More Journalists In the know...

[norfolkngood 1,087]

could of signed Sargent for less early on in summer in other words what he is worth about 4/5 million 

how did it all go so wrong Webber wasted the biggest transfer  budget we have ever had 

Edited April 30, 2022 by norfolkngood

[Duncan Edwards 2,236]

I can believe that there is both truth in what he’s said and that it has been framed in a way to show Webber in as negative light as possible. 

[Branston Pickle 3,659]

13 minutes ago, Move Klose said:

Well was reported at the time by the pinkun guys that we were looking at loans from abroad during January.

That's not the case at all, you think clubs don't pay the wages of loan players they sign??? You think we loan out all those players for free? 

Not a chance any premier league side isn't paying the wages for a player they signed on loan, might happen lower down the leagues where money is not so much.

Perhaps read what I said, rather than what you think I said? loans are very often subsidised (ie players still part paid) by the parent club, that is an absolute fact, at all levels.

Edited April 30, 2022 by Branston Pickle

[Branston Pickle 3,659]

3 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

I can believe that there is both truth in what he’s said and that it has been framed in a way to show Webber in as negative light as possible. 

Yup - 100%

[hogesar 9,674]

7 minutes ago, GJP said:

Agree he's done it because he's fallen out with Webber, disagree that he's making it up.

 

But there's every chance the pair of them are full of sh*t.

Fair. In reality its not all that important when the failings are as obvious as they are right now!

[Move Klose 303]

1 hour ago, norfolkngood said:

could of signed Sargent for less early on in summer in other words what he is worth about 4/5 million 

how did it all go so wrong Webber wasted the biggest transfer  budget we have ever had 

I assume you mean four fifths of a million (800k) and not 4 or 5 million 😉

[Coneys Knee 954]

This transfer approach doesn’t tie in at all with what we’ve been told in the past. They’ve always said how meticulous they are with recruitment. I remember reading an interview with Ben Gibson where he said he pretty much joined because of how in depth their dossier was in him.

Why, if this is true did that suddenly end? Was that a Kieran Scott thing or somebody else who has maybe now left? 
 

There are two many things behind the scenes at the minute that just don’t seem to add up.

[glory.win or die. 270]

1 hour ago, Coneys Knee said:

This transfer approach doesn’t tie in at all with what we’ve been told in the past. They’ve always said how meticulous they are with recruitment. I remember reading an interview with Ben Gibson where he said he pretty much joined because of how in depth their dossier was in him.

Why, if this is true did that suddenly end? Was that a Kieran Scott thing or somebody else who has maybe now left? 
 

There are two many things behind the scenes at the minute that just don’t seem to add up.

The soccerbot calculator function?

 

[canarydan23 4,060]

10 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

I can believe that there is both truth in what he’s said and that it has been framed in a way to show Webber in as negative light as possible. 

Undoubtedly. What's worrying is just how incredibly easy it was to frame it in such a way.

[hertfordyellow 460]

10 hours ago, Move Klose said:

Well was reported at the time by the pinkun guys that we were looking at loans from abroad during January.

That's not the case at all, you think clubs don't pay the wages of loan players they sign??? You think we loan out all those players for free? 

Not a chance any premier league side isn't paying the wages for a player they signed on loan, might happen lower down the leagues where money is not so much.

We had already met our loan capacity this is why I’m sceptical about this crude set of tweets from a man who has gunned for Webber quite a bit.

https://www.premierleague.com/news/464747

[hertfordyellow 460]

10 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

I can believe that there is both truth in what he’s said and that it has been framed in a way to show Webber in as negative light as possible. 

And Webber haters will swallow it without questioning it. While those who think Webber has been more good than bad will see it’s obvious factual inconsistencies but will reject it entirely without reading between the lines.

Thats where the fan base is, very divided.

[hertfordyellow 460]

11 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Undoubtedly. What's worrying is just how incredibly easy it was to frame it in such a way.

Not really, the two loans bit is not feasible. https://www.premierleague.com/news/464747

[Coneys Knee 954]

17 minutes ago, glory.win or die. said:

The soccerbot calculator function?

 

The what?

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

27 minutes ago, hertfordyellow said:

Not really, the two loans bit is not feasible. https://www.premierleague.com/news/464747

International loans

[Pugin 601]

Whoah! Mazhitter is spinning this. There is smoke, but not as much fire as he would have us believe.

Firstly, my reading of the situation is that the players we were fishing for would be £100k pw PL players who have had a frustrating first half of the season OR clubs who are trying to shift such players.

Secondly, it wasn't ONLY Partick and St Pat's that were on there, which is what Mazhiter tries to imply. It's quite a sneaky misrepresentation.

Thirdly, it would be remiss of the club not to test the water in January, just to look for players who have somehow not appeared on our radar (this shouldn't happen, btw; we should have tabs on every player at every level at every club in the top two divisions and some beyond). It was just a 'throw a pebble in the pool and see where the ripples go'. 

None of this is to say that Stuart Webber was doing a great job. But equally it is no smoking gun, or anything like it.

Edited May 1, 2022 by Pugin

[Badger 2,405]

11 hours ago, Branston Pickle said:

I’m a bit dubious about this one, I have to say - we’d got our two PL loans so would have had to return them both in order to get two more…though o/s is different.

The £30k thing is slightly misleading as most loans are subsidised by the parent club , we all know this.

Assuming that it is true, and I do see why it might not be, I suspect that they were looking for international loans rather than domestic. The real point is that he has said that we weren't in the market for anyone in January, when this suggests that they were.

He used this as his justification for not being needed in January.

[canarydan23 4,060]

39 minutes ago, hertfordyellow said:

Not really, the two loans bit is not feasible. https://www.premierleague.com/news/464747

"Find out how Premier League clubs are limited in the number of players they can bring in on loan from English clubs"

There's a big wide world out there.

[Badger 2,405]

6 minutes ago, Pugin said:

Whoah! Mazhitter is spinning this. There is smoke, but not as much fire as he would have us believe.

Firstly, my reading of the situation is that the players we were fishing for would be £100k pw PL players who have had a frustrating first half of the season OR clubs who are trying to shift such players.

Secondly, it wasn't ONLY Partick and St Pat's that were on there, which is what Mazhiter tries to imply. It's quite a sneaky misrepresentation.

Thirdly, it would be remiss of the club not to test the water in January, just to look for players who have somehow not appeared on our radar (this shouldn't happen, btw; we should have tabs on every player at every level at every club in the top two divisions and some beyond). It was just a 'throw a pebble in the pool and see where the ripples go'. 

None of this is to say that Stuart Webber was doing a great job. But equally it is no smoking gun, or anything like it.

I agree with most of this. Despite the outraged claims on here by some, Ma****ter conceded to someone else on the thread that three quarters of premiership clubs use TransferRoom including Liverpool, Manchester City and Chelsea. The way he wrote it was clearly designed to create a false impression.

However, the big issue is that Webber justified not being here in January by saying we weren't in the market, when this suggests that we were.

[Badger 2,405]

43 minutes ago, hertfordyellow said:

And Webber haters will swallow it without questioning it. While those who think Webber has been more good than bad will see it’s obvious factual inconsistencies but will reject it entirely without reading between the lines.

Thats where the fan base is, very divided.

The fact that we tried TransferRoom is actually a good thing, apparently most big clubs do. The issue is that Webber justified his absence in January by saying we weren't in the market, when this suggests that we were.

Obviously the fans are divided at the moment - we have been relegated and there is always a proportion of people who think that there are simple solutions to things(we see it all the time with the ownership debate). However, it is not a good look to me that the Sporting Director deliberately mislead the situation in January to justify his own actions (rather than for tactical transfer reasons).

[hertfordyellow 460]

10 minutes ago, norfolkbroadslim said:

International loans

How many loans can you have at one time?

[hertfordyellow 460]

10 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

"Find out how Premier League clubs are limited in the number of players they can bring in on loan from English clubs"

There's a big wide world out there.

How many loans can you have registered at one time?

[Monty13 2,234]

19 minutes ago, Pugin said:

Whoah! Mazhitter is spinning this. There is smoke, but not as much fire as he would have us believe.

Firstly, my reading of the situation is that the players we were fishing for would be £100k pw PL players who have had a frustrating first half of the season OR clubs who are trying to shift such players.

Secondly, it wasn't ONLY Partick and St Pat's that were on there, which is what Mazhiter tries to imply. It's quite a sneaky misrepresentation.

Thirdly, it would be remiss of the club not to test the water in January, just to look for players who have somehow not appeared on our radar (this shouldn't happen, btw; we should have tabs on every player at every level at every club in the top two divisions and some beyond). It was just a 'throw a pebble in the pool and see where the ripples go'. 

None of this is to say that Stuart Webber was doing a great job. But equally it is no smoking gun, or anything like it.

Why were we testing the water if we had no money? Both with the loans and Eriksen stuff.

Webber literally just painted a picture that there was nothing to spend so why should he gave done anything in January.

If that wasn’t true then it makes you wonder if he was actually here and committed to finding a player or two maybe we would have got someone.

[Badger 2,405]

12 hours ago, Old Shuck said:

What next, we went to a few car boot sales incase a footballer or two was available? Amateur hour. 

Most clubs use TransferRoom - about  three quarters of the Premier League including Liverpool Man City and Chelsea, as Ma****ter confirmed when challenged. It is good that we are on there trying to maximise our contacts and our market knowledge.

However, the issue for me is that Webber said we were not in the market in January and used this as justification for not being here.

[Pugin 601]

2 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Why were we testing the water if we had no money? Both with the loans and Eriksen stuff.

Webber literally just painted a picture that there was nothing to spend so why should he gave done anything in January.

If that wasn’t true then it makes you wonder if he was actually here and committed to finding a player or two maybe we would have got someone.

Well, clearly there was a possibility of losing players in January, in which case we would have money to spend. 

[lake district canary 4,531]

13 minutes ago, Badger said:

However, the big issue is that Webber justified not being here in January by saying we weren't in the market, when this suggests that we were.

It's not a big issue imo. Probably a good thing to be seen looking, rather than just doing nothing, especially as there was possibility of one or two of ours getting offers we couldn't refuse.

[Monty13 2,234]

Just now, Pugin said:

Well, clearly there was a possibility of losing players in January, in which case we would have money to spend. 

Again if this was a possibility it doesn’t fit Webbers narrative of having nothing to do.

[canarydan23 4,060]

7 minutes ago, hertfordyellow said:

How many loans can you have at one time?

Not sure, I think 8 in total but there may be a restriction in how many are allowed in a matchday squad. Didn't Roeder have a situation where he couldn't play all the loanees at once?

Either way, they could still have been testing the ground for alternatives to the existing disastrous loan recruits (and indeed should have been given the obvious failings).

[By Hook or Ian crook 917]

12 hours ago, Monty13 said:

Weren’t we maxed out on loans? How would we be able to get 2 more or have I misunderstood something?

Players coming in on loan from outside the uk are classed as a signing even if on loan. 

[Mr Angry 1,561]

Describing a 21 year old as a mercenary strikes me as being a bit dramatic really.

[Badger 2,405]

Just now, lake district canary said:

It's not a big issue imo. Probably a good thing to be seen looking, rather than just doing nothing, especially as there was possibility of one or two of ours getting offers we couldn't refuse.

I agree with what you say, but not your conclusion i.e. "it's not a big issue." As you suggest, there may have been the possibility of offers for our players - Cantwell being the obvious one + the fact that we were actively looking. Surely the Sporting Director should have been there for that?