Ashley Fletcher

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

Clips can be misleading, but he looks like quite a mobile, quick-footed player, albeit with a bit of physical strength. If so, as such he would appear to fit our main starting system/line-up. If he is any good.

[Bill 1,788]

Once again being talked off. Whether that is putting 2 and 2 together... we will have to see.I would think that a loan would suit at this stage. See how he goes then see what can be done in JuneLooks to have pace and youth on his side, so that would fit the bill, but I still think we need a bit of ''weight'' as well.

[hogesar 9,618]

Loan only works for us if he isnt that great though. Should he have a really good half season with us he will be beyond our financial reach.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="hogesar"]Loan only works for us if he isnt that great though. Should he have a really good half season with us he will be beyond our financial reach.[/quote]err noThese things are usually agreed as part of the loan - if the loan is a ''view to buy''  for that very reason

[hogesar 9,618]

Oddly enough im fully aware of a loan with an agreed purchase price but considering their outlay on the player it would be illogical for Middlesbrough to accept that. If we were to loan and they thought he might score a few, at his age, theyd certainly want to either bring him back or let other clubs bid for him.

[DDD In The Fine City 1]

Didn''t they pay 6.5 million for him? We couldn''t afford 650k

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="hogesar"]Oddly enough im fully aware of a loan with an agreed purchase price but considering their outlay on the player it would be illogical for Middlesbrough to accept that. If we were to loan and they thought he might score a few, at his age, theyd certainly want to either bring him back or let other clubs bid for him.[/quote]their ''outlay'' is nothing more than speculation, as was revealed about Wildscutt.My understanding is that any fee agreed would still be dependant upon both clubs agreeing to the move. So your thought about taking him back would hold.My pont was that I doubt whether the club would want to commit at this stage, more so given that he appears to have fallen short of what was expected of him.Even then a loan fee and his wages (part of?) would stll be a major commitment, albeit I suspect we are around £14m or so to the good since the sales of Pritchrd and Oliveira, plus wages saved from Naismith and Wildschutt (again part).

[Indy 3,283]

From the cost and form doesn’t look an inspiring signing, but beggars can’t be choosers and if he’s wrong lying to come to play so be it. Hopefully someone might show where the net is during his time here.

[Punctured Bicycle on a hillside desolate 0]

Grant Holt didn''t cost much and look how he turned out

Have no idea if this geezer will be a Holt or a David Nielsen

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Indy"]From the cost and form doesn’t look an inspiring signing, but beggars can’t be choosers and if he’s wrong lying to come to play so be it. Hopefully someone might show where the net is during his time here.[/quote]I think you maybe muddling up the two East Anglian clubs

[Indy 3,283]

Loaning a failed 22 year old striker from Boro is on par with what the binners would be looking to do.

We are like it or not in the same market for players as the richest championship clubs.

Still Fletcher might just be taught how to score, fingers crossed.

[Indy 3,283]

Should be NOT in the same market for players as the richest championship clubs.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

Absolutely pointless to loan this player without a vaguely affordable option to buy included in the deal and would be the polar opposite of the “building for the future” we are supposedly doing and sacrificing our season for.

Don’t see the point at all. Would rather give our own young players some game time.

[Van wink 2,994]

City 1st

''Even then a loan fee and his wages (part of?) would stll be a major commitment, albeit I suspect we are around £14m or so to the good since the sales of Pritchrd and Oliveira, plus wages saved from Naismith and Wildschutt (again part).''

Coco the Clown strikes again 🤥

[Indy 3,283]

Must admit the club did a job on the fans Van Wink selling Oliveira without us knowing! I think the closet binner might have meant Jerome!

[Bill 1,788]

No, I meant Oliveirayou''ll see 

[Van wink 2,994]

Drunk again 🤮

[ron obvious 1,499]

Weasels ripped my flesh!

[Van wink 2,994]

😀

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="Hercules"]No, I meant Oliveirayou''ll see  [/quote]So if the rumoured fee of £12 million for Pritchard is correct you reckon we will only get £2 million for Oliviera which even taking into account his poor form that means we have taken a hit on him ?

[Bill 1,788]

err, nomy actually words were"I suspect we are around £14m or so to the good"note the words we areand your words we willone being the past tense, the other being the future tense (simplified),do try and keep up my old flatfoot ie read what has been said rather than jump in with both (flat) feet gleefully thinking you have got one over me

[Rock The Boat 1,325]

[quote user="Hercules"]Even then a loan fee and his wages (part of?) would stll be a major commitment, albeit I suspect we are around £14m or so to the good since the sales of Pritchrd and Oliveira, plus wages saved from Naismith and Wildschutt (again part).[/quote]When did we sell Oliveira?

[Rock The Boat 1,325]

oh, beaten to it.