CONFIRMED kieron freeman

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

Seems like everyone's pointing the finger at his agent...what I don't get is the link up with Bennett?

Are they joined at the hip or something??? Was it a B.O.G.O.F???

Seems a bit odd ( if you don't take Freeman off our hands we'll not give you Bennett!?!?) considering both were supposedly really looking to get down here and play...
As I understand it, Derby have to pay an amount to Forest due to a sell-on clause. So they agreed to sell Freeman to us for nothing but charge a loan fee for Bennett. That is why they were linked. Derby wanted to make sure Forest didn't get any money.

And then Derby accuse us of messing it up because Freeman/Agent got greedy.
 

As I understand it, Derby have to pay an amount to Forest due to a sell-on clause. So they agreed to sell Freeman to us for nothing but charge a loan fee for Bennett. That is why they were linked. Derby wanted to make sure Forest didn't get any money.

And then Derby accuse us of messing it up because Freeman/Agent got greedy.

Cheers for the explaination...it's a complicated and childish world eh!?
But it seems to be the players missing out...
 
Can't we get Bennett then?why can't we still give them a loan fee just for Bennett?not that i want a loan,i feel that we should spend some of the money on a permanant so that he is our player,but it seems to be hard getting who he wants so it looks like a loan then,dead money.I know people think we have enough midfielders but with Wallace looking a bit of a John Ebrell i think we could get Coady for between 600-700k and that would look a snippet by the time he's finished with us.So a permanent striker and Coady would finish us off nicely and give us a lot better chance of challenging any where near the top 2.
 
As I understand it, Derby have to pay an amount to Forest due to a sell-on clause. So they agreed to sell Freeman to us for nothing but charge a loan fee for Bennett. That is why they were linked. Derby wanted to make sure Forest didn't get any money.

And then Derby accuse us of messing it up because Freeman/Agent got greedy.

If that is true I don't think that we as a club should have had any part of it anyway.
It's basically fiddling Forest out of money they're are perfectly entitled too having developed the player.
Imagine the reaction if Villa pulled that trick with Lowton or Hull with Maguire.
Unfair, probably against the rules and possibly even illegal.
Personally I'd be surprised if that was true and Cloughie was willing to go along with it.
 
Can't we get Bennett then?why can't we still give them a loan fee just for Bennett?not that i want a loan,i feel that we should spend some of the money on a permanant so that he is our player,but it seems to be hard getting who he wants so it looks like a loan then,dead money.I know people think we have enough midfielders but with Wallace looking a bit of a John Ebrell i think we could get Coady for between 600-700k and that would look a snippet by the time he's finished with us.So a permanent striker and Coady would finish us off nicely and give us a lot better chance of challenging any where near the top 2.
Derby stipulated that to we had to take both at the same time. As we couldn't agree terms with Freeman both deals are off. Derby have turned us down (at the moment) in a loan request for Bennett.

I don't understand this obsession with Coady that some fans have. He wasn't outstanding last season and even during our goo run, he rarely impressed, especially away from home. I am pretty sure from last season's ratings on this forum had him down as 10th/11th in rank for the season.

The same applies to a lesser extent to Brayford. He did well but we shouldn't be paying a fee close to £1million plus £10k per weeks wages in this division for a right back

Save the money so we get a permanent striker and a quality loan signing or two.
 
...I'm also guessing that somewhere along the lines with 'the Freeman free' deal that his agent will have gone, hang on a minute 15% of 0 is ....unless he's Bennett's agent also... ???
 
Derby stipulated that to we had to take both at the same time. As we couldn't agree terms with Freeman both deals are off. Derby have turned us down (at the moment) in a loan request for Bennett.

I don't understand this obsession with Coady that some fans have. He wasn't outstanding last season and even during our goo run, he rarely impressed, especially away from home. I am pretty sure from last season's ratings on this forum had him down as 10th/11th in rank for the season.

The same applies to a lesser extent to Brayford. He did well but we shouldn't be paying a fee close to £1million plus £10k per weeks wages in this division for a right back

Save the money so we get a permanent striker and a quality loan signing or two.
Thanks for the heads up on the Freeman/Bennett mould into one situation bart.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on Coady,i think he will be a cracking old fashioned box to box midfielder in the next few years and for the fee we could have got him for,would have been peanuts.We could have made money on him,which would have been good for the club.

Agree about Brayford,750k at the most,Cardiff bought him for 1.5 million played 1 match for them and the rest on loan to us.This is a non starter anyway as he is now first choice there.

A permanent striker is exactly what i and propably most of us would want but it seems Clough is finding it hard to get the person he wants,or he hasn't been given as much as we would like to think to spend on one.
 
A permanent striker is exactly what i and propably most of us would want but it seems Clough is finding it hard to get the person he wants,or he hasn't been given as much as we would like to think to spend on one.

Until today ;)
 

Seems no one is willing to substantiate this rumour. And won't Clough (and Phipps etc) be pissed that freeman/his agent have cost us Bennett. Further, the whole Derby not wanting to share the transfer fee issue is still in play without the Bennett deal.
 
on bladesmad that he has signed and can play tomorrow as not cuptied
 
He is not that good at defending at the moment and needs to improve if he comes to us in that department. As I remember he looked very good at attacking down the wing and cutting in and should have been given a few pens last season and got none.
 
He is not that good at defending at the moment and needs to improve if he comes to us in that department. As I remember he looked very good at attacking down the wing and cutting in and should have been given a few pens last season and got none.
He's definately more obtainable than Brayford and would be good cover for left back,he has time on his side and has the endeavour to get forward and be a crowd favourite.As for the pens boo,nothing has changed,we get nowhere near the amount of penalties that we should get,some baffling decisions from refs the last couple of seasons regarding this matter.
 
He is not that good at defending at the moment and needs to improve if he comes to us in that department. As I remember he looked very good at attacking down the wing and cutting in and should have been given a few pens last season and got none.

The one which springs to mind was Crawley which was one of the worst refereeing decisions I've seen live (at 1m35 in the highlights below)

 

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