Bournemouth latest club linked

I don't disagree with contract lengths, but our problems with some of those names was clauses.

However... we never say no. And that isn't unnoticed by purchasing clubs. Why offer high when a club has a reputation for underselling its best assets?

 

this. Wi bells on

 

What will you say when he leaves?

 

Be glad when it's over and done with either way. Dragged on far too long now.

 

Exactly. We are a matter of one day away from the season kicking off and this saga is still rolling on. Get it sorted one way or another.

 

1 day from season but still c.3 weeks of transfer skullfukerry.

 

With our history we 'll probably get a portable telly out of em

 

Good luck to the lad if he gets a move, he's a very talented kid at just 18 year old, think he showed that last weekend in his first real outing of pre season. I hope we get as fair a deal as possible if and when he does leave.

 

I think we have handled it all quite poorly. We should have been quite clear to Holgate's agent. We could have calculated what a tribunal will offer us if he continues to develop which would probably be around the one million mark the said to his agent if a club comes in with significantly more than that we will sell other than that he will remain under contract and play. Instead we have faffed around.

 

In league 1 it actually gets you Mason Holgate !
Any other player that is valued lower is obviously of lower ability, unless our scouts do not work on the same market valuations as the rest ?

 

That's not true. A player may be in the final year of his contract, but over the age of 24. This would mean his value steadily falls the nearer you get to the end of the transfer window. Also, a selling club may be in financial difficulties and need to offload any saleable assets, which would also adversely affect the transfer fee.

 

But every player now has a least one year left on contract(unless they are on short term contracts )at this point in time.
I suppose what I am saying is, I am finding it very difficult to see how our player are worth more than a million but we can buy other teams players for less, when we think they are better than what we have sold!
A bit like I am struggling to understand why we are bringing in a keeper to play second fiddle to Davies, yet want our own second fiddle keeper to go out on loan and PLAY !

 

£1m got us Hourihane, Winnall and Scowen.

I like Mason. A lot. And think he'll go for more than £1m when all the clauses and any potential add ons come to fruition if he does prove to be as good as his promise. However I prefer those 3. A lot more. And if we could add 3 similar players for £1m I'll not Bairn about losing Holgate.

 

You pay more for potential.

 

The keeper bit I think is that Davies is number 1. He'll start every game. Rather than dibble say on bench not developing we can send him on loan to get experience.

Let's have someone else's keeper sitting on bench. And if he does happen to be needed he might be more ready for first team action at present than Dibble. If he turns out to be better than Davies we may try and buy him.

With regards the other loans we have a deal to sign Wilkinson if we choose. Less risk to us if he turns out to be ***** but great if he turns out to be amazing. To LJ has hinted Rothwell and Pearson may be for sale come Jan. I hope we have first refusal. And the lad from Arsenal sounds like we get to see an amazing talent for 6 months to hopefully put us in a great position come January to encourage more players to sign for a team aiming for promotion.

I really really think we have a strategy for once. And can't wait to see how it develops.

If it goes tits up I'll hold my hands up as being wrong. But it's still better than Kennedy, Wiseman, McNulty, Ethuhu, Jennings, Treacy, Lita and co.

 

Worrying that all of Smith, Davies, Scowen, Hourihane and Winnall will have just 12 months left on their contracts this time next year. I'd see extending their deals asap as more important than perhaps recruiting another forward.

 

If a player is under 24 and in the last year of his contract, then even if he leaves at the end it, his current club will be entitled to a fee. If a player is over that age, his club won't be. This automatically means his market value is reduced. Which means we may be able to sell Holgate for a certain fee, but bring in a more experienced, perhaps more talented player for less.
At this stage in Dibble's career, Johnson may not feel he has what it takes to step into the first team just at this moment in time and a spell out on loan might help him bridge that gap. Townsend might be more capable of doing so currently.
This is merely a suggestion of Johnson's thinking. I could well be totally wrong (I usually am!). Just because I don't understand a manager's thinking doesn't mean I'm right, he's wrong and I know better.

 

Last season it did ! This season £1m gets Holgate.
Mental !!!

 

Last season he was worth nowt.

 

Why should another team take Dibble to give him some games, if we are not giving games to the player we have loaned ? What is the point of the U21`s if the players dont improve playing there? Why not scrap it and go back to having a reserve team, where they can play against older players regularly ? (I know we can play a couple of older players in the U21`s)
Also we have been down this route with loans under Robins and Cryne sacked him because of it ! Strange that it is now our preferred path of planning !
I agree with the loan system , it means we can bring in better(supposedly) players and not have to fork out a transfer fee.