James McAtee

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?


I hope we get him. Whatever happens this season with Doyle, Souza and Hamer on perms our midfield squad would be much stronger than last season.
Add the kids being a year further on, and it should be an area that would require little additional strengthening should we be relegated.
 
If we can't get Archer on a permanent deal, I'd be happy to spend whatever money we were planning to use for Archer on getting Doyle permanently.

Wouldn't mind us using our 2 domestic loans and remaining overseas loans to get any of these players in.
  • Origi
  • McAtee
  • Chukwumeka
 
Looks like we really want Mcatee as our man city loan, but if that doesn't happen I'd 100% want Doyle on a loan to buy deal. Last season he looked like the natural successor for Norwood but I'd be happy to see Doyle in a more advanced role. Doyle and Hamer with Souza protecting the defence leaves us with Traore and McBurnie up front, or put Norwood next to Souza and played Doyle up behind McBurnie.

Either way, it's rare that a player of Doyle's quality will outright say he wants to play for a team he knows will be in a relegation scrap. We'd be stupid to turn down these opportunities for no good reason.
 
Berkshire Blade said:
The lack of creativity means I would much rather Mcatee than Doyle in a direct choice but I doubt he is going on loan tbh
Click to expand...
Reckon we're getting stronger in midfield with pressing, energy and tackling, but desperately need more creativity. Mcatee, or similar type player, is exactly what we need: not afraid to dribble, and draw defenders towards him, to make space and chances for others
 


I'd be very happy with one of those boys. Nice to see some kind of confirmation that they're the top priority. It'd say something if Pep would allow one of them into Hecky's care again
 
well could be if weve abandoned any hope of getting archer that money will be used to sign doyle on a permanent then maybe mcatee and a striker on loan
 
Nedski said:
Looks like we really want Mcatee as our man city loan, but if that doesn't happen I'd 100% want Doyle on a loan to buy deal. Last season he looked like the natural successor for Norwood but I'd be happy to see Doyle in a more advanced role. Doyle and Hamer with Souza protecting the defence leaves us with Traore and McBurnie up front, or put Norwood next to Souza and played Doyle up behind McBurnie.

Either way, it's rare that a player of Doyle's quality will outright say he wants to play for a team he knows will be in a relegation scrap. We'd be stupid to turn down these opportunities for no good reason.
Click to expand...
Doyle's nearly 22 and has only played at Championship level where's he's done quite well.
Can't see where the expectation he would be only wanting to play for an established Prem club would be coming from.
 
Flatulent_Bob said:
It's been consistently reported that it's the relegation clause that he won't swallow. They'll be a couple of clubs who would offer him a deal without that clause, therefore we can't afford him. His wages at City will be incredible compared to the likelihood of him ever making 15 career appearances for them.
Click to expand...
Relegation clauses are interesting.

I was talking to my Leeds supporting neighbour on Friday about the players that are refusing to play.

Apparently their totally arrogant board (his words) were so certain they'd stay up that they gave new signings a contractual benefit that they would be entitled to a loan move should Leeds be relegated.

The problem is that they have around 10 players with these terms but I'm told that the maximum number that a club is allowed to send out on loan is seven, and seven have already gone.

This has led to Sinisterra waving his contract at them and demanding a move and there's no way they can let him go without selling him, which they don't want to do.

I really love it when it all goes to shit at Elland Road 🤣
 
ancientblade said:
well could be if weve abandoned any hope of getting archer that money will be used to sign doyle on a permanent then maybe mcatee and a striker on loan
Click to expand...
Palmer and McAtee totally different players and position to Archer that will have bearing on on our transfers.
 
Maidenhead said:
Relegation clauses are interesting.

I was talking to my Leeds supporting neighbour on Friday about the players that are refusing to play.

Apparently their totally arrogant board (his words) were so certain they'd stay up that they gave new signings a contractual benefit that they would be entitled to a loan move should Leeds be relegated.

The problem is that they have around 10 players with these terms but I'm told that the maximum number that a club is allowed to send out on loan is seven, and seven have already gone.

This has led to Sinisterra waving his contract at them and demanding a move and there's no way they can let him go without selling him, which they don't want to do.

I really love it when it all goes to shit at Elland Road 🤣
Click to expand...
Heard that Farke said how badly Leeds had been managed behind the scenes that is why they are in the position they are in with all the loans
 

For me the priority from City is McAtee. I can't think of any preferred way of playing that doesn't involve McAtee or at last someone in his position on the left. If he becomes available as a loan it's a no-brainer. Unfortunately, City won't make that decision right until the last minute as they'll be waiting to see who they sign, who gets injured or if anyone wants to spend £30m+ on him. Loaning him will be the last on the list for him, which means it's a transfer deadline day deal.

To get Doyle in, it would either have to be a permanent signing, or a loan with no McAtee. If it's permanent with McAtee on loan, that means no new striker, or just a striker on loan (and I'm not sure what options there are for us there - some have suggested Origi but considering his wages I think that's highly unlikely). So essentially, if you want McAtee on loan and had a choice between signing Doyle or Archer (considering the asking price will probably be around the same), who would you choose? For me, considering we have options in Doyle's best position in a double pivot (Davies/Norwood/Hamer/Souza), it would have to be Archer (or similar type of forward).

On the other hand, I can see Souza and Doyle as a good double pivot in the middle, with McAtee and Hamer pushed forward to support the attack. This looks like it could be a very good lineup:
1692555621436.png

But that leaves just McBurnie and Osula competing for the lone striker role (assuming no money left for a new striker, tho we could loan one if we can find someone willing to loan us a decent striker). Now as much as I love McBurnie and have no problem with him in that position, it is a risk on the injury front. If McBurnie gets injured we're back to where we are now relying on Osula who can barely manage 60 minutes with no backup on the bench (unless we see Traore as a lone striker or Jebbo comes back from injury - but again, we're relying on young lads with little experience).

If we spend the Doyle money on Archer (or similar) instead, Hamer drops back into his natural role as CM (with Davies and Norwood as backup on the bench), and Archer takes that attacking wide role (with Traore as backup). If McBurnie is injured, Archer takes his place with Hamer moving forward and Davies or Norwood dropping into CM. That seems much more flexible to me.

Likewise, if we revert to a flat 3 (which is very likely when we need to be defensive), Souza surely takes the CM slot, and Hamer can play LCM or RCM. Would we be happy to play Doyle as RCM? I've always seen Doyle in the Norwood role in the middle, not the Berge/Lundstram role on the right (then again, he might be great there who knows?)

And in that case, why not prioritise Lewis O'Brien, who brings balance to the midfield (either as LCM or next to Souza in a double pivot like Doyle above allowing Hamer to push forward) whose defensive stats in the Championship are far superior to Doyle's, and who would probably cost half as much as Doyle? That would give us a defensive lineup something like this:
1692557183156.png

Maybe O'Brien could be signed instead of McAtee? Can he play further forward? If we're pushing Hamer further forward, and O'Brien is essentially a left-footed Hamer, then maybe we get O'Brien permanent and Doyle on loan? We'd still be in the same position needing a striker on loan (unless we have the money to sign both O'Brien and someone like Archer?):
1692558220378.png

I love Doyle and think he's a cracking player, and if we hadn't sold Ndiaye (Berge for Hamer happens every day of the week), it would have made perfect sense to sign Doyle to play next to Berge/Hamer with McAtee (or whoever on loan) and Ndiaye in the same positions as last season. As it is, we need to replace Ndiaye and we signed Souza, which means I can't really see how Doyle justifies either an expensive permanent transfer taking away a striker, or a loan taking away McAtee (or similar from another Prem team).
 
Maidenhead said:
Relegation clauses are interesting.

I was talking to my Leeds supporting neighbour on Friday about the players that are refusing to play.

Apparently their totally arrogant board (his words) were so certain they'd stay up that they gave new signings a contractual benefit that they would be entitled to a loan move should Leeds be relegated.

The problem is that they have around 10 players with these terms but I'm told that the maximum number that a club is allowed to send out on loan is seven, and seven have already gone.

This has led to Sinisterra waving his contract at them and demanding a move and there's no way they can let him go without selling him, which they don't want to do.

I really love it when it all goes to shit at Elland Road 🤣
Click to expand...
The YP was hinting at this earlier this week but you put it a lot more clearly!
 
Colombia Blade said:
For me the priority from City is McAtee. I can't think of any preferred way of playing that doesn't involve McAtee or at last someone in his position on the left. If he becomes available as a loan it's a no-brainer. Unfortunately, City won't make that decision right until the last minute as they'll be waiting to see who they sign, who gets injured or if anyone wants to spend £30m+ on him. Loaning him will be the last on the list for him, which means it's a transfer deadline day deal.

To get Doyle in, it would either have to be a permanent signing, or a loan with no McAtee. If it's permanent with McAtee on loan, that means no new striker, or just a striker on loan (and I'm not sure what options there are for us there - some have suggested Origi but considering his wages I think that's highly unlikely). So essentially, if you want McAtee on loan and had a choice between signing Doyle or Archer (considering the asking price will probably be around the same), who would you choose? For me, considering we have options in Doyle's best position in a double pivot (Davies/Norwood/Hamer/Souza), it would have to be Archer (or similar type of forward).

On the other hand, I can see Souza and Doyle as a good double pivot in the middle, with McAtee and Hamer pushed forward to support the attack. This looks like it could be a very good lineup:
View attachment 168860

But that leaves just McBurnie and Osula competing for the lone striker role (assuming no money left for a new striker, tho we could loan one if we can find someone willing to loan us a decent striker). Now as much as I love McBurnie and have no problem with him in that position, it is a risk on the injury front. If McBurnie gets injured we're back to where we are now relying on Osula who can barely manage 60 minutes with no backup on the bench (unless we see Traore as a lone striker or Jebbo comes back from injury - but again, we're relying on young lads with little experience).

If we spend the Doyle money on Archer (or similar) instead, Hamer drops back into his natural role as CM (with Davies and Norwood as backup on the bench), and Archer takes that attacking wide role (with Traore as backup). If McBurnie is injured, Archer takes his place with Hamer moving forward and Davies or Norwood dropping into CM. That seems much more flexible to me.

Likewise, if we revert to a flat 3 (which is very likely when we need to be defensive), Souza surely takes the CM slot, and Hamer can play LCM or RCM. Would we be happy to play Doyle as RCM? I've always seen Doyle in the Norwood role in the middle, not the Berge/Lundstram role on the right (then again, he might be great there who knows?)

And in that case, why not prioritise Lewis O'Brien, who brings balance to the midfield (either as LCM or next to Souza in a double pivot like Doyle above allowing Hamer to push forward) whose defensive stats in the Championship are far superior to Doyle's, and who would probably cost half as much as Doyle? That would give us a defensive lineup something like this:
View attachment 168861

Maybe O'Brien could be signed instead of McAtee? Can he play further forward? If we're pushing Hamer further forward, and O'Brien is essentially a left-footed Hamer, then maybe we get O'Brien permanent and Doyle on loan? We'd still be in the same position needing a striker on loan (unless we have the money to sign both O'Brien and someone like Archer?):
View attachment 168862

I love Doyle and think he's a cracking player, and if we hadn't sold Ndiaye (Berge for Hamer happens every day of the week), it would have made perfect sense to sign Doyle to play next to Berge/Hamer with McAtee (or whoever on loan) and Ndiaye in the same positions as last season. As it is, we need to replace Ndiaye and we signed Souza, which means I can't really see how Doyle justifies either an expensive permanent transfer taking away a striker, or a loan taking away McAtee (or similar from another Prem team).
Click to expand...
agree with most of that definetly think 3421 is the way for us to go in the premier league basically 343 but 2 attacking midfielders behind the lone striker mcburnie is the best weve got for that role at the minute but i would like us to bring another striker in for that role just dont think mcburnie is premier league class like the idea of souza and doyle with hamer and mcatee supporting the striker obrien is another who could play that left midfield role
 
ancientblade said:
agree with most of that definetly think 3421 is the way for us to go in the premier league basically 343 but 2 attacking midfielders behind the lone striker mcburnie is the best weve got for that role at the minute but i would like us to bring another striker in for that role just dont think mcburnie is premier league class like the idea of souza and doyle with hamer and mcatee supporting the striker obrien is another who could play that left midfield role
Click to expand...
If we could somehow find the money for Archer and O'Brien, then I'd definitely be more optimistic about bringing Doyle on loan instead of McAtee (and we'd still have an extra Prem loan for someone similar to McAtee if necessary). If we could find the money for Archer, O'Brien and Doyle + McAtee on loan then I'd start thinking about what signings we could make for our next season in the Prem!!

Unfortunately, McAtee and Hamer as attacking midfielders (with Doyle in the middle next to Souza) essentially rules out any permanent striker transfer as we'd spend that on Doyle. And I've not seen any realistic striker loans we could make that would either be better than McBurnie or a solid backup.
 
Colombia Blade said:
For me the priority from City is McAtee. I can't think of any preferred way of playing that doesn't involve McAtee or at last someone in his position on the left. If he becomes available as a loan it's a no-brainer. Unfortunately, City won't make that decision right until the last minute as they'll be waiting to see who they sign, who gets injured or if anyone wants to spend £30m+ on him. Loaning him will be the last on the list for him, which means it's a transfer deadline day deal.

To get Doyle in, it would either have to be a permanent signing, or a loan with no McAtee. If it's permanent with McAtee on loan, that means no new striker, or just a striker on loan (and I'm not sure what options there are for us there - some have suggested Origi but considering his wages I think that's highly unlikely). So essentially, if you want McAtee on loan and had a choice between signing Doyle or Archer (considering the asking price will probably be around the same), who would you choose? For me, considering we have options in Doyle's best position in a double pivot (Davies/Norwood/Hamer/Souza), it would have to be Archer (or similar type of forward).

On the other hand, I can see Souza and Doyle as a good double pivot in the middle, with McAtee and Hamer pushed forward to support the attack. This looks like it could be a very good lineup:
View attachment 168860

But that leaves just McBurnie and Osula competing for the lone striker role (assuming no money left for a new striker, tho we could loan one if we can find someone willing to loan us a decent striker). Now as much as I love McBurnie and have no problem with him in that position, it is a risk on the injury front. If McBurnie gets injured we're back to where we are now relying on Osula who can barely manage 60 minutes with no backup on the bench (unless we see Traore as a lone striker or Jebbo comes back from injury - but again, we're relying on young lads with little experience).

If we spend the Doyle money on Archer (or similar) instead, Hamer drops back into his natural role as CM (with Davies and Norwood as backup on the bench), and Archer takes that attacking wide role (with Traore as backup). If McBurnie is injured, Archer takes his place with Hamer moving forward and Davies or Norwood dropping into CM. That seems much more flexible to me.

Likewise, if we revert to a flat 3 (which is very likely when we need to be defensive), Souza surely takes the CM slot, and Hamer can play LCM or RCM. Would we be happy to play Doyle as RCM? I've always seen Doyle in the Norwood role in the middle, not the Berge/Lundstram role on the right (then again, he might be great there who knows?)

And in that case, why not prioritise Lewis O'Brien, who brings balance to the midfield (either as LCM or next to Souza in a double pivot like Doyle above allowing Hamer to push forward) whose defensive stats in the Championship are far superior to Doyle's, and who would probably cost half as much as Doyle? That would give us a defensive lineup something like this:
View attachment 168861

Maybe O'Brien could be signed instead of McAtee? Can he play further forward? If we're pushing Hamer further forward, and O'Brien is essentially a left-footed Hamer, then maybe we get O'Brien permanent and Doyle on loan? We'd still be in the same position needing a striker on loan (unless we have the money to sign both O'Brien and someone like Archer?):
View attachment 168862

I love Doyle and think he's a cracking player, and if we hadn't sold Ndiaye (Berge for Hamer happens every day of the week), it would have made perfect sense to sign Doyle to play next to Berge/Hamer with McAtee (or whoever on loan) and Ndiaye in the same positions as last season. As it is, we need to replace Ndiaye and we signed Souza, which means I can't really see how Doyle justifies either an expensive permanent transfer taking away a striker, or a loan taking away McAtee (or similar from another Prem team).
Click to expand...
Speaking a lot of sense here pal! Absolutely spot on in all aspects
 
Colombia Blade said:
For me the priority from City is McAtee. I can't think of any preferred way of playing that doesn't involve McAtee or at last someone in his position on the left. If he becomes available as a loan it's a no-brainer. Unfortunately, City won't make that decision right until the last minute as they'll be waiting to see who they sign, who gets injured or if anyone wants to spend £30m+ on him. Loaning him will be the last on the list for him, which means it's a transfer deadline day deal.

To get Doyle in, it would either have to be a permanent signing, or a loan with no McAtee. If it's permanent with McAtee on loan, that means no new striker, or just a striker on loan (and I'm not sure what options there are for us there - some have suggested Origi but considering his wages I think that's highly unlikely). So essentially, if you want McAtee on loan and had a choice between signing Doyle or Archer (considering the asking price will probably be around the same), who would you choose? For me, considering we have options in Doyle's best position in a double pivot (Davies/Norwood/Hamer/Souza), it would have to be Archer (or similar type of forward).

On the other hand, I can see Souza and Doyle as a good double pivot in the middle, with McAtee and Hamer pushed forward to support the attack. This looks like it could be a very good lineup:
View attachment 168860

But that leaves just McBurnie and Osula competing for the lone striker role (assuming no money left for a new striker, tho we could loan one if we can find someone willing to loan us a decent striker). Now as much as I love McBurnie and have no problem with him in that position, it is a risk on the injury front. If McBurnie gets injured we're back to where we are now relying on Osula who can barely manage 60 minutes with no backup on the bench (unless we see Traore as a lone striker or Jebbo comes back from injury - but again, we're relying on young lads with little experience).

If we spend the Doyle money on Archer (or similar) instead, Hamer drops back into his natural role as CM (with Davies and Norwood as backup on the bench), and Archer takes that attacking wide role (with Traore as backup). If McBurnie is injured, Archer takes his place with Hamer moving forward and Davies or Norwood dropping into CM. That seems much more flexible to me.

Likewise, if we revert to a flat 3 (which is very likely when we need to be defensive), Souza surely takes the CM slot, and Hamer can play LCM or RCM. Would we be happy to play Doyle as RCM? I've always seen Doyle in the Norwood role in the middle, not the Berge/Lundstram role on the right (then again, he might be great there who knows?)

And in that case, why not prioritise Lewis O'Brien, who brings balance to the midfield (either as LCM or next to Souza in a double pivot like Doyle above allowing Hamer to push forward) whose defensive stats in the Championship are far superior to Doyle's, and who would probably cost half as much as Doyle? That would give us a defensive lineup something like this:
View attachment 168861

Maybe O'Brien could be signed instead of McAtee? Can he play further forward? If we're pushing Hamer further forward, and O'Brien is essentially a left-footed Hamer, then maybe we get O'Brien permanent and Doyle on loan? We'd still be in the same position needing a striker on loan (unless we have the money to sign both O'Brien and someone like Archer?):
View attachment 168862

I love Doyle and think he's a cracking player, and if we hadn't sold Ndiaye (Berge for Hamer happens every day of the week), it would have made perfect sense to sign Doyle to play next to Berge/Hamer with McAtee (or whoever on loan) and Ndiaye in the same positions as last season. As it is, we need to replace Ndiaye and we signed Souza, which means I can't really see how Doyle justifies either an expensive permanent transfer taking away a striker, or a loan taking away McAtee (or similar from another Prem team).
Click to expand...
Great post, I just had to mention that if we're playing Osula many times this season, sadly we will get relegated.
 
Would just say that OBrien isn't a left sided Hamer, who can play attacking mid. There are some strong similarities but he doesn't have the same attacking flair and end product, which accounts for the difference in value between them

I'd still be very keen on OBrien if we could do it. Mainly because he's such a perfect fit, like Smallbone. But I'd be very surprised if we went back in for him in this window. It'll be Doyle for CM, at most

McAtee is the best loan option now because he'd complete the midfield balance perfectly. We could have a very good thing in that area of the pitch, after being stale for so long

This window could yet turn out very well indeed. I'm fairly confident we'll get the midfield sorted and I'm also pretty certain we'll bring in defensive reinforcements. The doubt is with the most important position of all - CF. No idea what will happen there. Fingers crossed. At least it will all be over soon....
 
Hamandcheese said:
The doubt is with the most important position of all - CF. No idea what will happen there. Fingers crossed. At least it will all be over soon....
Click to expand...
Yea I'm at a loss to see what we do here as well. We need someone experienced at playing senior football at a relatively decent level, a decent goal scoring record, the right age and right price (not asking for a lot I know!) We obviously can't buy a proven Premier League striker (unless it's someone like Maupay who doesn't seem like a popular pick and the jury is out on whether he is "proven", or someone a lot older than we're looking for).

Of all the names I've seen suggested that I think would be great additions to the squad (Cameron Archer, Josh Sargent, Georges Mikautadze, Vangelis Pavlidis, etc), all would probably cost £20m to a Premier League club and all could be considered a gamble. If we're not willing/able to spend that much, then I really can't think of who we could bring in that would (or even might!) be good enough?
 
I remember us being linked with Jhon Cordoba a while back, who was then at Hertha. He's now 30 and playing in Russia, still scoring at a good rate. He'd probably fancy a crack at the PL if given the chance, unless he gets Saudi Arabiad
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Champagneblade
Nagging regrets from the season
2
Replies
47
Views
3K
IdLiketoRogerMoore
IdLiketoRogerMoore
Champagneblade
Team vs Wolves
2 3 4
Replies
114
Views
9K
A Storm of Blades
A Storm of Blades
Isaw Joeshaw
Recruitment - Swings and Roundabouts .
2
Replies
44
Views
3K
Valley Blade
Valley Blade
ucandomagic
McAtee + Doyle = Ndiaye
Replies
9
Views
3K
BushBlade
BushBlade
Champagneblade
Current team vs 2018/19 Promotion team
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Yewsman
Y

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom