Incoming? Ryan Kent

[TJB.]

I'd want to see Kent and Brooks in the same team, supporting a lone centre forward from wide areas. It would be great to watch.

Front four of...

Kent---Duffy---Brooks
-----------Clarke------------

Oooft.

 

[Fanny magnet]

He could be wing back cover
I've seen him play about half a dozen times and he's never done anything,I mean anything
Not so much as a completed Pass a decent cross or a good tackle Never MIND scored or assisted a goal

 

[mattbianco1]

This is usually reliable...

 

[robbiez666]

He could be wing back cover
I've seen him play about half a dozen times and he's never done anything,I mean anything
Not so much as a completed Pass a decent cross or a good tackle Never MIND scored or assisted a goal

I would assume a parent club levying penalties will insist on him being played in their prefered position. Which I presume would be as a wide attacking player.

 

[Fanny magnet]

I would assume a parent club levying penalties will insist on him being played in their prefered position. Which I presume would be as a wide attacking player.

they must be rubbing their hands then
We don't use a wide attacking player

 

[robbiez666]

they must be rubbing their hands then
We don't use a wide attacking player

I think he's a winger by trade but Liverpool (never mind us) don't use wingers. I'd assume they'd want him to play in a similar position to the way he'd play in the Liverpool formation.

 

[Ricky]

If we're 'leading the race' then Liverpool must be satisfied with what we've told them about where he'd play.

I'd be happy to go with an attacking winger at wing back for certain games. Especially if Leonard's playing because he can cover that right side very well.

 

[Blade56]

Out of the blue?? There’s a 200 page thread about the bloke!

Can you point out to Rodley i was being sarcastic please?

 

[Blade56]

Maybe we're going to change formation and use wingers

 

[WhiteHawk]

Penalty payments if we don't play him? No thanks.

Surely that shouldn't be allowed? There's something really wrong about a club loaning a player to another club and then basically telling them that he must play every game.

 

[BladeInIreland]

Financially not a bad idea.
we need cover for full back, signing a permanent full back would be more expensive and unjustified with freeman returning. Similarly a full back taken on loan would be useless upon freemans return. Kent would be able to play a number of positions so would still have a role to play. Even if we have to pay penalties id guess it's still cheaper then the above options and we also gain another attacking threat.

 

[SteveBlade]

Barnsley fans rate him very highly.

 

[Ricky]

You won't find many better pacy attacking players than him so maybe the potential penalty payments are something we're willing to accept on this occasion?

 

[CaptainMorgans]

If the lad can put in a cross then he’s worth having. Sick to death over the last couple of months of our wide players, having got into decent positions, hitting the first man with their cross.

 

[super_pig]

Turn it on it’s head and let us have him for free and we pay a fee every time he starts , come on as sub or is in the squad.
It’s similar to the bonus scheme for players but the club gets it.

tell the sousers to do one..

 

[sheffielder]

If the lad can put in a cross then he’s worth having. Sick to death over the last couple of months of our wide players, having got into decent positions, hitting the first man with their cross.

I would love to have a winger you can bring on for a wing back. All in

 

[Pinchy]

If the lad can put in a cross then he’s worth having. Sick to death over the last couple of months of our wide players, having got into decent positions, hitting the first man with their cross.

Yes, there’s a great deal to be sick to death about in relation to our team at the moment. It’s awful. I vomit every time I see them play.

 

[Pinchy]

Sorry I read that wrong.
You mean it's 100% fact that Nixon is ITK and NOT that he's ITK 100% of the time.
Makes sense

He’s the one to whom Magic Mike regularly sends emails begging for information. Magic then recycles it and claims to have ‘sources’. Rather embarrassing, really.

 

[Pinchy]

I would assume a parent club levying penalties will insist on him being played in their prefered position. Which I presume would be as a wide attacking player.

They can’t insist on that. It’s far too restrictive. In any event, Wilder wouldn’t agree to that level of interference. What next. He can’t be substituted?

It makes little difference, however, because if he’s brought in it will be to play in the position where he’s most effective.

 

[Pollingtonblade]

He could be wing back cover
I've seen him play about half a dozen times and he's never done anything,I mean anything
Not so much as a completed Pass a decent cross or a good tackle Never MIND scored or assisted a goal

We are re signing Monty?

 

[Chali 2na]

They can’t insist on that. It’s far too restrictive. .

They don't have to insist, its a contractual obligation in some cases.

 

[S5Blade]

Maybe it's something simple like they will pay his wages if he plays, if he doesn't then we have to pay his wages, or a percentage of them

 

[Pinchy]

They don't have to insist, its a contractual obligation in some cases.

A place in the team, yes. A right to play on a particular position, no. No court would uphold such an unworkable condition.

 

[Chali 2na]

A place in the team, yes. A right to play on a particular position, no. No court would uphold such an unworkable condition.

What makes you think that?
My personal contract at work specifies a job title/position and the role I'm expected to play within that position.

If youre right, and such terms aren't legally binding, then its still possible that clubs will abide by these rules regardless. Some clubs' survival depends on the (continued) loans from larger clubs.

 

[Blade56]

What makes you think that?
My personal contract at work specifies a job title/position and the role I'm expected to play within that position.

If youre right, and such terms aren't legally binding, then its still possible that clubs will abide by these rules regardless. Some clubs' survival depends on the (continued) loans from larger clubs.

Yes but those are terms set by your employer to meet their goals. This would be classed as third party interference in another team.

 

[Chali 2na]

Yes but those are terms set by your employer to meet their goals. This would be classed as third party interference in another team.

Surely by that logic dictating whether or not they play (which is accepeted as common practice in loans these days) would also be classed as interference in another team?

 

[Pinchy]

What makes you think that?
My personal contract at work specifies a job title/position and the role I'm expected to play within that position.

If youre right, and such terms aren't legally binding, then its still possible that clubs will abide by these rules regardless. Some clubs' survival depends on the (continued) loans from larger clubs.

Football contracts do not contain job descriptions of ‘left midfielder’ or ‘right wing-back’. It would be absurd. How do you prove a breach? Montgomery would have had to pay a fortune in damages for failure to comply with ‘midfielder’.

Courts do not involve themselves in minutiae of that nature. If such restrictive terms were enforceable Kent, for example, could refuse to play a ‘number ten’ role because he’s only contracted for left midfield. He could walk off if asked to fill in at left back owing to injury. It’s nonsense.

Of course clubs can “agree” anything they like, but a verbal contract ain’t worth the paper it’s written on as immortalised by Sam Goldwyn.

On a practical level, I would hope Wilder would not involve himself in any ‘must play’ agreements let alone ‘must play in a certain position’. It’s third-party management! Fuck that, Tufty would say, I trust.

 

[Chali 2na]

Football contracts do not contain job descriptions of ‘left midfielder’ or ‘right wing-back’. It would be absurd. How do you prove a breach? Montgomery would have had to pay a fortune in damages for failure to comply with ‘midfielder’.
Courts do not involve themselves in minutiae of that nature. If such restrictive terms were enforceable Kent, for example, could refuse to play a ‘number ten’ role because he’s only contracted for left midfield. He could walk off if asked to fill in at left back owing to injury. It’s nonsense.

Im not suggesting a position is litereally written into the contract, im just saying that i don't find it hard to imagine some kind of terms that allow the parent club to insist on a certain treatment of the player.
I think its clear that im not a legal mind though, and these are just my suspicions.

Of course clubs can “agree” anything they like, but a verbal contract ain’t worth the paper it’s written on as immortalised by Sam Goldwyn.

A verbal contract may not be worth anything in court, but breaking such an agreement may lead to the parent club refusing to loan players in the future. (Which is more important to some clubs than others)

On a practical level, I would hope Wilder would not involve himself in any ‘must play’ agreements let alone ‘must play in a certain position’. It’s third-party management! Fuck that, Tufty would say, I trust.

This is where i wholeheartedly agree with you. It seems like very dangerous territory.

 

[Sheffsteel]

Think the word “penalties” is misleading, maybe it should read “discounts”.

Let’s say Ryan Kent is currently on 10K a week at Liverpool, might be a bit more.
So we want him for 5 months, that roughly 22 weeks x 10K = £220K cost.

Now Liverpool could say “pay his full 10K a week wage”
‘but every time he’s starts a match it’s a 50% discount and every time he comes on as sub it’s a 15% discount off his weekly wage”.

Note the word discount (incentives) not penalty.

I suppose it’s Liverpools way of sorting out the time wasters.
If other clubs really rate him and really want him, then the intention is to give him games.
If Wilder doesn’t think he’ll get many games then I agree we shouldn’t bring him in.

 

[mattbianco1]

What makes you think that?
My personal contract at work specifies a job title/position and the role I'm expected to play within that position.

If youre right, and such terms aren't legally binding, then its still possible that clubs will abide by these rules regardless. Some clubs' survival depends on the (continued) loans from larger clubs.

Football's different though. Say we were leading Wolves 1 nil with 20mins to go. Wilder may want to go a bit more defensive and deploy him inside as opposed to out wide for more midfielders. How on earth could Liverpool dictate that we're not allowed to do that?