Odsonne Edouard joins on loan - Official

[AKCJ]

If he was going back it would have happened by now. There's no chance Palace do us a favour by taking him back if it's not already written into the contract.

[CrispinLA in Texas]

23 hours ago, Fox92 said:

I'd take Cunha and Ait-Nouri from Wolves...

 

I also wouldn't include Fulham, three points off 5th, in the same sentence as Wolves and Palace.

I'm referring to their cast off's.... not their quality players 

[FrankieADZ]

36 minutes ago, Fox1norfolk said:

Big question is why did we sign him in the first place. He was absolutely useless at Palace. Has to be Cooper, what a plonker ! 

thought he could offer something, for which he hasnt

club will keep him until they are working on another loan to replace him

then send OE back

[FrankieADZ]

18 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

If he was going back it would have happened by now. There's no chance Palace do us a favour by taking him back if it's not already written into the contract.

yes and no, think they are looking at it this way, they arent going to get rid until they defo know they can get someone to replace him in terms of another loan from a prem team

 

 

Edited 3 January by FrankieADZ

[Jobyfox]

23 hours ago, Fox92 said:

I'd take Cunha and Ait-Nouri from Wolves...

 

I also wouldn't include Fulham, three points off 5th, in the same sentence as Wolves and Palace.

It misses the point really.

 

Fulham are currently doing ok precisely because they’ve got rid of players like BDCR. 

 

We went in for players who’d only ever reached the level of mediocrity at their peak. Edouard, Ayew, BDCR and, to some extent Skipp (for the money we paid) were dreadful signings really.

The reason I’m not confident in this window (and by definition staying up) is because there is too much to fix. January is a hard time to recruit players anyway, but you might have a chance if you got half way there in the summer. We’re trying to fix the problems in our squad at the same time as rectifying an abomination of a transfer window in the summer.

 

Not good - but getting rid of OE might be a start 

 

[Finnegan]

29 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

If he was going back it would have happened by now. There's no chance Palace do us a favour by taking him back if it's not already written into the contract.

 

If we can send him back we can presumably send him back at any point in the month.

 

Would assume they won't do it until they need to. Either we find someone else to use the loan slot on or get a replacement forward.

 

Either way, no particular need to send him back the very second the window opens.

 

Edited 3 January by Finnegan

[Graceroad]

54 minutes ago, Fox1norfolk said:

Big question is why did we sign him in the first place. He was absolutely useless at Palace. Has to be Cooper, what a plonker ! 

Scored 7 goals in 23 starts last season  not outstanding but not  bad by any means

[shen]

46 minutes ago, FrankieADZ said:

yes and no, think they are looking at it this way, they arent going to get rid until they defo know they can get someone to replace him in terms of another loan from a prem team

 

 

My guess is we can pay off the remaining wages of his loan to free up the loan space. Would be expensive, but Palace wouldn't be worse off and have effectively saved some money and have the opportunity to offload him elsewhere.

[Long Eaton Fox]

Edouard has 3 years remaining on his contract at palace. If they take him back now they could  potentially sell him or loan him straight back out. They know we won't be signing him in the summer.

[Fox92]

1 hour ago, Jobyfox said:

It misses the point really.

 

Fulham are currently doing ok precisely because they’ve got rid of players like BDCR. 

 

We went in for players who’d only ever reached the level of mediocrity at their peak. Edouard, Ayew, BDCR and, to some extent Skipp (for the money we paid) were dreadful signings really.

The reason I’m not confident in this window (and by definition staying up) is because there is too much to fix. January is a hard time to recruit players anyway, but you might have a chance if you got half way there in the summer. We’re trying to fix the problems in our squad at the same time as rectifying an abomination of a transfer window in the summer.

 

Not good - but getting rid of OE might be a start 

 

Don't think I missed the point of the post I quoted. The post I quoted said we got what we deserved for looking at players at Fulham/Palace/Wolves and I pointed out some good players in these teams, players that would improve us.

 

I've never rated Reid, during his time at Fulham or Bristol City, but Fulham have been solid since they got promoted and Reid has been part of that squad. They aren't just doing okay now because they got rid of players like him.

 

I fully understand the point of people being frustrated at us going for aging players and paying too much, whether it be transfer fee or wage. I agree with that no doubt about it. However, check the threads, people were saying the signings were good for "experience". Even I got slated for calling Winks "average" when we signed him.

Edited 3 January by Fox92

[AKCJ]

58 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

If we can send him back we can presumably send him back at any point in the month.

 

Would assume they won't do it until they need to. Either we find someone else to use the loan slot on or get a replacement forward.

 

Either way, no particular need to send him back the very second the window opens.

 

Well we'd be paying his wages but yeah that's probably right.

[HybridFox]

One of the worst logic signings. Not playing him nor can we sign anyone else on loan. Earning salary out the club for doing f*** all while Palace pay f*** all. Rudkin masterstroke 

[Kasey Keller]

💩💩

[Gravel]

Has he gone yet?

[coolhandfox]

3 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

If we can send him back we can presumably send him back at any point in the month.

 

Would assume they won't do it until they need to. Either we find someone else to use the loan slot on or get a replacement forward.

 

Either way, no particular need to send him back the very second the window opens.

 

That would be my take, why send him back until you have too.

 

Could also be waiting until we get another striker in.

 

An injury to Vardy or Daka and we have one fit striker without him.

[coolhandfox]

1 hour ago, HybridFox said:

One of the worst logic signings. Not playing him nor can we sign anyone else on loan. Earning salary out the club for doing f*** all while Palace pay f*** all. Rudkin masterstroke 

We were in the position of going into the season with one fit striker who 38 years old.

 

We were desperate to have a body so not that illogical.

[Dahnsouff]

2 hours ago, HybridFox said:

One of the worst logic signings. Not playing him nor can we sign anyone else on loan. Earning salary out the club for doing f*** all while Palace pay f*** all. Rudkin masterstroke 

With the faultless power of hindsight you are right, but….

[CosbehFox]

4 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

If we can send him back we can presumably send him back at any point in the month.

 

Would assume they won't do it until they need to. Either we find someone else to use the loan slot on or get a replacement forward.

 

Either way, no particular need to send him back the very second the window opens.

 

Finners you are spot on but I'll say again, we can't send him back. There's no option within the deal. LCFC and his agent need to find another taker for his loan deal. 

[shen]

1 hour ago, CosbehFox said:

Finners you are spot on but I'll say again, we can't send him back. There's no option within the deal. LCFC and his agent need to find another taker for his loan deal. 

Surely, if LCFC offer to pay up the rest of the loan, then Palace won't object. They will get the option to get rid for the remainder of the window at no economic loss.

[CosbehFox]

2 minutes ago, shen said:

Surely, if LCFC offer to pay up the rest of the loan, then Palace won't object. They will get the option to get rid for the remainder of the window at no economic loss.

Maybe but it wouldn't be good for the FFP column in LCFC's example. Although its just dawned on me, it's' the only possible way given he's played for two clubs this season. 

Edited 3 January by CosbehFox

[sylofox]

11 minutes ago, shen said:

Surely, if LCFC offer to pay up the rest of the loan, then Palace won't object. They will get the option to get rid for the remainder of the window at no economic loss.

He's on an LCFC type contract. Way to much for a shite player.

 

They have no more chance of getting rid of him than we have of getting rid of Ward while under contract.

[Foxes1]

A panic buy loan deal, should have kept Ton Cannon, at least we would then have had the option to loan Cannon out in January and bring in another striker in January.

[iancognito]

4 hours ago, HybridFox said:

One of the worst logic signings. Not playing him nor can we sign anyone else on loan. Earning salary out the club for doing f*** all while Palace pay f*** all. Rudkin masterstroke 

That's re-writing history a bit. We needed cover, he was available and had notched a few goals under a new manager there. He hasn't worked out for whatever reason but he could have done an Ayew scored a couple of important late ones. It's a gamble but we haven't really lost anything.

[Chrysalis]

48 minutes ago, shen said:

Surely, if LCFC offer to pay up the rest of the loan, then Palace won't object. They will get the option to get rid for the remainder of the window at no economic loss.

Only way he is going back I expect is if he is injured.

 

We should pay it off like you said and move on, but we wont, the same way we refuse to cut losses to trim the squad.

[JimJams]

Palace might object purely on the basis that it's helping a fellow relegation struggler.