Devils in the detail

[Dean Coneys boots 1,406]

I see we are sniffing around another Chelsea youngster for loan. If last season taught us anything at all it is that we must negotiate to do this with no obligation to play or financially crippling incentive to do so.

Gilmour needed dropping in September but played almost all games. Never should we have to put up with that ridiculous scenario again 

[cambridgeshire canary 6,795]

If we go for another 'must play a certain number of games' contract this club has lost it's marbles

[Badger 2,412]

We are lucky that we have posters on this board who had access to all the contractual arrangements the club made with other clubs  rather than total billshutters who don't have a clue what they are talking about!

[Gibbo 131]

Is there actually any fact behind him being on a 'must play contract'?  Or is that just the common assumption?  He was nothing like 'as advertised' for sure, but there wasn't much else to replace him with either.

[jaberry2 556]

20 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

I see we are sniffing around another Chelsea youngster for loan. If last season taught us anything at all it is that we must negotiate to do this with no obligation to play or financially crippling incentive to do so.

Gilmour needed dropping in September but played almost all games. Never should we have to put up with that ridiculous scenario again 

Simply put Gilmour wasnt the right type of player for us and they got that very wrong. Not every chelsea player or loanee should be tainted with the same brush. 

[Nuff Said 5,176]

15 minutes ago, Gibbo said:

Is there actually any fact behind him being on a 'must play contract'?  Or is that just the common assumption?  He was nothing like 'as advertised' for sure, but there wasn't much else to replace him with either.

 

[canarydan23 4,060]

32 minutes ago, Gibbo said:

Is there actually any fact behind him being on a 'must play contract'?  Or is that just the common assumption?  He was nothing like 'as advertised' for sure, but there wasn't much else to replace him with either.

The usually well informed Athletic reported that his loan fee came down  the more he played.

[ricardo 7,400]

2 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

The usually well informed Athletic reported that his loan fee came down  the more he played.

A bit like his influence on games.

[Dean Coneys boots 1,406]

2 hours ago, Badger said:

We are lucky that we have posters on this board who had access to all the contractual arrangements the club made with other clubs  rather than total billshutters who don't have a clue what they are talking about!

Well if it wasn’t that - as was reported- then the situation is even worse. He was picked when not good enough. As for who to replace him with- how about Sorenson. After all when Gilmour was injured was when we picked up points- when he returned we lost again. 

[Badger 2,412]

2 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

The usually well informed Athletic reported that his loan fee came down  the more he played.

Dan, I know that you post with integrity but are you sure that this is correct? I get the Athletic and recall noting of the sort.

[Dean Coneys boots 1,406]

I still think he almost single handedly relegated us.

We shifted formation to accommodate him. Mistake. 

He was undroppable. Mistake 

If rumours are true (it’s a big if) he was a catalyst to team disunity (Cantwell saga) Mistake

He was overhyped and lacked physicality and thus chosen on reputation not contribution. Mistake

 

[canarybubbles 1,941]

Single-handedly is a bit of an exaggeration, but ...

https://theathletic.com/3247661/2022/04/13/norwich-tend-to-win-more-games-when-billy-gilmour-doesnt-play/

He does seem to have been the anti-Buendia.

Edited July 18, 2022 by canarybubbles

[Dean Coneys boots 1,406]

A bit but not a lot

[canarydan23 4,060]

57 minutes ago, Badger said:

Dan, I know that you post with integrity but are you sure that this is correct? I get the Athletic and recall noting of the sort.

https://theathletic.com/2904643/2021/10/21/gilmours-yet-to-make-an-impact-at-norwich-so-will-chelsea-be-worried/

"It is also worth noting the loan fee Norwich have agreed to pay Chelsea for Gilmour actually goes down with each game he plays, although that detail is unlikely to sway Farke’s team selections."

[Badger 2,412]

1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

https://theathletic.com/2904643/2021/10/21/gilmours-yet-to-make-an-impact-at-norwich-so-will-chelsea-be-worried/

"It is also worth noting the loan fee Norwich have agreed to pay Chelsea for Gilmour actually goes down with each game he plays, although that detail is unlikely to sway Farke’s team selections."

Thanks Dan. 👍

[canarydan23 4,060]

39 minutes ago, Badger said:

Thanks Dan. 👍

Took some finding but I was certain I'd  read it.

[Worthy Nigelton 1,063]

He really was rubbish wasn't he... dreadful signing.

[Dean Coneys boots 1,406]

1 hour ago, Worthy Nigelton said:

He really was rubbish wasn't he... dreadful signing.

Hard to think if a worse one really.  Not so much on actual ability or effort - Naismith poops all over him for that- but in terms of how much he was bigged up and played in contrast to what he actually did for us. I can’t remember ever wanting a player to leave as much as I did him around half way through the season.