Outgoing? Luke Freeman

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

Addison said:
If true a loan makes no sense at all this early in the transfer window unless it ensures we get Cash, thats the player not £££. If there is an agreement to buy after 6 months fine if not it further devalues the player with another year of his contract gone. You do start to question why we seem to have a continuing inability to get money in for our outgoings.
Click to expand...
Eh? Whenever cw has sold a player he's bought that hasn't worked out, not only has he recognised this quickly he's made money on them, Evans, Leonard etc. You could question if they should have been purchased in the first place but that's a different story.
 

Tarqs said:
So why did we buy him then?
Click to expand...
Good question.

My two penneth ?

Wilders track record at bringing players in at the top of the pitch is no where near as “stellar” as his recruitment at the back, which has been mind blowingly good.

Most “mistakes” have been in this area with the likes of Samir, Holmes, James fucking Wilson to name but a few errors of judgement.

UTB
 
Sam64 said:
Would love to know what Freeman did to Wilder. Every option he seemingly got to involve him he chose not to.
Click to expand...

‘Every option’ is a bit extreme. Particularly when Wilder suggested that the reason Osborn started in the restart was because Freeman picked up an injury. I think his lack of opportunities have been more down to Fleck’s fitness (and performances) coupled with sticking to a system that worked.
 
DronnieBlade said:
Good question.

My two penneth ?

Wilders track record at bringing players in at the top of the pitch is no where near as “stellar” as his recruitment at the back, which has been mind blowingly good.

Most “mistakes” have been in this area with the likes of Samir, Holmes, James fucking Wilson to name but a few errors of judgement.

UTB
Click to expand...
Spot on, but it's also a position where he seems unwilling to give players a chance either. Holmes was out standout player against Wolves away (not difficult), was never seen again.
Freeman started the season, didn't play bad at all, never seen again apart from the odd cup game and 5 mins here and there.
 
Trust Wilder has something up his sleeve but this doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me - we are light in midfield especially if Lunny goes also.

would have preferred to sell him as his value will be no higher next season Imo and we could have used the transfer fee to improve the side.
 
Obvious we need to add creative players at the top of the pitch, I don’t see why we would let one of the few we have leave.

Never given a chance playing in behind the strikers.
 
LondonBlade89 said:
So off the back of just a few games for us. Right. Nothing like a snap decision.
Click to expand...
QPR also. Watched him quite a bit.

Decent / Good - yes.

PL standard ????

Not for me.

UTB

PS maybe this is the “trump” card being played to secure Matt Cash ?!
 

Dublinblade said:
Even if it isnt the last 2 points remain valid. Its also a sign that something imminent on the signing front from us as I cant see CWAK sanctioning it if someone hasnt already been signed up or will be signing up very shortly.
Click to expand...

Sorry, to address your other points;

Game time. Value.

It's clear he isn't in any of our future plans, so I'm not sure that him "getting him game time" benefits us in any way. He isn't going to sharpen up and rejoin the fold.

On value, this is only going to decrease after a year on loan in the Championship in my opinion. He's already proven himself at that level, so I'm not sure what another year down there can possibly do.

He's not of an age where you would expect a sharp spike of improvement in his output. His next birthday will be his 30th once this loan completes.

Given all of the above, surely now was the time to sell? Particularly given that we are looking to bring in players on a permanent that will improve us.

£5m towards a striker, or a RCM could make a huge difference to what we can bring in.
 
Last edited:
Think letting Freeman go is a mistake and whilst possibly not making the starting 11 would certainly be an excellent squad player and someone who could come off the bench and change the midfield formation in certain games / situations if required. That said, I'm greedy and would like to keep both him and Robinson too.
Hope we have another attacking midfielder lined up somewhere but intrigued to see whether they're actually an upgrade on Freeman??
 
The reason Freeman rarely played is simply because pre lockdown, Fleck was our best player. When Fleck was injured, so was Freeman which was unlucky for him. The fact Osborn did so well means Freeman is now likely 3rd choice in that left handed side position.

I like Freeman and if we went back to the "Duffy role" then he would be a shoe in for they position but it looks like we arent going to be entertaining that again. It seems Wilder sees the answer to our lack of creativity as gaining more pace and players who can stretch a game.
 
Anyone think maybe freeman has asked to go out on loan? Like Robinson did last season. If wilder had told him he’s behind fleck and Osborn at the moment he could well not want to leave but have asked to go out and get game time, wilder has never been one to stand in the way of players who want to play
 
I’d hazard a guess that he’s one of the higher earners of the backups, which might be another reason why a loan is attractive. At a guess we have an annual wage figure we work within and this may give flexibility elsewhere. We might also have more of a flexible approach in terms of how Wilder approaches backup options this season – eg Osborn being Fleck and Stevens’s main cover, with maybe J.Robinson slotting in at LWB were Fleck & Stevens injured at the same time. Someone that could be main cover for RCM & RWB on the other side too. That might, from a gametime point of view, keep our squad members more involved. When you’re entirely reliant on injuries and suspensions of one person to open up an opportunity to start a game, a lot of it does seem to rely on a bit of luck.
 
He can’t play the Didsy role because he can’t play with his back to goal and challenge for headers like Didsy does.

We don’t look like going back to 3412 so he won’t be playing in the hole.

He’s cover for Fleck. So is Osborn who is much better defensively and has a phenomenal work rate.

Presumably no PL club has any interest in buying him.

Championship clubs seem to be uncertain about their future income due to Covid so don’t appear to be spending much.

He probably wants regular football at his age.
A loan will provide that and will probably get the bulk of his wages paid. May also be a loan to buy option, if football ever returns to normal.
 
Osborn did well when Fleck was out, but Osborn is also our LWB cover. This leaves us light on that side, unless we think Norrington-Davies is good enough to compete with Enda. I guess Robinson is an option as well, but we've got a small squad to begin with and it's getting smaller.
 
DronnieBlade said:
QPR also. Watched him quite a bit.

Decent / Good - yes.

PL standard ????

Not for me.

UTB

PS maybe this is the “trump” card being played to secure Matt Cash ?!
Click to expand...

Surely if it was a trump card in the cash deal, there would be rumours of him going the other way at the same time?

No point doing them a favour and hoping they don’t suddenly sell him to villa or Fulham or whoever. They would just sell to the highest bidder - in fact I wouldn’t say if he goes without Cash coming in it makes it even less likely cash would come
 
Houso said:
Not being snarky, but could you link me up?
Click to expand...

Matty Cash doesn't appear in any of the articles discussing the loan move.

Alan Nixon, who continues to break all of our transfer stories first this window, responded on twitter to say "only aware that L Freeman is going to Forest, nothing about Cash" (or words to that effect).
 
Forest journo
 

Attachments

  • 8C3E5256-8537-4D90-A84F-3CAFA372F823.png
    8C3E5256-8537-4D90-A84F-3CAFA372F823.png
    333 KB · Views: 80

Roygbiv said:
The reason Freeman rarely played is simply because pre lockdown, Fleck was our best player. When Fleck was injured, so was Freeman which was unlucky for him. The fact Osborn did so well means Freeman is now likely 3rd choice in that left handed side position.

I like Freeman and if we went back to the "Duffy role" then he would be a shoe in for they position but it looks like we arent going to be entertaining that again. It seems Wilder sees the answer to our lack of creativity as gaining more pace and players who can stretch a game.
Click to expand...

Think this is spot on
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rifleman
Amad Diallo
2 3 4
Replies
100
Views
16K
ancientblade
A
Champagneblade
Player Suggestion Arthur Okonkwo
Replies
12
Views
914
Champagneblade
Champagneblade
Belvedere Blade
Incoming? Keylor Navas
Replies
17
Views
4K
JJBlade
JJBlade
Belvedere Blade
Incoming? Ahmed Hegazy
Replies
7
Views
1K
Skiliman
Skiliman
A
Daniel Iversen
Replies
10
Views
1K
Bladesman
Bladesman

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