CONFIRMED Jay O'Shea

[cooperblade]

You said it - there is no resale value. And we'll still be paying a fee. So it does apply.

Thank you for pointing out the rest of that, I honestly hadn't thought about any of it....

I know promotion's the main thing. I know it's worthwhile if he helps get us up. I know we could get him on a free (we probably won't if we go up). But I was posting about resale value (or in football terms, potential), which is also a factor. Wilder's talked about signing players with resale value. Only managing 1 in 4 who are likely to increase in value is disappointing given our position.

Anything represents a 'dig' to you. Pouncing on them is the only contribution you make to this place.

No fee unless we go up according to RS

 

[Weasel]

So in effect then it would seem that we have taken over his remaining contract til the end of the season. Which begs the question why a loan rather than a permanent as chessie could have simply cancelled his contract contemporaneously with Utd giving him a contract to the end of the season?

Possibilities i suppose are agent/players fee differing for a loan rather than a perm deal, or Utd insisting that Chessie meet some of his weekly wage and we are only paying a percentwge of his wage (plausible as they are skint), or maybe we have paid a loan fee to Chessie but a permanent fee would have been higher as there may have been a future fee percentage clause written into his contract with the other club when he signed for Ches. A bit unusual this one.

 

[robbiez666]

Carruthers and Fleck with Coutts gone in Summer if rumours are true that he's resisting the 1 year extension? Coutts is playing really well this season but he always looks less than happy to be here when he comes over to take corners etc. Maybe he doesn't buy into "the project?"

You would have to assume that any extension would be a big pay cut.

 

[S5Blade]

So in effect then it would seem that we have taken over his remaining contract til the end of the season. Which begs the question why a loan rather than a permanent as chessie could have simply cancelled his contract contemporaneously with Utd giving him a contract to the end of the season?

Possibilities i suppose are agent/players fee differing for a loan rather than a perm deal, or Utd insisting that Chessie meet some of his weekly wage and we are only paying a percentwge of his wage (plausible as they are skint), or maybe we have paid a loan fee to Chessie but a permanent fee would have been higher as there may have been a future fee percentage clause written into his contract with the other club when he signed for Ches. A bit unusual this one.

There's no loan but a lump sump should we go up apperently. Great bit of business if so. We get a decent player with no upfront fee and if we go up we won't care about a bit of change to chesterfield

 

[Weasel]

There's no loan but a lump sump should we go up apperently. Great bit of business if so. We get a decent player with no upfront fee and if we go up we won't care about a bit of change to chesterfield

Chessie must be really up the kyber and stretched financially then if they are to all intents giving one of their best (maybe the best) player away to a local rival for sod all (granted with a possible fee if we go up). They must really need him of the wage bill to allow their new gaffer some wriggle room to bring in a player or two. Personally, i think they are shafted this season anyway and Caldwell has a heck of a job on now to keep the woollybacks up.

I bet Wilson wouldnt have allowed us to sign O'Shea for a ten bob, a curly wurly, a comb and a used jonny, either. Perhaps its worked in our favour that he was given the chop. Has to be said, good business again by CW

 

[Pinchy]

Torrix1889 +5000 ITK points. RANK UPGRADED

Yeah, that's all very well but he still has his knockers....

 

[Kenilworth]

I bet Wilson wouldn't have allowed us to sign O'Shea for a ten bob, a curly wurly, a comb and a used jonny, either

Bit harsh on JonnyRed(WCFC) don't yer think?

 

[BushBlade]

Chessie must be really up the kyber and stretched financially then if they are to all intents giving one of their best (maybe the best) player away to a local rival for sod all (granted with a possible fee if we go up). They must really need him of the wage bill to allow their new gaffer some wriggle room to bring in a player or two. Personally, i think they are shafted this season anyway and Caldwell has a heck of a job on now to keep the woollybacks up.

I bet Wilson wouldnt have allowed us to sign O'Shea for a ten bob, a curly wurly, a comb and a used jonny, either. Perhaps its worked in our favour that he was given the chop. Has to be said, good business again by CW

So what's happened to Ariyibi then? He was being touted as a hot prospect with interest from championship clubs. I expected them to cash in on him. Unless they're hanging on for the deadline day panic in the hope someone pays over the odds for him?

 

[MobileBlade]

so that's our loan quota topped out with Ebanks-Landell, Riley, O'Shea and Chapman - (Lafferty not counting as is now permanent)


52.4.2 No Club may sign more than 4 Players on a Temporary Loan Transfer from another Club (or club) in any Season, of which no more than 2 Players may be over the age of 23. The deadline for determining a Player’s age in this respect shall be as at the 30th June prior to the Season in which the Temporary Loan Transfer is intended to take place. Any Temporary Loan Transfer which subsequently becomes a permanent transfer (which can occur any time during the period of the Temporary Loan Transfer) shall not count against a Club’s quota of such Temporary Loan Transfers for that Season.

Read more at http://www.efl.com/global/section6.aspx#mC70kDzXZMIH8fBQ.99

You've quoted the wrong paragraph. That means you cannot sign more than four players from any one other club (so for example to stop Premier League clubs making a lower league club a feeder club). You can actually sign as many loan players as you like but you can only name four in a matchday squad. Relevant paragraph is:

52.4.1 A maximum of 5 Players registered on a Temporary Loan Transfer can be named in the Players listed on a team sheet for any individual match played under the auspices of The League. This maximum shall reduce to 4 Players where a Club names a Player on the team sheet who is registered on an Emergency Goalkeeper Loan;

EDIT: Sorry Slug only just seen your post - but I have explained!!

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Could it possibly be the players wishes?

Regardless, if it doesn't work out (not playing, not settled, whatever), he's free to find another club without the constraint of being tied down under contract and a possible fee required

apologies I was reading the thread and it was discussing a transfer, but suggesting we were doing the wrong thing because he had no sell on value, clearly the news it was a loan deal came after.

 

[threebrownstripes]

Well, I'm sorry he's left as I liked the lad but Caldwell understandably doesn't want a player who's not prepared to roll up his sleeves and not get stuck in at the business end.
If his departure allows us room to bring in someone he wants then that's fine by me.

As for his best position; it's quite simple. In the middle of the three in a 4-2-3-1 formation.

 

[blade too long]

from a few week back oshea gets a brace

 

[LoughboroBlade]

from a few week back oshea gets a brace

You've just highlighted another bonus – he's a threat from taking free-kicks. We've lacked a free-kick specialist for a while now.

 

[BushBlade]

You've quoted the wrong paragraph. That means you cannot sign more than four players from any one other club (so for example to stop Premier League clubs making a lower league club a feeder club). You can actually sign as many loan players as you like but you can only name four in a matchday squad. Relevant paragraph is:

52.4.1 A maximum of 5 Players registered on a Temporary Loan Transfer can be named in the Players listed on a team sheet for any individual match played under the auspices of The League. This maximum shall reduce to 4 Players where a Club names a Player on the team sheet who is registered on an Emergency Goalkeeper Loan;

EDIT: Sorry Slug only just seen your post - but I have explained!!

So are these Space Corps Directives?

 

[rompodebailey]

I understand this is probably the most stupid question in the world but I'm after some guidance.
Why is a 28 year old going to have no resale value next season?

I'm not hugely excited by this signing, however IF we go up he will have a resale value, not a lot granted but something which would, I'd wager, cover what we've paid. If we don't go up, he seems to be a steady, reliable league one player which would come in useful.
And if the experts (myself included) who don't believe he can perform at Championship level are wrong, it's even more full of win.

What am I missing?

I believe that by taking him on loan, his current wages also remain as per his existing contract, but if we sign permanently, he would want a signing on fee a hefty wage increase which would also be 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 years in length. So this is actually a very clever bit of business I would think.

 

[Dellas Cowboys]

You've quoted the wrong paragraph. That means you cannot sign more than four players from any one other club (so for example to stop Premier League clubs making a lower league club a feeder club). You can actually sign as many loan players as you like but you can only name four in a matchday squad. Relevant paragraph is:

52.4.1 A maximum of 5 Players registered on a Temporary Loan Transfer can be named in the Players listed on a team sheet for any individual match played under the auspices of The League. This maximum shall reduce to 4 Players where a Club names a Player on the team sheet who is registered on an Emergency Goalkeeper Loan;

EDIT: Sorry Slug only just seen your post - but I have explained!!

Cheers

 

[Dellas Cowboys]

Doesn't that mean you can't sign 4 from the same club?

Hands up I'm wrong