Brooks Signs.

[Ricky]

As a side note:

1. Andy Giddings‏ @Gids1980 4h4 hours ago
   
   
   #sufc boss CW says he’s in talks with ‘a couple’ of other 1st team members of the squad over new deals.
   
   5 replies 15 retweets 59 likes
   
   

O'Connell and Duffy probably.

 

[Blade58]

"with Wilder yesterday claiming the long-term deal David Brooks signed on Tuesday does not contain a buy-out clause."

http://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/foot...-contract-negotiations-is-laid-bare-1-8814024

 

[Ricky]

"with Wilder yesterday claiming the long-term deal David Brooks signed on Tuesday does not contain a buy-out clause."

http://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/foot...-contract-negotiations-is-laid-bare-1-8814024

It just gets better and better.... and better.

 

[Alfreton14Blade]

"with Wilder yesterday claiming the long-term deal David Brooks signed on Tuesday does not contain a buy-out clause."

http://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/foot...-contract-negotiations-is-laid-bare-1-8814024

Fantastic.

 

[Punk Blade]

Not sure if such a thing has been mentioned as I haven’t read the whole of every recent Brooks thread.

Just been for Sunday dinner with a Liverpool supporting mate and he was asking me about Brooks. He says there’s a rumour doing the rounds with their fans that they’re lining up a bid in January (in spite of his recent contract extension, and therefore acknowledgement that they’ll be paying good money) with part of the deal being that he stays on loan for the remainder of the season, and possibly next season too.

If we can guarantee keeping the lad for the following 18 months and get the cash to put back into funding a real push for promotion in the second half of the season, should we?

 

[Groucho Blade]

Not sure if such a thing has been mentioned as I haven’t read the whole of every recent Brooks thread.

Just been for Sunday dinner with a Liverpool supporting mate and he was asking me about Brooks. He says there’s a rumour doing the rounds with their fans that they’re lining up a bid in January (in spite of his recent contract extension, and therefore acknowledgement that they’ll be paying good money) with part of the deal being that he stays on loan for the remainder of the season, and possibly next season too.

If we can guarantee keeping the lad for the following 18 months and get the cash to put back into funding a real push for promotion in the second half of the season, should we?

He’s not for sale.

He doesn’t want to go. We don’t want to sell him.

He wants to learn his trade with us.

 

[Punk Blade]

He’s not for sale.

He doesn’t want to go. We don’t want to sell him.

He wants to learn his trade with us.

All of that may be true and I don’t disagree, but every player has a price and there will be a silly amount that McCabe and Wilder can’t turn down. Also being guaranteed to play for Wilder for another 18 months may make Brooks more inclined to listen to another club.

I don’t want us to sell him, but he won’t be with us forever. The loan back as part of a deal isn’t something I’d heard mentioned before and could make a difference to whether the club and player would entertain an offer.

 

[Fanny magnet]

I live in Liverpool and believe me
No one talks more shit than a red

They know absolutely fuck all about what's going on at the club and wouldn't know any transfer gossip outside of what the moose tells them on talk sport