Lee Evans

[LondonBlade89]

Having been pretty straight with letting Ryan Leonard play for Millwall against us ("he's their player, simple"), Wilder then didn't let Wigan play Lee Evans.

Anyone have any idea? My uninformed view, based on not much, is that Wilder was a bit peeved with the way Lee Evans left, since he was a first-teamer yet still fancied going to Wigan. Whereas with Leonard, he just wasn't getting in the team so Wilder understood him wanting the move.

Answers on a postcard..

 

[TJB.]

Our last two results were disappointing so we needed every advantage we could get our hands on to return to winning ways, including not letting Evans play. I'm quite confident he'd have had fuck-all effect on that game, but still, every little helps.

 

[Ricky]

Yep, I thought about that during the game. Strange. Unless he's injured, I think you've probably hit the nail on the head with that assumption.

 

[Carlton Blade]

Millwall negotiated harder than Wigan I imagine. Nothing sinister

 

[BigBed]

Tactical, saw how Leonard played and knows how good he and Evans really are, and the win took us top, very clever our Chris.

 

[LondonBlade89]

Yep, I thought about that during the game. Strange. Unless he's injured, I think you've probably hit the nail on the head with that assumption.

Nah, no injury. Paul Cook even commented on it:

“Sheffield United have ruled Lee out for some unknown reason. It’s to do with a loan situation that I still can’t grasp. He’s our player, so I don’t grasp that. I don’t know why Leonard was allowed to play for Millwall and Evans isn’t for us, I physically can’t get my head around that, but that’s one for Chris WIlder and Sheffield United. We’re in the process of paying for Lee, so I don’t grasp that. But that’s football. Lee is our player, Leonard is Millwall’s player. Leonard plays, Lee doesn’t. I don’t grasp it.”

https://www.wigantoday.net/sport/fo...ield-united-s-decision-on-lee-evans-1-9415195

Either way, it definitely sounds like he couldn't grasp it.

 

[BerksBlade]

It's the decision to let Leonard play against us that's harder to fathom.

 

[SwissBlade]

Perhaps he didn't want Norwood to embarrass Evans.

 

[Lane Ender]

Perhaps he didn't want Norwood to embarrass Evans.

Perhaps he didn't want Norwood to embarrass Evans.

Wouldnt have taken much doing

 

[Jonboy60]

During both negotiations, Millwall asked the question, Wigan didn’t, just assumed. Blame whoever does the negotiating for Wigan for that, in my opinion.
Doubt CW would have given the go ahead anyway.

 

[Worksop II]

CW did it, to fuck with Martin Samuels head

 

[Balham]

Fairly straightforward: Millwall would only meet our asking price for Leonard if we waived the standard loan-players-can't-play-against-their-parent-club clause (in Spanish, it's known as a "crapping yourself" clause ). Wigan didn't make that stipulation so the standard practice applied and Evans was ruled out. Sounds like Cook and his negotiating team didn't think to ask about allowing Evans to play. Their mistake, although Evans would have spent 90 minutes chasing shadows anyway.

 

[Sean Thornton]

CW did it, to fuck with Martin Samuels head

Or some of our fans? The Leonardettes.

 

[8lade]

It's quite simple Wigan stayed in the Prem at our expense and some people get pissed off about losing 50 million quid.

 

[Hollinsend]

How do you physically get your head round something?

 

[grafikhaus]

How do you physically get your head round something?

Dunno. I can't grasp it.

 

[bladesince64]

Your brain

 

[sitwell]

Having been pretty straight with letting Ryan Leonard play for Millwall against us ("he's their player, simple"), Wilder then didn't let Wigan play Lee Evans.

Anyone have any idea? My uninformed view, based on not much, is that Wilder was a bit peeved with the way Lee Evans left, since he was a first-teamer yet still fancied going to Wigan. Whereas with Leonard, he just wasn't getting in the team so Wilder understood him wanting the move.

Answers on a postcard..

Evans is a far better player than Leonard ,why the mystery ?

 

[SwissBlade]

Paul Cook is behaving like someone shat in his lift.

 

[CopenhagenBlade]

Fairly straightforward: Millwall would only meet our asking price for Leonard if we waived the standard loan-players-can't-play-against-their-parent-club clause (in Spanish, it's known as a "crapping yourself" clause ). Wigan didn't make that stipulation so the standard practice applied and Evans was ruled out. Sounds like Cook and his negotiating team didn't think to ask about allowing Evans to play. Their mistake, although Evans would have spent 90 minutes chasing shadows anyway.

Correct Balham and it has been explained on here numerous occasions but some still want to use it as a way to criticize the club. The loan to buy is a simple way to extend the transfer window. The player is, to all extensive purposes, sold but because the transaction took place outside the transfer window and in the loan window it can only go through as a loan. This means loan rules apply and a club can insist that a loaned player does not play against its parent club. Millwall were smarter than Wigan and thought ahead, insisting that we drop that clause otherwise they would drop their price. SUFC said ‘fuck it, we would rather have £1,4m and let Leonard play than £1,2m (guess) and see him on the Millwall bench. It’s very simple

 

[LondonBlade89]

Correct Balham and it has been explained on here numerous occasions but some still want to use it as a way to criticize the club. The loan to buy is a simple way to extend the transfer window. The player is, to all extensive purposes, sold but because the transaction took place outside the transfer window and in the loan window it can only go through as a loan. This means loan rules apply and a club can insist that a loaned player does not play against its parent club. Millwall were smarter than Wigan and thought ahead, insisting that we drop that clause otherwise they would drop their price. SUFC said ‘fuck it, we would rather have £1,4m and let Leonard play than £1,2m (guess) and see him on the Millwall bench. It’s very simple

Cheers for clarifying but not a single person on this thread has used this to criticize the club.

 

[Pinchy]

Cheers for clarifying but not a single person on this thread has used this to criticize the club.

Oh, there’s time yet...

 

[Sean Thornton]

Fairly straightforward: Millwall would only meet our asking price for Leonard if we waived the standard loan-players-can't-play-against-their-parent-club clause (in Spanish, it's known as a "crapping yourself" clause ). Wigan didn't make that stipulation so the standard practice applied and Evans was ruled out. Sounds like Cook and his negotiating team didn't think to ask about allowing Evans to play. Their mistake, although Evans would have spent 90 minutes chasing shadows anyway.

It has to be submitted to the EFL on the Loan transfer form anyway, so don't know why Cook had issues with it. It's not as if Wigans administrative team wouldn't have told him.

 

[alcoblade]

It's the decision to let Leonard play against us that's harder to fathom.

Quite possibly, having seen Leonard play (and not fancying him), he felt that we would be able to cope with his known quantity.

 

[Lane Ender]

Evans is a far better player than Leonard ,why the mystery ?

Whats that based on the two goals against Boro last season.

 

[sitwell]

Whats that based on the two goals against Boro last season.

Well its 2 more than Leonard got for a start. Evans was clearly a far better player than Leonard.

 

[Lane Ender]

Well its 2 more than Leonard got for a start. Evans was clearly a far better player than Leonard.

Leonard never got a chance here i honestly believe he didnt want to be here.
Evans well i was glad to see him go.

 

[PokerBlade]

Millwall said they'd only meet our high price for Leonard if we let him play. And our shrewd negotiators held back their laughter long enough to get the deal done. For all the errors we make in the transfer market, turning a profit on Leonard ought to be recognised as the good business it was.

I think the whole thing is silly. There's a transfer window, and if this loan to buy thing is as airtight as managers make out then it means that a lot of clubs have found a way to effectively violate the spirit of the rules. I'm not really bothered by that so much, because I don't think there's a way to close the loophole that would actually benefit the game (you'd still make a gentleman's agreement that you wanted to buy a player at the agreed price in January).

What I do think should change is to just make a rule about loan players playing against their own clubs. Ban it. It's not really something that comes up in practice all that often, but in principle the integrity of the game is preserved by eliminating questions about player's loyalties, and the reputation of the game is better served by not having managers squabbling over "Why could that one play and mine can't?".

You can't play against your own club in a competitive fixture. Ends all arguments, easy to enforce.

 

[sitwell]

Leonard never got a chance here i honestly believe he didnt want to be here.
Evans well i was glad to see him go.

There is a reason he never got a chance ,he was pants.

 

[Punk Blade]

It's quite simple Wigan stayed in the Prem at our expense and some people get pissed off about losing 50 million quid.

West Ham stayed up at our expense. Wigan played within the rules and stayed up fairly. We have no reason to hold a grudge against Wigan for that relegation, and it is worth remembering that they stood by us longer than any other club while we made our protests and Dave Whelan was very outspoken about it.