Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, Ed 1 said:

Apologies if this has already been addressed but is it still max 2 x loans from one club in EFL?

 

Slightly disappointed if it is as I guess Steffen would complete our quota from Man City. 

Think someone said its four but 2 of them have to be over a certain age. 

  • Like 1
Posted

Loan is better than nothing. Frees up money for another deal too.

 

Makes me wonder if Faes might be heading out on a loan, ready to play for us again if we get back to the Prem. I'm sure he'd be better in a settled defence after a proper pre-season, but I wouldn't be arsed if he left permanently.

Guest glasgowfox
Posted
22 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

People was saying how great it would be with Enzo because we will be able to get some decent loans in now you're all moaning lol 

Brilliant mate

Posted
13 minutes ago, Scotch said:

Think someone said its four but 2 of them have to be over a certain age. 

It's 4 but at least 2 have to be under 21. All 4 can be under 21 I think.

  • Like 2
Posted

They were open to selling him this summer, think this tells us what we need to know about our finances. Annoying, but it is what it is. Don't mind a few loans.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Ric Flair said:

They were open to selling him this summer, think this tells us what we need to know about our finances. Annoying, but it is what it is. Don't mind a few loans.

Guess we just aren't managing to shift players

Posted
10 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

They were open to selling him this summer, think this tells us what we need to know about our finances. Annoying, but it is what it is. Don't mind a few loans.

Perhaps this indicates we are trying to push through Barnes deal as we need the extra cash to rebuild?

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Wink said:

Perhaps this indicates we are trying to push through Barnes deal as we need the extra cash to rebuild?

Or we are only loaning so we don’t need to sell Barnes…

Edited by Hamilton Fox
  • Like 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

They were open to selling him this summer, think this tells us what we need to know about our finances. Annoying, but it is what it is. Don't mind a few loans.

Maybe this isn't a priority for the cash, but he's a good player to replace Evans/Faes. 

 

I think we'll invest in attacking players 

Posted
23 minutes ago, LeePhilpottsBaldSpot said:

Loan is better than nothing. Frees up money for another deal too.

 

Makes me wonder if Faes might be heading out on a loan, ready to play for us again if we get back to the Prem. I'm sure he'd be better in a settled defence after a proper pre-season, but I wouldn't be arsed if he left permanently.

We’ve lost Evans, soyuncu and Amartey from last season, not convinced Vesty will be back in the squad either.

 

So if we get Doyle we still need at least 1 more CB, if not 2 more

 

acknowLedges We may promote a youth or 2, but even then wouldn’t let Faes go

Posted
11 minutes ago, Wink said:

Perhaps this indicates we are trying to push through Barnes deal as we need the extra cash to rebuild?

Disagree massively. 
 

We’d have brought him if we could. The fact there’s no option to buy suggests Man City don’t want to sell. 

  • Like 4
Posted
4 minutes ago, Bert said:

Disagree massively. 
 

We’d have brought him if we could. The fact there’s no option to buy suggests Man City don’t want to sell. 

Perhaps. Although none of us really know what we have to play with, we're just speculating. 

Posted (edited)

To all those saying that a loan frees up cash 

 

If the fee is ten mill and it’s a five year contract then that is £2m/annum onto our ffp 

 

I’m guessing the loan fee will be around £2m for the season 


I think this says more about either Man City not wanting to sell the player or the two clubs not being able to come to an agreement on fee and potential buyback structure - contracted till 2027!

 

Edited by st albans fox
Posted
On 09/07/2023 at 22:02, Scotch said:

I don't understand the reaction some have to information that doesn't pan out or even the information that's nonsense. Just because someone says something, doesn't mean you have to buy into it. 

 

I've only ever gotten pissed off with such information. 1 time when someone was urging people to bet on their info. That's too far. 

2 the lad who was demanding thanks for his information (that was utter b0llux) about us talking to Martin O'Neil about taking over. That just wound me up. 

...if you claim to be ITK, then you are stating that the information imparted is valid and will come to fruition!!!

It is a big responsibility to take on, most will hang on your every word and would be right to do so because he has stated the information to be true. Things do happen and change during negotiation between clubs, we have to understand that and make allowance for this.

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Fox seen in Norwich said:

We’ve lost Evans, soyuncu and Amartey from last season, not convinced Vesty will be back in the squad either.

 

So if we get Doyle we still need at least 1 more CB, if not 2 more

 

acknowLedges We may promote a youth or 2, but even then wouldn’t let Faes go

I think it'll be more Faes wanting out than us wanting to sell him.

 

But if we don't sell, Doyle will join Coady, Souttar, Faes, Vestegaard & Nelson as CBs and Justin & Castagne can play in a back 3 too. Ndidi and Hamza can do a job there too, if needed.

 

I wouldn't be against more CBs, but until we move some of those on I'd prioritise attacking midfielders and maybe a keeper. Which makes me think adding a defender is pre-empting some of the above leaving - probably the two Belgians.

 

Edited by LeePhilpottsBaldSpot
  • Like 2
Posted
40 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

They were open to selling him this summer, think this tells us what we need to know about our finances. Annoying, but it is what it is. Don't mind a few loans.

 

16 minutes ago, Bert said:

Disagree massively. 
 

We’d have brought him if we could. The fact there’s no option to buy suggests Man City don’t want to sell. 

 

Gotta side with Bert on this unless you've concrete evidence to the contrary, Ric. Doesn't make sense that there wouldn't at least be an option if they were content to sell.

  • Like 4
Posted
2 hours ago, moore_94 said:

Just had a look and Burnley didn't get an option to buy when they loaned Harwood-Bellis from Man City last season either

 

Had a really good season with them and he is now available to buy permanently this summer (although he is also down to the last year of his contract, Doyle has until 2027)

 

Hopefully a permanent deal can be looked at next summer

 

Not a lot of upside in "Option to buy" for the selling club, it's usually reserved for players you want to get rid who have little room for improvement of like Praet, Ghezzal, etc

 

It's disappointing to not buy this lad but giving us an option to buy isn't good business for Man City as he could be the best defender by a street in this division and we have already agreed a price or if he was terrible we just send him on his way.  

Posted

Just a quick reminder before we get too excited our previous loans from man city haven't gone always as we would have hoped, Ryan Mcgiven, Ben Mee and Michael Johnson 👀

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...