How do we feel now about letting Matty James go?

Wish we still had him.

 

Serious answer.

The results speak for themselves, excellent player and seemed to like it at Barnsley, but he wasn't ours and clearly the manager didn't think he was essential to the cause and so far has been proved absolutely right.

 

Partly financial reasons also.

 

He was decent and I liked him, but he was in the same squad under hecky that had various good players and won 3 games in 18 2nd half of the season and 2 were against relegated teams. Good player but not the end of the world.

 

Said it from day 1 a good player but certainly not as good or as crucial as most of the people on this board were making him out to be

 

I think Val knows what he’s doing.

 

What? Mowatt hasn't flourished since James left, he's flourished since Struber fc.uked off

 

People are saying Palmer is better and I'm not disagreeing however for me that's not the issue, the issue is that James is a million times better than the likes of kane and as such we have a much much weaker midfield without him with little in the way of a plan b and that could be the difference between the playoff's and just missing out

 

I agree with those saying he was better first time round. I’d still prefer to have him as an option. However I wonder if VI had concerns about his fitness given what he demands of the players.

 

He was good 1st time round but he was in a team that had adam davies, roberts, yiadom, Angus, scowen, Watkins, Bradshaw, Ryan Kent, Armstrong etc so a good team, and we still only won 3 games in 18 2 against relegated sides. So is influence on results wasn't great back then.

 

Would you swap Dike for James? I know they’re different positions but they’re paid for from the same pot

 

Sooner have hourihane back than James

 

I thought James did a job but it's difficult for me to get a hard on over that type of player. I think Mowatt looks better as our ball playing midfielder.

 

I liked James and would have liked to keep him at the time. I also bought in to Vals explanation after and though it a case of ‘trust in the manager’. The logic in making space to get the younger permanent squad members into the team has proved to be the right thing. Palmer and Kane getting more game time and Palmer particularly staking a claim for a regular slot and improving.

 

I wish we still had him, quality player who would improve any squad in the championship. With the run of games we've played and have to play, it wouldn't have hurt us to have his quality either on the pitch or ready to come off the bench. With the other lads chomping at the bit for game time, it also means we wouldn't need him to play every minute, so I think more rotation would have benefitted both Matty and us.

 

Probably not a 1-1 ratio either. Probably more like both Dike + Morris or James. I’m not necessarily saying it’s cut and dry that we couldn’t/wouldn’t bring those two in if James stayed, but if it’s anywhere close to that reality I’d take Morris + Dike every time with the way we play. And I really liked James.

 

I agree but assuming the budget is tight it's probably the saving on James's wage thats paying Morris and Dikes, It was a tough decision for Val to make but looking like the right one.

 

undeniably so. its a tough decision when you've only got so much cash!

 

Was a little disappointed at the time as he is a good player but I understood the reasons for them not renewing the loan. Since he has gone back it's not impacted our results/performances at all IMO and it's allowed Mowatt and Palmer to flourish. We were never going to be able to sign him full time so it's a much bigger benefit for us to give the minutes to Palmer and Kane to improve them as they are our players.

 

Let's be honest if Leicester hadn't have told us we had to pay a significant part of his wages (mmmm is this what happened with Harvey Barnes) he'd still be here. Matty is a class player but our owners will not pay money out to improve someone else's player.