Jump to content

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

We're probably not there yet but there will be a point in time where the performance criteria cannot possibly be hit to trigger the compulsory purchase. From then on Newcastle are risking further injury to him with no gain. The review back at Newcastle in the next couple of weeks will be important.

 

Presumably, Newcastle is invested in the sale going through. I suspect the callback to Newcastle for assessment must have been triggered by negative noises from our camp about the likelihood of him making the grade and them wanting to see if they can see what can be done to make it work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting bleak as far as Hayden goes. Poor chap, poor NCFC, poor Newcastle (well not really.)

One door closes and another opens. Young Gibbs seems ahead of time and could be useful.

I was surprised to read a fairly recent interview given by him that he does not actually consider himself a defensive midfielder.

It would seem that we actually need him in that role soonest, but if the worst is revealed about Hayden, then this position is a priority next window (again, again.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going in for injured players is always a lottery. Looks like Hayden is yet another losing ticket.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skipp hasn't got on the pitch since he returned from injury. If that continues for a few months maybe a return might be on the cards...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Presumably, Newcastle is invested in the sale going through. I suspect the callback to Newcastle for assessment must have been triggered by negative noises from our camp about the likelihood of him making the grade and them wanting to see if they can see what can be done to make it work. 

I imagine it's more that he's their asset and they want a say in any treatment he has to make sure we don't accidentally break him further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, king canary said:

I imagine it's more that he's their asset and they want a say in any treatment he has to make sure we don't accidentally break him further.

Same difference, but yeah; probably looking for things we might have done wrong rather than it being the case we have done anything wrong. 

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d love to hear Webbers rationale behind this signing, especially when he was injured when we went in for him. I pray we don’t sign him on a permanent deal as he’s gonna be another disaster, but then again that’s Waster Webber’s forte it seems to waste money on crap signings 😡

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Same difference, but yeah; probably looking for things we might have done wrong rather than it being the case we have done anything wrong. 

As I've said in the other thread, I suspect it's we thought he was good to go and they had to sign off on it and they're not quite comfortable yet (possibly due to being over protective as they don't want to lose the potential transfer fee)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this rate the triggers that will mean we are obligated to sign Hayden will never be met.  Neewcastle will want to see Hayden regain fitness so they can get a return, but as seriously minted couldn't care less.  Surely ther time to call a halt to this farce must come soon.  And now he's not a DM makes the move seem even sillier.  Another Webber masterclass in ineptitude, how long can continue to cope with this clown steering the ship.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

Skipp hasn't got on the pitch since he returned from injury. If that continues for a few months maybe a return might be on the cards...

He played alright in England U21's Tuesday, set up the 3rd goal, so doesn't seem to be losing it despite kick of game time at Spuds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, king canary said:

Yes, if players weren't injured we wouldn't be bothered about injuries. Insight.

Hayden's injury in particular, I'm sure you get what I'm saying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Capt. Pants said:

To claim Hayden was loaned in on the basis that he wouldn't be required this season is pretty laughable really. Luckily Gibbs exceeded expectations for this point in time and Hayden has proved no great loss, but October is a huge month for us and will go a long way in whether we are likely to get automatic promotion or not.

At the end of the day he's Newcastle's asset so they stand to lose more than us. Hopefully the deal has been structured in a way that we can bin him off in January.

Why does it have to be luck?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A real shame as there has been a Hayden shaped hole evident throughout most of the season (although Gibbs did a good job there when he was involved). 

Its certainly not the end,  and there is quite a lot of catastrophising in this thread I feel. Ultimate its still relatively early in the season, as long as we can get him fit this side of the transfer window then it would be worth keeping him for the rest of the season IMO. That gives him nearly 2 months of football plus the world cup to get fit, plenty of time to get him in before then and plenty of time still to have a material impact on our season even if its just a half season - as impossible as that seems right now.

Does anyone know how bad the set back is, presumably quite bad for Smith to have mentioned it?!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gordon Bennett said:

Why does it have to be luck?

It doesn't. Why isn't it? Were you expecting Gibbs to be one of the stand out players so far? I certainly wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Hayden's injury history, a bit concerning:

 

image.png.ddb3103c13f7e459d30f200733cb17c7.png

Is it that concerning? Before the knee problems that ultimately required surgery (which he is still recovering from) he has missed 18 games from injury in 9 years as a professional and has been injured for 130 days. The recovery time from this knee problem is slightly concerning, but his history certainly isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Gordon Bennett said:

Hayden's injury in particular, I'm sure you get what I'm saying. 

I think people would still be (rightly) questioning why our main signing to fill a key hole was a player who hadn't kicked a ball since December and who was still recovering. The need might be less acutely felt but I think the process would still be having questioned asked of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, cornish sam said:

Is it that concerning? Before the knee problems that ultimately required surgery (which he is still recovering from) he has missed 18 games from injury in 9 years as a professional and has been injured for 130 days. The recovery time from this knee problem is slightly concerning, but his history certainly isn't.

Are you not concerned with the regularity of injuries over the past couple of seasons? His overall record is good but that doesn't mean a problem cannot manifest itself. The knee injury is a reoccurring problem which has side-lined him 3 separate times now since the back end of the 2020/21 season, with who knows how many additional set backs during that time. We have seen two additional set backs from the first injury just since he joined which is clearly showing some further complications.

Also I don't think your reading of his overall record is correct, according to the above he's missed 56 games in his career and 398 days. As you say, not too bad over the course of a long career, but certainly less positive when you consider that 37 of 56 missed games and 252 of 398 injured days have happened in just the last 18 months!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The loan agreement for Hayden was made on an obligation to buy if certain performance criteria were made. In other words, if he got fit, we had the guaranteed purchase of a proven Premier League player for next season in a key role we need to fill. 

The good sides of the gamble were it was a price fixed fairly low for purchase and a million quid on wages over a year against the prospect of getting a proven Premier League player in a key role for next year. Even with the setback, it's possible it may yet work out, and the worst case scenario is we've lost a million quid and some of our physios time for trying, with plenty of time to look for more options before next season. 

His acquisition was always with an eye on returning to the Premier League, not playing an immediate urgent role in this season. 

Lets be clear, Hayden is a proven 'average' Premier League player at best.
Admittedly, (on paper) better than what we've had in recent times but he’s no messiah.   For 4 years now, our club has failed to address the one glaring problem in this or any other side we have fielded during that time, the CDM role. It did for
Farke and it'll cause Smiths downfall too. The loan of Skipp created a problem we could not address on promotion and look what a debacle that turned into. Hayden could be the same or worse he may never even play for us. 
 

We have a loan player currently (Ramsey) slowing the progress and perhaps affecting the confidence and belief of our own players and looking like creating another starting position we will have to refill on promotion.... we simply can't replace these players in sufficient numbers to be competitive on promotion so yes, we do need them now in position and developing ability, experience and confidence so that if we do get promoted we have at least a chance with the ones we have already employed (sufficient numbers of good players who know our systems and are familiar with each other) so that we can add to that group with better players to improve us overall and make us competitive.    If we don't need players now until promotion then tell me who we have that can step up since apparently 11 are out of contract and if a 19 yr old inexperienced loanee is keeping Cantwell, Sinani, Dowell, Sara and others sat on their backsides watching, thats surely a measure they aren't good enough to meet (what appears) our unreasonable aspirations.  We really are in trouble next year if thats the case and for that reason, think I would rather stay in the EFL!     

 

With our finances, the only way is to develop our own which includes getting in players permanently (not loans) so we can develop them individually and collectively.... Neither Hayden or Ramsey seem to fit that at this time.    Gibbs looks a find for CDM but I do fear his physique will restrict him in the EPL.

By my reckoning we have Krul, Gunn, Aarons, Omobamidele, Hanley (backup), Pukki (out of contract), Cantwell (OOC) who we know could hold their own in the EPL.... 7, that’s far too few and very worrying when you add the quality of our recruitment in too.   Jury remains out on everyone else.   Nunez would be ineffective without a decent CDM behind him, is he robust enough and Sara, no one is sure about and the rest can't get in front of a 19 yr old loan player so must be wondering where they stand in all this.   So where does the money come from to replace everyone?     Not just that, if we did replace them how long does it take for the team to bond (see Nottm Forest and history for that one).    

 

All these fans (and Sutton) saying get promotion first!!!! Its cloud-cuckoo land!   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ricardo said:

Going in for injured players is always a lottery. Looks like Hayden is yet another losing ticket.

Mind you, going in for an unproven player is also a lottery. In many respects, long term injuries strike me as a more tangible quality than unproven talent/potential if you can afford the time needed for rehabilitation.

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Webber particularly rates or values out and out defensive midfielders (like Tettey) like the fans and most of the rest of football do. He seems to want his midfielders to be good on the ball first and foremost and any defensive contribution they can offer is a bonus, it's great if you can get a Skipp in who can do both, but within our price range it's not going to happen unless you take a gamble on someone like Hayden.

I wish he'd just bite the bullet and sign a Tettey-like replacement. I don't care if he's not a great footballer or we lose the ball more often because our game isn't built completely on starving the opposition of the ball anymore so we badly need someone quick, hard working, aggressive and good in the tackle to halt those counter attacks and shield the defence when we're pinned back.

If Hayden gets fit, stays in the team and covers that role for us with his also fairly decent ability on the ball then great, but I'd much rather have a proper ball winning DM playing that role if not instead of asking McLean to fill in there. I don't think it would cost a fortune in Jan either because players like that are often undervalued and don't stand out statistically, particularly in more technical leagues abroad. 

Edited by Christoph Stiepermann
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Are you not concerned with the regularity of injuries over the past couple of seasons? His overall record is good but that doesn't mean a problem cannot manifest itself. The knee injury is a reoccurring problem which has side-lined him 3 separate times now since the back end of the 2020/21 season, with who knows how many additional set backs during that time. We have seen two additional set backs from the first injury just since he joined which is clearly showing some further complications.

Also I don't think your reading of his overall record is correct, according to the above he's missed 56 games in his career and 398 days. As you say, not too bad over the course of a long career, but certainly less positive when you consider that 37 of 56 missed games and 252 of 398 injured days have happened in just the last 18 months!

Perhaps reread what I wrote, prior to the knee problems he's still recovering from he had only missed 18 games. That does not indicate any underlying issues, just that he had a knee problem, started playing again but turned out he wasn't healed  and had to have it operated on, which he is still recovering from. Other than hte knee (which I repeat he is still recovering from operation to fix) he has had a hadful of days out for little injuries/knocks apart from an ankle surgery 5 years ago which he has had no further reprecussions from. This is not an injury record to have set alarm bells ringing or cause consern, it is a single injury which ultimately needed surgery and he hasn't yet recovered from, if he will or not I don't know, but there's no reason prior to him signing for us that one should think that he wouldn't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Capt. Pants said:

To claim Hayden was loaned in on the basis that he wouldn't be required this season is pretty laughable really. Luckily Gibbs exceeded expectations for this point in time and Hayden has proved no great loss, but October is a huge month for us and will go a long way in whether we are likely to get automatic promotion or not.

At the end of the day he's Newcastle's asset so they stand to lose more than us. Hopefully the deal has been structured in a way that we can bin him off in January.

He exceeded your expectations. You don’t know what the club expected from him. Going into the season with Gibbs and Hayden in central midfield, with Sorensen as backup doesn’t sound so crazy, at worst a little light. Hindsight makes it look different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Hayden's injury history, a bit concerning:

 

image.png.ddb3103c13f7e459d30f200733cb17c7.png

I’d need to see the injury history of a few other players before calling that concerning, especially as we’re talking about someone who was playing for a club with more resources than us, who would be less likely to be used if there was any concern at all. 
 

For a start, posters are saying we need to sign another Tettey. He’s had more many more games out injured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there may be more to this. 

However highly we rate Hayden, however much we need a central defensive midfielder, however keen we are to integrate him, the hint of further knee issues is an excellent chance for Webber to renegotiate terms.

Webber is no fool at all, the criticism here may be massively wide of the mark.

Another explanation would be that we ‘encouraged’ a return-to-sender review precisely at this low point to get a discount. 

It could easily be canny timing and good business. I understand the new fluid on the knee is actually not considered a massive issue. Though presenting it in this way could see our deal improved based on our ‘increased risk’ and hitherto lack of game time. 

Parma 

Edited by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would make sense to renegotiate. Hopefully with a bit more protection on the compulsory purchase terms, we don't want to be forced into buying a cripple. We are in a position of strength here as all we have to do is not pick Hayden, and he stays at Newcastle.

I don't share the default view he's any better rhan what we have tbh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nuff Said said:

I’d need to see the injury history of a few other players before calling that concerning, especially as we’re talking about someone who was playing for a club with more resources than us, who would be less likely to be used if there was any concern at all. 
 

For a start, posters are saying we need to sign another Tettey. He’s had more many more games out injured.

Any issue where a player has been sidelined across for 18 months on three separate occasions for the same reoccurring issue, with no clear end goal in sight at this stage, is definitely somewhat of a concern.

I think I probably misposted in my original comment sharing the injury record, as I said before to Sam is not his overall injury record that is a concern but the last 18 months. I should’ve elaborated more.

Tettey had a ropey set of knees yes, but I would also call it a ‘concern’. 

My previous post on the topic was actually a positive one, I feel like we can get him 100% before January then it will be worth keeping him for the rest of the season, I guess my main worry by looking at his injury record is it doesn’t offer too much hope in terms of how soon we can expect him to return, and also if it should be the end of the issue.

I’m far from writing him off at this stage! But I’d be surprised if anyone is not concerned given that recent history plus the numerous additional set backs since he joined.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...