. Levein seems happy with the strikeforce and I wouldn't expect to see a loan signing, if he was unhappy with what he'd got he would have tried to sign another one yesterday. Plus no club in their right mind would ship their best player out on a short term loan, without the ability to get a good enough replacement. Hibs, Kilmarnock or Huddersfield wouldn't allow us to have their top striker just for the hell of it for a few months. Crazy
shen Posted 1 September 2005 Posted 1 September 2005 We should do a deal with hibs, something like 150K to have him on loan till january, then buy him for 750k when the window opens again. There's no way the board will release that many funds after what CL has already spent! We've overbudgeted already, and frankly I don't think there's much, if anything, left for CL to spend...
Louise Posted 1 September 2005 Posted 1 September 2005 I thought it was just emergency loans that were allowed, like both your goalies get injured or something.
Magictv Posted 1 September 2005 Posted 1 September 2005 There's no way the board will release that many funds after what CL has already spent! We've overbudgeted already, and frankly I don't think there's much, if anything, left for CL to spend... why wont the board release the funds CL has spent 1m 250k for hammond and 750k at most for hume if were promoted. so doesnt that leave 1m in the pot?
shen Posted 1 September 2005 Posted 1 September 2005 why wont the board release the funds CL has spent 1m 250k for hammond and 750k at most for hume if were promoted. so doesnt that leave 1m in the pot? Because we have overbudgeted... It's certain that the board will keep some of the money from Connolly's transfer in the club coffers to compensate for the lack of ST holders this year Hence why CL will almost certainly not get much more money to spend...
Magictv Posted 1 September 2005 Posted 1 September 2005 Because we have overbudgeted... It's certain that the board will keep some of the money from Connolly's transfer in the club coffers to compensate for the lack of ST holders this year Hence why CL will almost certainly not get much more money to spend... ah ha i see that makes sense.
Simon Posted 1 September 2005 Posted 1 September 2005 ah ha i see that makes sense. And also the fact that we do still have a certain amount of debt....
shen Posted 1 September 2005 Posted 1 September 2005 Oh and would just like to inform you that Mads Timm (a possible target) has been loaned out to Norwegian side Lyn for the rest of the season according to Danish media, for those who are interested
rossporterlc Posted 1 September 2005 Posted 1 September 2005 technically we have bought two strikers, sold one and loaned one out, so we are one striker up, can't see us getting anymore in
davieG Posted 1 September 2005 Posted 1 September 2005 Latest from GTFox, well he was right about DC, mind you so was everyone else. PA rumour that City may be about to sign Steven Craig 24-year old striker who has been released by Aberdeen. As a free agent he can join a new club outside of the transfer window. I suppose a good move if true as in reality we have moved 2 out (3 if you include O'Grady) and only brought 1 in. Stats
Guest Posted 1 September 2005 Posted 1 September 2005 I bet he's not English I don't care where he's from if he scores!
PRIOR09 Posted 1 September 2005 Posted 1 September 2005 Record is shocking. Been released by aberdeen, Is that the best we can get? is this deal likely to happen?
Foxes_Trust Posted 1 September 2005 Posted 1 September 2005 Because we have overbudgeted... It's certain that the board will keep some of the money from Connolly's transfer in the club coffers to compensate for the lack of ST holders this year Hence why CL will almost certainly not get much more money to spend... The season tickets sales, while less than last year are not vastly away from budget, its match ticket sales that are the worry if they continue to decline
The People's Hero Posted 1 September 2005 Posted 1 September 2005 Maybe Leicester should start playing better football then... Have they considered that?
Ric Flair Posted 2 September 2005 Posted 2 September 2005 The season tickets sales, while less than last year are not vastly away from budget, its match ticket sales that are the worry if they continue to decline Perhaps they shouldn't charge the equivalent of 15 pints for a match ticket, when you then need 15 pints to drown your sorrows afterwards. So all in all it's about £60 per head to go and watch City. I wonder why match day tickets sales are declining?
davieG Posted 2 September 2005 Posted 2 September 2005 Maybe Leicester should start playing better football then...Have they considered that? Well as the football we've played so far is way better than last year, I still remember Brighton and Watford the problem is somewhere else I believe, A combination of results that are no better than last year, the general decline at all games coupled with the realisation that match day ticket prices are way over the top, if they hadn't already noticed people are tightening their purse strings every where, retail sales having plummetted. They seem to me to be more rrealistic reasons.
Tomassi Posted 2 September 2005 Posted 2 September 2005 Perhaps they shouldn't charge the equivalent of 15 pints for a match ticket, when you then need 15 pints to drown your sorrows afterwards. So all in all it's about £60 per head to go and watch City. I wonder why match day tickets sales are declining? make that 5 pints at Leicester City prices
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.