January 2019 Transfer Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

ZeroTheHero

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
2,930
There is a rumour (?) that Lopes already has agreement to sign for Leeds.
 

bazzer9461

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
7,567
There is a rumour (?) that Lopes already has agreement to sign for Leeds.
Well we won’t get much for him then, we will get something because of the Bossman rule but if Leeds want to they do t have to offer much and if Lopes goeswe couldngonto a tribunal but they won’t enforce much, somwe lose another young prospect to the greedy C***s
 

Foley

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
4,139
Yes, he WAS. But at the moment he is fit and showing what he can do - which is why (in another thread) I expressed the hope that the club can keep him going. Which is not a given of course.

The issue, of course, is that it is the end of November and the season started in August. Signing a loan player who is injured and takes four months to get fit enough to show what he can do is either pretty unlucky (although he seems to have repeated the trick with Mackie to some degree) or a bit daft.
We don't know but I would suspect that the club did not sign players they knew to be crocs. My suspicion is that they knew Mackie was not match fit but thought that he would be ready earlier that he was (and Smith would be more successful)
My suspicion also is that Browne was expected to be ready earlier than he has been.
The club have been unlucky with some of the injuries from what I can gather from people who appear to know a little bit about injuries.
So maybe calculated risks rather that a bit daft?
 

ZeroTheHero

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
2,930
IMO, taking a bit of a risk on one of your leading forwards being unfit for a protracted period might be worth taking. Doing that with three (Mackie, Holmes and Brown plus Obika has a poor injury record) and your other leading forward signing being a kid with not much of a record actually is 'daft'.
The thing is, I can see what they were trying - and if it had come off you would have had a mixture of youth and experience that might have worked (and hopefully we are starting to see that it still might). Perhaps if we'd had another striker already at the club who was ready to play it would have been a risk worth taking. Of course, it's easy to say this in hindsight!
 

Marked Ox

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
10,926
Well we won’t get much for him then, we will get something because of the Bossman rule but if Leeds want to they do t have to offer much and if Lopes goeswe couldngonto a tribunal but they won’t enforce much, somwe lose another young prospect to the greedy C***s
I would expect any fee would be calculated by the EPPP (or whatever it is called) rules unless the clubs come to an agreement.
 

bazzer9461

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
7,567
I would expect any fee would be calculated by the EPPP (or whatever it is called) rules unless the clubs come to an agreement.
I get what you’re saying but Lreds
Will 16 until riven still lots to learn and will offer a piffle of an amount that may get increased upon appearances and sell on clause.
 

Foley

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
4,139
IMO, taking a bit of a risk on one of your leading forwards being unfit for a protracted period might be worth taking. Doing that with three (Mackie, Holmes and Brown plus Obika has a poor injury record) and your other leading forward signing being a kid with not much of a record actually is 'daft'.
The thing is, I can see what they were trying - and if it had come off you would have had a mixture of youth and experience that might have worked (and hopefully we are starting to see that it still might). Perhaps if we'd had another striker already at the club who was ready to play it would have been a risk worth taking. Of course, it's easy to say this in hindsight!
As you say it iseasy with hindsight.It is entirely possible that medical advice suggested that Mackie would be at a decent level of fitness in 3 to 4 weeks and that Browne should be fine and that Holmes has managed his back throughout his career (he has played 14 games so far for us and has been one of our better players)
That wouldn't be so daft?
The big problem has been Smith being nowhere near the level I assume was expected. Had he been a Roofe equivalent level it would have been less of a problem. Smith appears to have been too big a risk.
 

Marked Ox

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
10,926
I get what you’re saying but Lreds
Will 16 until riven still lots to learn and will offer a piffle of an amount that may get increased upon appearances and sell on clause.
That is the EPPP framework, I believe there is a defined formula that will be followed unless Leeds and ourselves agree an alternative.
 

Gary Baldi

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
5,043
To be fair to Browne, some of the more agricultural challenges he's been on the end of will not have helped his general fitness. Tuesday was yet another example of that.
 

Shosho

Well-known member
Joined
10 Dec 2017
Messages
1,518
To be fair to Browne, some of the more agricultural challenges he's been on the end of will not have helped his general fitness. Tuesday was yet another example of that.
Funny really. He shredded them in the first 15mins, they replaced the guy on the yellow then just decided to chop him down at every opportunity.
 

Gary Baldi

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
5,043
Funny really. He shredded them in the first 15mins, they replaced the guy on the yellow then just decided to chop him down at every opportunity.
I still can't quite believe the Ref gave the 6 a number of free goes at hacking at Browne.
 

Gary Baldi

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
5,043
Think it was actually Randall the RW that was subbed...McGahey was right side of a back 3 and didnt get much help...

View attachment 900
They changed to a back 4 when the 12 got hoicked off before half time and moved the left wing back at full back in the interim - it did somewhat stem the flow for them. They went back to 3 at the back after the last sub was made.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads


Top Bottom