Summer Rumour Mill

[ollycutts1982]

11 minutes ago, dcfcjj said:

I think the midfielder has been lost in the post 

He’ll fit in well with the none existing midfield we already have. 

[Steve How Hard?]

24 minutes ago, dcfcjj said:

I think the midfielder has been lost in the post 

Well, we are looking for a box to box midfielder who will put his stamp on the team.

[MackworthRamIsGod]

21 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

 

Watch him sign for us 😆

[Reggie Greenwood]

51 minutes ago, jimtastic56 said:

Could Tony Springett “Rock up” at the last minute?

He has been coming off the bench for Norwich last few games 

[Ghost of Clough]

57 minutes ago, DCFC1388 said:

The new signings could potentially make us better as a team and have us in a better position than if we had Bird in the team so why wouodnt we then sell Bird?

We have no centre mids for next season so bringing 2 in on permanents (if thats what they end up being) isnt short term.

With regards Robinson, Radcliffe etc, these are all young lads and to expect them to step up and into a team with such high expectations isnt realistic. They need to playing for the u23s or maybe even going out on loan, or maybe making the bench for EFL trophy, right now they shouldnt be close to the first team and if they are thats a concern & shows how light on numbers we are.

They may make us better (unlikely we'll sign 2 new starters...) but we still have a wage budget to manage. We could sign 23 new players which would make use better, but the wage bill will be blown out the water.

Bird is our best midfielder, whereas Thompson should already be ahead of Smith in the pecking order. It should be the older players in decline who should be replaced first, not our best and/or most promising youngsters. Funnily enough, new contracts can be signed. One of our youngsters needs us to get promoted this season, whilst the other needs to be given game time.

I have no idea how you've jumped to the conclusion that I want DRobinson and Radcliffe to step into the first team with high expectations. The role I have laid out for them is infrequent game time, because we would already have 6 senior first team players in the area of the field they play in (New, Bird, Hourihane, Smith, Thompson and Sibley). 6th choice typically barely gets any game time as it is, never mind making that a 7th! They don't need first team football at a lower level. They need a small amount of expose to higher level of football (L1) this season, before earning a higher level of loan next season.

54 minutes ago, McMuffin said:

He’s played 4 games and we’ve been out played and beaten in 3. Without him we’ve won 1 in 1.

He’s out of contact and hasn’t signed so he probably wants to go

As if Bird being in/out of the squad was the only factor...

He doesn't want to be stuck playing in L1 for another year. I can't blame him as the manger should be able to achieve that after 2 seasons in charge

54 minutes ago, EnigmaRam said:

I don’t get why you say we can’t sign a short term player? We could get one on loan, knowing Birds going to be out for awhile, whilst also having lots of games in the pizza cup. It’s quite feasible we get one in on a permanent signing as a DM in place of Smith, then one short term loan to cover BIrd in the advanced midfield role (whilst battling with Thompson) until Jan and assess then. 
 

If Birds sold we can try and make it a full season loan, if not they go back.

I was quite clear in the reasoning against short term cover:
"Signing short term cover is not an option, as this indicates they are squad players rather than starters who would improve the [starting 11]. If they would improve the [starting 11], they would be season long signings." 

The point here is, if they're good enough for a team chasing promotion, the loaning club will only send them out for the season. They may even put a recall clause in there. We don't want to sell Bird, so we wouldn't be signing someone for a season 'just in case' we do sell him.

49 minutes ago, Eoghan1884 said:

Very rarely will all 7 options be fit, also enables us to change formation and systems aswell as maybe loaning out one of robinson or Radcliffe. You need a strong squad to go up not just a strong 11/18

Not sure where you get an 11/18 man squad from. 6 central midfield players would be a 23 man squad. Any more and you start having an unhealthy squad size

[Ambitious]

5 minutes ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

He has been coming off the bench for Norwich last few games 

Has he actually? I'm surprised. Osula and Dobbin are playing in the Premier League, I guess, so it is a strange old world out there! 

[dcfcjj]

@Big Trav anything you can share? Starting to think the deals fell through 

[Eoghan1884]

6 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

They may make us better (unlikely we'll sign 2 new starters...) but we still have a wage budget to manage. We could sign 23 new players which would make use better, but the wage bill will be blown out the water.

Bird is our best midfielder, whereas Thompson should already be ahead of Smith in the pecking order. It should be the older players in decline who should be replaced first, not our best and/or most promising youngsters. Funnily enough, new contracts can be signed. One of our youngsters needs us to get promoted this season, whilst the other needs to be given game time.

I have no idea how you've jumped to the conclusion that I want DRobinson and Radcliffe to step into the first team with high expectations. The role I have laid out for them is infrequent game time, because we would already have 6 senior first team players in the area of the field they play in (New, Bird, Hourihane, Smith, Thompson and Sibley). 6th choice typically barely gets any game time as it is, never mind making that a 7th! They don't need first team football at a lower level. They need a small amount of expose to higher level of football (L1) this season, before earning a higher level of loan next season.

As if Bird being in/out of the squad was the only factor...

He doesn't want to be stuck playing in L1 for another year. I can't blame him as the manger should be able to achieve that after 2 seasons in charge

I was quite clear in the reasoning against short term cover:
"Signing short term cover is not an option, as this indicates they are squad players rather than starters who would improve the [starting 11]. If they would improve the [starting 11], they would be season long signings." 

The point here is, if they're good enough for a team chasing promotion, the loaning club will only send them out for the season. They may even put a recall clause in there. We don't want to sell Bird, so we wouldn't be signing someone for a season 'just in case' we do sell him.

Not sure where you get an 11/18 man squad from. 6 central midfield players would be a 23 man squad. Any more and you start having an unhealthy squad size

I got 11 as football is played with a starting 11 and 18 because the 7 on the bench makes a matchday 18. And as I said very unlikely we will have all options fully fit at any stage of the season. Healthy competition with players battling for places is better than a player knowing he’s guaranteed a place. 

[McMuffin]

5 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

 

As if Bird being in/out of the squad was the only factor…

Some who rate him (no idea why and what on earth they see when watching!) will say this but the facts are there. With him, 3 in 4 losses with the only win being the Burton one (bottom in league)

First without a win. Let’s see how it plays out a while longer then. 
 

[Scott129]

10 minutes ago, dcfcjj said:

@Big Trav anything you can share? Starting to think the deals fell through 

It's not fallen through as far as I'm aware.

I shared this rumour about a week ago having heard this information from someone who works with a member of Tyrese's family (first to do so on here I might add). I also heard that Portsmouth were running some interference on the deal, which was really interesting to hear about.

I also know that the player was at both the Oxford and Fleetwood games. The deal was basically done before Fleetwood and I don't believe that anything's changed, so not too sure why nothing's been announced. The only thing I can think of relates to Warne's comments post-match about negotiating clauses (or something along those lines): I wonder if we're trying to get a permanent deal similar to Washington, instead of the loan I was told about.

Edited August 22, 2023 by Scott129

[McMuffin]

2 minutes ago, McMuffin said:

Some who rate him (no idea why and what on earth they see when watching!) will say this but the facts are there. With him, 3 in 4 losses with the only win being the Burton one (bottom in league)

First without a win. Let’s see how it plays out a while longer then. 
 

Just like to add this bo//ocks theory from last season when he was out then. Everyone said it was because Bird was out. You can’t have it both ways. You could have said as if Bird in/out was the only factor 😜 

[Ghost of Clough]

2 minutes ago, Eoghan1884 said:

I got 11 as football is played with a starting 11 and 18 because the 7 on the bench makes a matchday 18. And as I said very unlikely we will have all options fully fit at any stage of the season. Healthy competition with players battling for places is better than a player knowing he’s guaranteed a place. 

But, at no point have I suggested we should have only an 18 man squad. This was a comment in relation to me saying 6 central players is enough, which is only 1 more than we currently have, taking us to a total squad size of 22. With needing cover at RB and another forward option, my squad would be 24 players (reduced to 21 for the next 2 months).

I also haven't said anyone should be a guaranteed starter. I'm actually a vocal supporter of rewarding players for good performances by giving them starts on the pitch. What we've seen so far this season is players putting in poor performances and being rewarded with a start in the next game (Smith, Bradley, etc), and other players being the best on the pitch and being rewarded with another spot on the bench (LThompson).

[Eoghan1884]

1 minute ago, Ghost of Clough said:

But, at no point have I suggested we should have only an 18 man squad. This was a comment in relation to me saying 6 central players is enough, which is only 1 more than we currently have, taking us to a total squad size of 22. With needing cover at RB and another forward option, my squad would be 24 players (reduced to 21 for the next 2 months).

I also haven't said anyone should be a guaranteed starter. I'm actually a vocal supporter of rewarding players for good performances by giving them starts on the pitch. What we've seen so far this season is players putting in poor performances and being rewarded with a start in the next game (Smith, Bradley, etc), and other players being the best on the pitch and being rewarded with another spot on the bench (LThompson).

Fair enough, when I said about needing a squad to go up not 11/18 players was more me saying my opinion than reacting to your comments. But I still don’t agree with the fact that 7 midfield and options would be to much especially when it seems a few of them are going to be used as wing backs and inverted wingers/10s at different parts of the season 

[Ghost of Clough]

8 minutes ago, McMuffin said:

Some who rate him (no idea why and what on earth they see when watching!) will say this but the facts are there. With him, 3 in 4 losses with the only win being the Burton one (bottom in league)

First without a win. Let’s see how it plays out a while longer then. 
 

I forgot we didn't change our shape vs Fleetwood or add more pace to our defence. We still looked roped and were lucky not to concede at least 2 goals.

Go through every season since Bird has been in the first team and you'll notice our record every season with Bird playing is much better than without him. I made a post giving the exact point not too long ago but I guess you conveniently missed it. Out of our CMs, he's still our most creative, wins more in the air, and the best defensive contributor despite being given a more advanced role this season. The issue is with the two other CMs who leave our defence exposed in the current system.

[dcfcjj]

9 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

It's not fallen through as far as I'm aware.

I shared this rumour about a week ago having heard this information from someone who works with a member of Tyrese's family (first to do so on here I might add). I also heard that Portsmouth were running some interference on the deal, which was really interesting to hear about.

I also know that the player was at both the Oxford and Fleetwood games. The deal was basically done before Fleetwood and I don't believe that anything's changed, so not too sure why nothing's been announced. The only thing I can think of relates to Warne's comments post-match about negotiating clauses (or something along those lines): I wonder if we're trying to get a permanent deal similar to Washington, instead of the loan I was told about.

Appreciate it, thank you. Update us if you know any further😉

[McMuffin]

12 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I forgot we didn't change our shape vs Fleetwood or add more pace to our defence. We still looked roped and were lucky not to concede at least 2 goals.

Go through every season since Bird has been in the first team and you'll notice our record every season with Bird playing is much better than without him. I made a post giving the exact point not too long ago but I guess you conveniently missed it. Out of our CMs, he's still our most creative, wins more in the air, and the best defensive contributor despite being given a more advanced role this season. The issue is with the two other CMs who leave our defence exposed in the current system.

Houihane adds more creative output hence higher goals and assists since he’s been here and he’s past it. Smiths past it too. You say there is an issue but you’re crying at the thought of signing 2 new ones! 🤣 I’m confused 🤷‍♂️

oh we was lucky in that one, hopefully our luck continues then.

 

league 1 is poor quality and does Bird really stand out amongst all the 💩 he doesn’t that’s mine and many others issue.

Edited August 22, 2023 by McMuffin

[StaffsRam]

43 minutes ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

He has been coming off the bench for Norwich last few games 

Well someone's gotta go start the bath running when there's 5 minutes to go.

[EnigmaRam]

52 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

They may make us better (unlikely we'll sign 2 new starters...) but we still have a wage budget to manage. We could sign 23 new players which would make use better, but the wage bill will be blown out the water.

Bird is our best midfielder, whereas Thompson should already be ahead of Smith in the pecking order. It should be the older players in decline who should be replaced first, not our best and/or most promising youngsters. Funnily enough, new contracts can be signed. One of our youngsters needs us to get promoted this season, whilst the other needs to be given game time.

I have no idea how you've jumped to the conclusion that I want DRobinson and Radcliffe to step into the first team with high expectations. The role I have laid out for them is infrequent game time, because we would already have 6 senior first team players in the area of the field they play in (New, Bird, Hourihane, Smith, Thompson and Sibley). 6th choice typically barely gets any game time as it is, never mind making that a 7th! They don't need first team football at a lower level. They need a small amount of expose to higher level of football (L1) this season, before earning a higher level of loan next season.

As if Bird being in/out of the squad was the only factor...

He doesn't want to be stuck playing in L1 for another year. I can't blame him as the manger should be able to achieve that after 2 seasons in charge

I was quite clear in the reasoning against short term cover:
"Signing short term cover is not an option, as this indicates they are squad players rather than starters who would improve the [starting 11]. If they would improve the [starting 11], they would be season long signings." 

The point here is, if they're good enough for a team chasing promotion, the loaning club will only send them out for the season. They may even put a recall clause in there. We don't want to sell Bird, so we wouldn't be signing someone for a season 'just in case' we do sell him.

Not sure where you get an 11/18 man squad from. 6 central midfield players would be a 23 man squad. Any more and you start having an unhealthy squad size

Yes I got the reasoning. Just not convinced it’s correct though 

[Ghost of Clough]

13 minutes ago, McMuffin said:

Houihane adds more creative output hence higher goals and assists since he’s been here and he’s past it. Smiths past it too. You say there is an issue but you’re crying at the thought of signing 2 new ones! 🤣 I’m confused 🤷‍♂️

oh we was lucky in that one, hopefully our luck continues then.

 

league 1 is poor quality and does Bird really stand out amongst all the 💩 he doesn’t that’s mine and many others issue.

You must have deliberately missed the post where I said we should sell or release someone before we sign a 2nd CM.

Hourihane take every set piece and still has fewer assists than Bird this season

[McMuffin]

4 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

You must have deliberately missed the post where I said we should sell or release someone before we sign a 2nd CM.

Hourihane take every set piece and still has fewer assists than Bird this season

In a full season Houihane got 7 goals and 7 assists. How many did bird get again 1 goal and 2 assists and Houihane is way past his best. Bird is over rated and doesn’t stand out in a poor league against sub standard opposition. Houihanes on his last legs and contributes more. 

Edited August 22, 2023 by McMuffin