Jump to content

Transfer Rumours 24/25


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, LightDN123 said:

Cheers. I also missed Hammond off the list as he also wasn’t involved. 
 

My mate actually watched Wales u21s and Hammond played left wing back, surprisingly. 
 

Apparently he looked quite good in that role. 

Just put them 1-0 up against Slovakia 😃

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, oafc1955 said:

He was sent off….not carried off!

He played too many minutes in that game in my opinion, others have been eased back in playing 30 to 45 minutes tops back from injury, he started and was sent off in the 88th minute which was stupid in my opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

Yep, once again something goes wrong and the default position is that it must be the fault of club management 

I will never be of the opinion that the micky mouse cup will do nothing but hinder us this season, no way at all could they have planned for Charsley to play the full game in his first game back against Stoke's kids but he did and he's broken down not long after, he came on in the 68th minute against Moors for his second run out in four days, like i say it was a stupid decision and one that's now cost us two very important players, oh and we're hearing Micky moan we are light on bodies despite him admitting to being an integral part in the decision to enter. 

 

Next up another meaningless fixture to come sandwiched between two very important Saturdays away days to Tranmere and Barnet, training on that Wednesday after the micky mouse game will be a non event and I suspect they'll travel down on the Friday, not the preparation I'd want in the build up to such a huge game and that's before we assess if we've picked up anymore injuries.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, yarddog73 said:

I will never be of the opinion that the micky mouse cup will do nothing but hinder us this season, no way at all could they have planned for Charsley to play the full game in his first game back against Stoke's kids but he did and he's broken down not long after, he came on in the 68th minute against Moors for his second run out in four days, like i say it was a stupid decision and one that's now cost us two very important players, oh and we're hearing Micky moan we are light on bodies despite him admitting to being an integral part in the decision to enter. 

 

Next up another meaningless fixture to come sandwiched between two very important Saturdays away days to Tranmere and Barnet, training on that Wednesday after the micky mouse game will be a non event and I suspect they'll travel down on the Friday, not the preparation I'd want in the build up to such a huge game and that's before we assess if we've picked up anymore injuries.

I don't necessarily disagree but there's no particular evidence to say it caused whatever the problem is

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave_Og said:

I don't necessarily disagree but there's no particular evidence to say it caused whatever the problem is

No point in discussing it when you have this opinion.

Quote

I will never be of the opinion that the micky mouse cup will do nothing but hinder us this season

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, nzlatic said:

Well what evidence is there to the contrary? 

How do you find 'evidence' in a football game? It is a scheduled fixture just like all the other fixtures. You might consider a waste of time-the club obviously doesn't as it had a choice to take part.

Injuries happen in any competitive fixture-that's the chance you take every time a player turns out.

 

Harks back to the Filth choosing to not play in a FA cup game as they were in South America. You seem to want the same kind of decision-there are more important things so lets not play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, whittles left foot said:

How do you find 'evidence' in a football game? It is a scheduled fixture just like all the other fixtures. You might consider a waste of time-the club obviously doesn't as it had a choice to take part.

Injuries happen in any competitive fixture-that's the chance you take every time a player turns out.

 

Harks back to the Filth choosing to not play in a FA cup game as they were in South America. You seem to want the same kind of decision-there are more important things so let’s not play.

We have chosen to take part in an additional competition when many of our promotion rivals have chosen not to. The comparison to Man Utd and the FA cup is nonsensical. 

 

The risks and potential downsides of playing these additional games to our rivals were clear and pointed out in advance. Hobson’s injury has made one of them a reality. 
 

We’ve deliberately done this. So all I’m asking is for what benefit? And I mean a benefit to us, not the obvious benefit of providing competitive fixtures to top academies to help them poach more youngsters in future. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, nzlatic said:

The comparison to Man Utd and the FA cup is nonsensical. 

 

Yep.

 

A competition that no-one cares about compared to a 153 year old competition with a load of history and tradition which the Premier League have done their best to destroy and we are helping them to do it by agreeing to take part in it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nzlatic said:

 

We’ve deliberately done this. So all I’m asking is for what benefit?

Well the club see's a benefit or it would not be taking part. If nobody was injured we probably would not be having this conversation. Did Sutton not get a chance to shine in this game?

 

Moan all you like if the club chooses to play it matters not one jot what you think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, nzlatic said:

We have chosen to take part in an additional competition when many of our promotion rivals have chosen not to. The comparison to Man Utd and the FA cup is nonsensical. 

 

The risks and potential downsides of playing these additional games to our rivals were clear and pointed out in advance. Hobson’s injury has made one of them a reality. 
 

We’ve deliberately done this. So all I’m asking is for what benefit? And I mean a benefit to us, not the obvious benefit of providing competitive fixtures to top academies to help them poach more youngsters in future. 

They've already said why they decided to play in it. They judged the potential upsides to be greater than the risks. Financially we'll either break even or earn a bit, it gives a chance for a run out for those that aren't featuring week in week out and it gives the club an opportunity to build connections with clubs that might provide rewards further down the line. As fans we can't always see every angle to things, sometimes decisions won't make sense at the time but further down the line it might become more apparent why this was done. It may also turn out to be a poor call, who knows, time will tell I guess.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, whittles left foot said:

Well the club see's a benefit or it would not be taking part. If nobody was injured we probably would not be having this conversation. Did Sutton not get a chance to shine in this game?

 

Moan all you like if the club chooses to play it matters not one jot what you think.

 

We had the conversation before it started. It was a risk we didn't need to take, and indeed, other teams looking to get promoted felt the same. If the benefit is that back up players get a run in the first team when players get injured in that cup, then that doesn't seem worth it to me.

 

It should matter what the fans think. In Eastleigh's statement explaining their reasons to refuse the invitation, they referenced the fact that the supporters weren't interested. This played out with the very low attendances. I don't subscribe to the view that because the club have made a decision, they shouldn't care what the fans think about it. 

 

9 hours ago, doctor evil said:

They've already said why they decided to play in it. They judged the potential upsides to be greater than the risks. Financially we'll either break even or earn a bit, it gives a chance for a run out for those that aren't featuring week in week out and it gives the club an opportunity to build connections with clubs that might provide rewards further down the line. As fans we can't always see every angle to things, sometimes decisions won't make sense at the time but further down the line it might become more apparent why this was done. It may also turn out to be a poor call, who knows, time will tell I guess.

 

What was interesting to me about that interview with Darren Royle was more what he didn't say. He gave answers for a few of the concerns, but there was no mention of whether we have handed an advantage to promotion rivals or not.

 

I don't agree with the principal of taking part in tournaments where the main purpose is to further the advantages of teams at the top of the pyramid, especially when the rules are designed that way (ie must play 4 starters).  But also, I think we've blundered with the extra fixtures compared to other teams such as Barnet.

 

If Mellon was being honest, for his preparation for Barnet would he prefer what they have - a week of training between the fa cup and the game against us? Or what we have - a midweek game where we're not free to pick whoever we want?

Edited by nzlatic
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, nzlatic said:

We have chosen to take part in an additional competition when many of our promotion rivals have chosen not to. The comparison to Man Utd and the FA cup is nonsensical. 

 

The risks and potential downsides of playing these additional games to our rivals were clear and pointed out in advance. Hobson’s injury has made one of them a reality. 
 

We’ve deliberately done this. So all I’m asking is for what benefit? And I mean a benefit to us, not the obvious benefit of providing competitive fixtures to top academies to help them poach more youngsters in future. 

 

Which promotion rivals have chosen not to take part in it? The only ones I'm aware of is Barnet & York. I wouldn't class that as many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, JumpingJoshLundstram said:

 

Which promotion rivals have chosen not to take part in it? The only ones I'm aware of is Barnet & York. I wouldn't class that as many.

Potentially using the word "many" was wrong. Barnet, Eastleigh, Solihull and Southend were the teams that refused the invitation (York finished too low last season to be invited). I'd argue that all of them were targeting playoffs or higher at the start of this season. Whether it's many or not, there's only 1 automatic promotion spot so handing an advantage to one of them would be one too many in my view.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, doctor evil said:

it gives a chance for a run out for those that aren't featuring week in week


The only two at the time of DR’s interview who weren’t getting any minutes was Sutton and Reid. A few weeks later Micky is in the Oldham times saying- we’re light on numbers. 
 

Doesn’t make any sense. 
 

The only reason we’re playing in it is for the money. Which you can understand to a point. I wish they would just say that, rather than give us nonsensical sound bites. 
 

The over arching question is simply this, should short term cash flow come over the ultimate aim? As a fan, I would say no. But it’s easy for me to say as it’s not my millions funding the club. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, League one forever said:

The over arching question is simply this, should short term cash flow come over the ultimate aim? As a fan, I would say no. But it’s easy for me to say as it’s not my millions funding the club. 

This is it in a nutshell really. And presumably they've come down on the side of the money being enough to offset any possible negatives and help the aim of getting promotion this season. Which is fair enough, it's their call. I personally think (without having all the information!) that it's something we should have avoided. Fingers crossed we'll get our 4 goals at Barnet and it won't matter so much.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...