EddieColquhoun
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2011
- Messages
- 5,096
- Reaction score
- 9,688
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?
Nothing on Tranmere's Twitter so guessing not. They did sign a player on loan from both Southampton and Liverpool, wonder if one of those was an alternative.Guessing this didn't happen?
Cannot see us doing business with them in the near future. Seems like a fair deal and cannot see his wages being excessive.
Do we know how close Clark is? My preference would be swapping Clark in at LCB and pushing RND to the LWB position. We lose a bit going forward but defensively it’s arguably better?Given Lowe's knock today, it might be a blessing that he's stayed.
He's on the bench and pity that it was another youth, Jebbo, who dropped out, but he'll be back in for the next game.
The defence will be taller next game too, with Bash in for Lowe. We'll lose a bit from Ahmedhodžić being on the left but having more height is a good thing given how well Richard wood has started.
I thought Anel looked pretty confident & comfortable at LCB yesterday. Bash offers us that overlap too albeit, with a limited end product, he & Baldock know each other inside out too.Do we know how close Clark is? My preference would be swapping Clark in at LCB and pushing RND to the LWB position. We lose a bit going forward but defensively it’s arguably better?
Just don’t fancy moving Anel - he’s one of our best in current form so you play him where he’s best if you can. Imo.
Understand Tranmere not wanting to be "forced" into playing someone. Though Gordon's wages must be pretty small.
But yeah, he can get squad experience here until January anyway.
Oh I misread that then! Odd. Source is Nicko mind you.We were asking them to pay him if he did play, we were happy to pay him if he didn't play.
Sounds to me like they wanted him on loan for nothing and were obviously not that serious about wanting him in the first place.
Oh I misread that then! Odd. Source is Nicko mind you.
Didn’t we take someone on loan in a similar deal under Wilder? I remember Wilder saying that he had budgeted to pay the full amount for the loan so that it wouldn’t affect his decision when picking the team.You read it right the first time. They'd only pay his wages if he didn't play. If he played we'd pay them.
I disagree that this is us 'forcing' them to play him. I think it sounds like a very good deal myself and can't believe Tranmere didn't want to go ahead. It meant we'd have been happy to continue paying provided he was continuing to develop, they'd pay if he was sat on the bench wasting his time.
Didn’t we take someone on loan in a similar deal under Wilder? I remember Wilder saying that he had budgeted to pay the full amount for the loan so that it wouldn’t affect his decision when picking the team.
Didn’t we take someone on loan in a similar deal under Wilder? I remember Wilder saying that he had budgeted to pay the full amount for the loan so that it wouldn’t affect his decision when picking the team.
I seem to recall something along those lines being said, can’t remember which player it was about though.
Yes, that was the deal with Woodburn.Woodburn?
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?