Other Team Transfers 2023

[FoxinNotts]

10 hours ago, Ryy said:

@Ric Flair

 

 

Missed out there imo. Would have suited our needs perfectly

[Ric Flair]

48 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Same reason there'd ever be. Nobody wants to buy them and we want them off the wage bill to get others in. 

 

I dont see it happening with Iheanacho, I doubt we can sign much better without spending a lot. 

 

But Ndidi doesn't really fit the system at all and Praet is mediocre as hell. It we can loan them out and that gives us the money to replace them in the squad then that's that. 

But we've rejected bids in the past for Praet (numerous), Castagne (numerous) and Iheanacho. To end up loaning them out because we want a few extra million is stupidity for those that will walk away for free next summer.

 

Get them gone. The £3-4m for Praet and the £2.5m saving on his wages (even if we supplement it for £1m) is far better business.

[An Sionnach]

6 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Having someone pay part of his salary and a probable loan fee is obviously better than "just paying him off."

 

Similar to Perez maybe. Do we need to clean house though? Some players cannot be sold because of their current salary , we know that . This , we hope anyway , is a new era. We really need a clean slate. The Thai's though think saving a few million here and there is vitally important.

[Finnegan]

5 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

But we've rejected bids in the past for Praet (numerous), Castagne (numerous) and Iheanacho. To end up loaning them out because we want a few extra million is stupidity for those that will walk away for free next summer.

 

Get them gone. The £3-4m for Praet and the £2.5m saving on his wages (even if we supplement it for £1m) is far better business.

 

You have to wonder how accurate what we think we know is. 

 

Like, what were the caveats with the Praet deal? What sort of loyalty payment is he due? Were we having to cover a shortfall in his wages? Maybe the deal ended up costing us more than just keeping him and loaning him. 

 

Same as Castagne. We hear there's 12 or so being offered but how much of that will actually be money now we can bank and reinvest? 

 

I'm not ruling out some questionable decision making. With the benefit of hindsight, if Rudkin and Rodgers relationship was genuinely that close and Rodgers had absolutely no intention of playing Soumare then turning that down last year does seem odd. 

 

But again I imagine there's a lot of specifics there we're missing. Regardless of Rudkin's talent or lack of it in his role, Whelan by all accounts does seem to be a capable negotiator. You've got to figure between her and our accountants we do do our due diligence. 

 

Edited 21 July 2023 by Finnegan

[Finnegan]

8 minutes ago, An Sionnach said:

Similar to Perez maybe. Do we need to clean house though? Some players cannot be sold because of their current salary , we know that . This , we hope anyway , is a new era. We really need a clean slate. The Thai's though think saving a few million here and there is vitally important.

 

Letting someone go without a transfer fee =/= paying out their contract. 

 

Buying out someone's contract is an extreme last resort because you want to get rid of someone for a particularly extreme or specific reason. 

 

I'm not sure why people keep bringing it up for certain players. It's not going to happen. Why would we just go and set money on fire? 

 

If a club agrees to loan one of our players for 5% of their wages that's better than us just buying out their whole contract isn't it. 

 

Edited 21 July 2023 by Finnegan

[Brizzle Fox]

2 hours ago, AjcW said:

Honestly? I was just mentioning anyone who looked attainable on the free transfers list  

Tbf he'd certainly be attainable. I think I'm triggered by the mere mention of his name, having seen him running round the pitch at Ashton Gate like a headless chicken, lookng busy but doing nothing of any substance, just too many times!

[Lillehamring]

3 hours ago, An Sionnach said:

Praet has been out before but we had to pay most of his salary. We may as well pay him off but we won't. Kelechi is worth keeping for his potential contribution. If we should go back up , he will probably sign a new contract. His transfer value is incidental now.

I think it's fair to say there's almost no chance you'll see the club pay any player off.  If memory serves, the only player released from their contract was Benkovic.  Especially players with a year on their deal - financially, there's probably very little difference, and keeping them on the books means one less player to replace, so there's money saved there.  i guess you run the risk of having an unhappy player hanging around, but if you start paying off contracts it sets a very bad precedent going forward....

[Lillehamring]

3 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

You have to wonder how accurate what we think we know is. 

 

Like, what were the caveats with the Praet deal? What sort of loyalty payment is he due? Were we having to cover a shortfall in his wages? Maybe the deal ended up costing us more than just keeping him and loaning him. 

 

Same as Castagne. We hear there's 12 or so being offered but how much of that will actually be money now we can bank and reinvest? 

 

I'm not ruling out some questionable decision making. With the benefit of hindsight, if Rudkin and Rodgers relationship was genuinely that close and Rodgers had absolutely no intention of playing Soumare then turning that down last year does seem odd. 

 

But again I imagine there's a lot of specifics there we're missing. Regardless of Rudkin's talent or lack of it in his role, Whelan by all accounts does seem to be a capable negotiator. You've got to figure between her and our accountants we do do our due diligence. 

 

Very sensible. 

 

My stance throughout all of the collapse has been that we really know nothing of why certain seemingly poor decisions have been made.  Unfortunately the 'club are incompetent' narrative still seems to carry a massive amount of weight amongst fans.

To think that we are simply being stubborn over a million or two for castagne or praet is ridiculous, especially in light of the apparently compromised valuations of maddison and praet.

 

It seems more likely that we don't feel selling for the sakes of selling is something we have to do - if the players are happy to be here (both these two seem to be getting attention from enzo) then we really only have to sell when we feel we can get a significant enough amount  to reinvest - so to sell praet for 2.5M seems pointless - they'd rather lose that money and have a player that can offer the squad something that we can't get elsewhere for 2.5M...

[Lillehamring]

3 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

Letting someone go without a transfer fee =/= paying out their contract. 

 

Buying out someone's contract is an extreme last resort because you want to get rid of someone for a particularly extreme or specific reason. 

 

I'm not sure why people keep bringing it up for certain players. It's not going to happen. Why would we just go and set money on fire? 

 

If a club agrees to loan one of our players for 5% of their wages that's better than us just buying out their whole contract isn't it. 

 

Spot on - why would you give a player x% of his salary just to get him off the team - better to pay him 100% of his salary and have him play for us for the season.

If the player downs tools, that's his loss not ours.

 

[Dan LCFC]

14 hours ago, Sambiasso said:

Club need to stop rejecting offers for players who don't want to be here.

 

Plenty of interest but at lower than market values. 

 

The club are too stubborn for their own good when it comes to getting rid of the deadwood.

 

6 weeks to go 

Life under Jon Rudkin. FFS.

[moore_94]

Better than the Teletubbies one 

 

 

[JimJams]

So we've had teletubbies which was crap, back to the future which was perplexingly tragic and this, which wasn't bad, but it's Redmond, so it made me throw up.

[FrankieADZ]

 

[DezFox]

1 hour ago, FrankieADZ said:

 

It would be brilliant if they went down but I think they are building something good there, really depressing how things can change so quickly 

[Langston]

Elanga isn’t very good?

[K789]

Always thought elanga was pretty rubbish personally 

[LFox99]

2 hours ago, FrankieADZ said:

 

Fella looked average in a United side who despite their dysfunctionality were still dominating games. They've just whacked another 15m on a player with presumably unreasonable wages in a position they've already got depth in. What you have to consider is that Forest currently have 36 senior players on their books. It's absolutely mental. 

The amount of sheer stupid luck they had last year with some of the decisions on top of their annoying ability to grind out 1-0 wins just barely got them to safety in the end. With Villa, Brighton, Brentford and the likes strengthening and the top teams like Chelsea, United, Arsenal unlikely to want to slip up again, I highly doubt they'll make it through another season. Will be all the sweeter when they get relegated and are left with 30 players on silly wages to get rid of. Bar Johnson and Gibbs-White, they don't have anyone of particularly high resale value

[Samilktray]

1 hour ago, DezFox said:

It would be brilliant if they went down but I think they are building something good there, really depressing how things can change so quickly 

The only thing they are building is the Noah’s ark of club football 

[Lillehamring]

8 hours ago, moore_94 said:

Better than the Teletubbies one 

 

 

WhoTF is that?

[EastAnglianFox]

.

Edited 21 July 2023 by EastAnglianFox

[LFox99]

17 minutes ago, Lillehamring said:

WhoTF is that?

nathan redmond

[LFox99]

now's our chance lads

[Lillehamring]

4 minutes ago, LFox99 said:

nathan redmond

As i said, WhoTF is that?

 

 

Edited 21 July 2023 by Lillehamring

[Finnegan]

5 hours ago, Langston said:

Elanga isn’t very good?

 

He's bobbins. 

[LFox99]

44 minutes ago, LFox99 said:

now's our chance lads

update: he just signed, sorted