• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Matt Doherty

Baleforce said:
Wow, surprising.

Good luck to him.

Looking forward to the ENIC Out melts Schroedingering this one and both hammering Levy for not moving players on whilst simultaneously complaining we got no fee.
Click to expand...
You've actually totally misunderstood the critique ENIC and Levy get. This is exactly opposite of the behaviour he gets criticised for. If it's not working, cut your losses at the minimum damage point and keep it moving.

Sent from my XQ-BC72 using Fapatalk
 
Bishop said:
You've actually totally misunderstood the critique ENIC and Levy get. This is exactly opposite the behaviour he criticised for. If it's not working, cut your losses and the minimum damage point and keep it moving.

Sent from my XQ-BC72 using Fapatalk
Click to expand...
I think you’re missing the point, Levy gets criticised whatever he does. I guarantee you can go on Twitter now and there will be people whinging about Levy doing this. He could sign Bellingham and people will be blaming Levy for not getting him years ago when he was at Birmingham…..
 
What ? That’s mental that we’ve done that. Especially over Royal. That does not like good strategy. Poor planning and again highlighting we can’t shift the brick of our books. Ndombele etc.
 
Bishop said:
You've actually totally misunderstood the critique ENIC and Levy get. This is exactly opposite of the behaviour he gets criticised for. If it's not working, cut your losses at the minimum damage point and keep it moving.

Sent from my XQ-BC72 using Fapatalk
Click to expand...

Yeah i mean whilst that's true of some/plenty of people's criticism there are plenty that appear to just complain whichever way any given scenario plays out.

Anyway it's hopefuly a good sign moving forwards that we are prepared to take a 'loss' on players surplus to requirement rather than keep them around too long in the hope of them either finding form or a buyer with deep pockets - probably linked to our improvement financially over the last few years that we're able to do so.
 
djp82 said:
What ? That’s mental that we’ve done that. Especially over Royal. That does not like good strategy. Poor planning and again highlighting we can’t shift the brick of our books. Ndombele etc.
Click to expand...

We are where we are with the squad, it's a bloated mess and we're still feeling the effects of the poor transfer strategy which ran through the stadium build and early new stadium years - the strategy, if this move is indicitve of it, now appears to be spot on, clear out the old players whether we lose nominal amounts of money by doing so.

As for Royal - his contract and value as a result means releasing him would be a nonstarter at this point
 
So did the club find out today that they were only allowed to put out 8 players on international loans?

A loan for Doherty would have been number 9, so they agreed to cancel his contract.

Hmmmmm
 
billyiddo said:
We are where we are with the squad, it's a bloated mess and we're still feeling the effects of the poor transfer strategy which ran through the stadium build and early new stadium years - the strategy, if this move is indicitve of it, now appears to be spot on, clear out the old players whether we lose nominal amounts of money by doing so.

As for Royal - his contract and value as a result means releasing him would be a nonstarter at this point
Click to expand...

That makes sense. It just seemed odd. Especially as we’ve been after Porro all window . We must of again thought we could sell one of Doherty or Royal and not managed it.
 
djp82 said:
That makes sense. It just seemed odd. Especially as we’ve been after Porro all window . We must of again thought we could sell one of Doherty or Royal and not managed it.
Click to expand...

Would be silly to release Doherty before we knew the Porro deal was done - not saying the plan would have been to release regardless but the timing obviously had to after the Porro deal was sorted otherwise we'd leave ourselves short if it fell through
 
Last edited:
mjc23 said:
Pretty bloody mental. I'm sure someone would've paid a few million for him.
Click to expand...

Spending all January, right up to 10m before the deadline, dingdonging around to save 4-5m for Porro, and then realziing that getting him in means releasing one of the existing right backs and losing out on 4-5m in transfer fees as a result...

...I am in awe of the sheer competence of the folks in charge of our transfers. Hats off to them for this 1000 IQ play. :p

Raziel said:
18 months left on contract

Approx £75K/week, so £5.8M in wages potentially saved (depends on the release negotiation)
Click to expand...

Won't be that much - he had us over a barrel with this, since we were the ones who fudged up and forgot that you can't loan out every piece of brick in the squad.

Think he'll have gotten the majority of his contract paid out.
 
Lilbaz said:
No udogie is u21.

https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/fifa-approves-new-loan-regulations-come-into-force-july-2022-03-30/#:~:text=In a bid to foster,loaned out from next season.&text=The number will drop to,into force from July 1.

Homegrown players and those under the age of 21, however, will remain exempt from the regulations.
Click to expand...

I'm reading elsewhere that the wording of the rule is clunky but essentially if a player is both HG & u21 he is exempt - not either or. Udogie & Gil not being HG means they are counted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back