Have we acutally bid for Taylor?

[Hartsons Gut 0]

Sounds as though we haven''t. Brady has offered a chat to Glen if he wants to sign Taylor, so what does that mean? No contact from us to Birmingham.

I am confused because it sounded like our board and everyone involved had done all they can, but Brady hasnt recieved any proposal!!!!!!!!!!

Can the board explain??????

[Jonny 5 0]

This sounds like the normal pre-transfer window nonsence. I think it is best to ignore just about everything said about the Taylor transfer until January itself. We could offer Birmingham 10 million, we still wouldn''t get him until January 1st.  What is the point in getting involved with a war or words with the Birmingham board?Although it is annoying, it is probably best the board don''t talk to much about transfers.  I always felt Worthington''s tight lipped approach was better than Grant''s "tell the whole world and watch another team buy the player."

[Syteanric 1]

 

do u really need that question Answering?

jas :)

[a1canary 0]

My analysis of the situation is as follows:We tried to negotiate an extended loan while sounding them out for the sort of fee they''d be looking for for a permenant transfer in January. They''ve come back and said in the region of 1.25m and we''ve tried to negotiate that down. I would expect us to negotiate given that they have a player they don''t want, who wants to leave and who wants to play for us. That should give us a lot of the cards but that''s without counting for QPR and the chummy relationship between their and Brum''s chief execs. We''ve probably got no more than 1-1.5m available in total in January and GR feels he can''t afford to blow it on one player.Brum have flatly refused to negotiate the figure so naturally we aren''t going to put a bid if it leaves GR penniless after securing Taylor (although personally i think it might be worth a punt if we can keep the other loanees on!).So the answer is no, i don''t think we haven''t put a bid in. That make sense?

[7rew 0]

[quote user="a1canary"]My analysis of the situation is as follows:We tried to negotiate an extended loan while sounding them out for the sort of fee they''d be looking for for a permenant transfer in January. They''ve come back and said in the region of 1.25m and we''ve tried to negotiate that down. I would expect us to negotiate given that they have a player they don''t want, who wants to leave and who wants to play for us. That should give us a lot of the cards but that''s without counting for QPR and the chummy relationship between their and Brum''s chief execs. We''ve probably got no more than 1-1.5m available in total in January and GR feels he can''t afford to blow it on one player.Brum have flatly refused to negotiate the figure so naturally we aren''t going to put a bid if it leaves GR penniless after securing Taylor (although personally i think it might be worth a punt if we can keep the other loanees on!).So the answer is no, i don''t think we haven''t put a bid in. That make sense?[/quote]This seams to match up with how I expect the situation to be.  I also think that getting Taylor with a large wack of out transfer money would be a good idea, provided we know that we can keep the other loanees.  This means that spending the money now, before we know about the other loanees, would be a bad move.  I also feel that this sheads some light on the possible transfer budget that we have, as I would act this way if the bid for Taylor (fee + loan fee) was anything over 60% of the budget I had available, this would put our budget in the range of upto £2.25m

[a1canary 0]

[quote user="a1canary"]So the answer is no, i don''t think we haven''t put a bid in. That make sense?[/quote]No, that doesn''t make sense! It''s supposed to say "i don''t think we HAVE put a bid in"!!

[canary cherub 1]

It sounds as though we were only willing to make an offer if Birmingham agreed to extend his loan.  They didn''t, so we didn''t put in an offer either.

 

[First Wazzock 902]

I still think we may be in a strong position.

What good is it to Birmingham to have an offer from QPR (which it seems they have accepted) if the player does not want to sign for them.

It still makes sense to negotiate with us.

 

[chicken 0]

In the transfer market this is nothing new.Birmingham probably wanted us to commit to a price when agreeing the loan extension, we probably didn''t to agree their price right now - and rightly so.So whilst we didn''t technically put a bid in we probably did inquire as to the price they wanted. Strangely Brady has suggested that this wasn''t done properly which is simply not true, if we havn''t placed a bid then we havn''t broken any rules.Not extending his loan was nothing but selfish on the part of Birmingham, they have put the player in the shop window and have now withdrawn him and rapped him in cotton wool to make sure he is still a valid product come January.Part of the reason why we wouldn''t commit to signing him straight away. If he was to get injured between now and January which isn''t that long, we would then need further cover and after laying out a lump sum for him would we have anything to do this with? I would say that Roeder knows what he is doing, lets see come Jan what happens.I hope we get Patterson in and Evans on season long loan. That would be a start. If Camara is a free then him as well, he may not be spectacular but he does all of the basic things well.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="chicken"]Not extending his loan was nothing but selfish on the part of Birmingham, they have put the player in the shop window and have now withdrawn him and rapped him in cotton wool to make sure he is still a valid product come January.Part of the reason why we wouldn''t commit to signing him straight away. If he was to get injured between now and January which isn''t that long, we would then need further cover and after laying out a lump sum for him would we have anything to do this with? I would say that Roeder knows what he is doing, lets see come Jan what happens.[/quote]

Why is it selfish?   They want to protect their asset from just the scenario you state!!  Us not buying him in January should he get injured during the busy xmas period!!!

If I was in their shoes I would be happy with the clubs decision to not extend his loan for the 3 additional weeks as if he got injured it would be a huge price to pay in January when he wouldnt get bought.

[chicken 0]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]

[quote user="chicken"]Not extending his loan was nothing but selfish on the part of Birmingham, they have put the player in the shop window and have now withdrawn him and rapped him in cotton wool to make sure he is still a valid product come January.Part of the reason why we wouldn''t commit to signing him straight away. If he was to get injured between now and January which isn''t that long, we would then need further cover and after laying out a lump sum for him would we have anything to do this with? I would say that Roeder knows what he is doing, lets see come Jan what happens.[/quote]

Why is it selfish?   They want to protect their asset from just the scenario you state!!  Us not buying him in January should he get injured during the busy xmas period!!!

If I was in their shoes I would be happy with the clubs decision to not extend his loan for the 3 additional weeks as if he got injured it would be a huge price to pay in January when he wouldnt get bought.

[/quote]Because we are not talking about an item - we are talking about a human being. It is disgraceful, the guy wants to play football then let him. It should not be the choice of the club once the initial loan is made.Its just a sign of what some "sports" in this country have become and the way that fans seem to accept it without the issues involved being thought about.And I am not convinced that injury staves off interest. Newcastle signed Owen when there was still a questionmark over his overall fitness. Sure he is no Owen but he is a quality player at this level and all you need is a couple of clubs to get interested to get the price up. A month without football means that his match-sharpness will have deteriated again. And all for the sake of a handfull of games - you can''t tell me that he won''t play a reserve game or two at Brum over this period?

[Jonny 5 0]

Another aspect of us not getting an extension to the loan is the fact QPR had an offer accepted, which may have been on the terms that the loan wasn''t extended. They certainly wouldn''t want a player they are trying to buy playing for a relegation rival and risking injury.I just hope everyone''s fixation on Taylor doesn''t mean the board pay above the vaule for this player just to keep us all happy, although Taylor was a great player for the month he was here, loanees often play a little above their normal game and the last thing we need is a million pound one month wonder.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="chicken"]

Because we are not talking about an item - we are talking about a human being. It is disgraceful, the guy wants to play football then let him. It should not be the choice of the club once the initial loan is made.

Its just a sign of what some "sports" in this country have become and the way that fans seem to accept it without the issues involved being thought about.

And I am not convinced that injury staves off interest. Newcastle signed Owen when there was still a questionmark over his overall fitness. Sure he is no Owen but he is a quality player at this level and all you need is a couple of clubs to get interested to get the price up. A month without football means that his match-sharpness will have deteriated again. And all for the sake of a handfull of games - you can''t tell me that he won''t play a reserve game or two at Brum over this period?
[/quote]

I doubt they will play him at all.  The initial loan deal was for only for a certain period, why on earth should they be forced to loan him for longer???? [:S]

Why would they want to risk his fitness for the sake of what is now just 12 or 13 days without a game until the new year.  As for at least 4 games in the space of two weeks during the harsh conditions of the xmas schedule - it would be a travesty if in a similar situation we did something similar.  Especially if we DIDNT try to get the best price for one of our players.

[Bill 1,788]

"  Its just a sign of what some "sports" in this country have become "So it was much better before the freedom of contract and during the maximum wages ? Maybe this forum is a sign of the idiots that sport has attracted.None of us know the full in ands outs of the dealings over Taylor yet many are happy to use this as yet another peg to hang their frustrations with the club on. After all, look what a wretched state the club is in compared to the other two clubs who were relegated with us.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="City1st"]"  Its just a sign of what some "sports" in this country have become "

So it was much better before the freedom of contract and during the maximum wages ? Maybe this forum is a sign of the idiots that sport has attracted.

None of us know the full in ands outs of the dealings over Taylor yet many are happy to use this as yet another peg to hang their frustrations with the club on. After all, look what a wretched state the club is in compared to the other two clubs who were relegated with us.
[/quote]

City 1st, time after time you resort to calling people idiots just because you don''t happen to agree with them.  I know Delia does it too but that doesn''t make it big or clever.  If your argument has any weight it will speak for itself.

 

[Mello Yello 2,277]

[quote user="Fat Prophet"]

[quote user="City1st"]"  Its just a sign of what some "sports" in this country have become "

So it was much better before the freedom of contract and during the maximum wages ? Maybe this forum is a sign of the idiots that sport has attracted.

None of us know the full in ands outs of the dealings over Taylor yet many are happy to use this as yet another peg to hang their frustrations with the club on. After all, look what a wretched state the club is in compared to the other two clubs who were relegated with us.
[/quote]

City 1st, time after time you resort to calling people idiots just because you don''t happen to agree with them.  I know Delia does it too but that doesn''t make it big or clever.  If your argument has any weight it will speak for itself.

 

[/quote]

Sounds and types just like old ''MadDan''.........wherever he may be? And he''s allowed by the moderator to call folk ''idiots''........so there!