Maybe a bit tangential, but I've never understood the expression 'the exception that proves the rule'. If it's an example of something that doesn't align with the rule, how indeed does it 'prove' the rule? And on the topic of JDW, didn't we have an option in our favour of an additional year which is how we wrangled a fee? And even if not, with players we may not want, as SS suggested, we could loan for a year and if the club wants them, we can trigger the year and get a small fee, and if they don't then we release the player having not had to pay their entire wage for the season. We won't get a L1 club paying their full wage, but partially offsetting it is worthwhile if we don't see a future for them at the club.
Chuba Akpom? https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/chuba-akpom-hull-forest-boro-5422654
Well there was certainly a player in there. An outstanding youth player but surprising how many of these don’t kick on yet players like Bowen who come from humble beginnings do
Not a great return last season, but there's always a chance that will change. Magennis is a prime example.... Equally, Eaves showed how a "prolific" striker can prove otherwise.....
Courtesy of the Oxford English Dictionary - The exception proves the rule originally this meant that the recognition of something as an exception proved the existence of a rule, but it is now more often used or understood as justifying divergence from a rule. We're not going to trigger another year for a player we want rid of, at least you'd hope not, hopefully the Henriksen fiasco put paid to doing daft things like that. Sending players out on loan, with a clause that generates a small fee if they decide to sign them permanently, is potentially an option, but it's not common and generally happens with players who go out in the January window. We did it with Jordy this season and Peterborough did it with us with Maddison last season, but off the top of my head, I don't remember us being involved in any deal like this on any other occasion.
I understand the definition, but as it points out the common usage now is just to justify divergence which seems to go against the point of the expression. But as I said that's a bit of a tangent so never mind. No, but you would trigger the year extension if a club wanted to buy them in order to get a fee. So for instance if we were expressing interest in signing Crowley it would be strange to see Birmingham release him (as they have done) when they could have got a fee out of us. Presumably indicates we aren't looking to sign him. It's definitely less common at this level, seems a favourite in Italy though.
I didn't think it was a stupid point. Flores, Mayer & Eaves I don't see having any future with us. They've all got 1 year left with an option. Eaves will be the trickest to shift wage wise, the other 2 won't be on much even with the promotion boosts. They were salary cap signings and we had to be creative to fill holes in the squad without spending very much at all. I think 8-10 is possible but I'm certainly not expecting the calibre of signings most supporters are. We've been linked with Akpom today but there's no chance we can get close to him wage wise. Top-end L1 players would be good, I'd happily take Rathbone as a Honeyman backup and Randell Williams too as long as we brought in another winger. Neither would be expensive signings but would improve the squad. If we try competing pound for pound at championship level, it'll be a long season, we have to be creative and do things that other sides aren't to give us any sort of advantage.
I'm pretty certain we won't trigger an extra year for any player we want rid of, just as Birmingham wouldn't risk triggering another year for a player they wanted rid of, regardless of any potential interest from us. We won't loan out a load of senior players either, we never do. And we won't sign Chuba Akpom (unless it's on loan and even that's highly unlikely).
Ok, Chelski loan out players that are good, or have potential, if they’re ****, they let them go for free, or if they’re lucky, a few 100k. Same as Utd, we’ve picked up some class players from Utd over the years & with the possible exception of Brady, don’t think we’ve paid more than a few 100k tops. We loan out younger players to lower league/non league teams, can’t remember us loaning out too many first team players over recent years. Olifinjana, Deano & JDW are the ones that spring to mind for me. We’re not a team, very few are outside the PL, who loan out players to teams to try & get a fee for them. If McCann wants rid of Eaves, Flores, Clark or whoever else, then they’ll either be sold if anyone will buy them, or released by mutual consent. If someone did want to loan out one of ours, then there probably would be a loan fee, maybe a deal where they sign them permanently. Whatever happens, I think 99% of the time, we won’t be triggering any clauses to try & get a fee, in most cases, any fee probably wouldn’t cover the players wages, also there’d be no guarantee of a sale either. Tying up money to try & get a fee for a player the club wants rid of simply not going to happen, unless that player is a genuine talent. The contracts that will be earmarked for renewal will be the first team players & any youngsters who have talent. Judging by McCann’s end of season team choices, I don’t see Eaves as being an option of new contract or pulling on that extra year extension. Emmanuel, may well be another, not because he hasn’t got the talent or ability, but because I would expect him to be wanting first team football.
If we could merge Crowley's footballing brain with Wilks's natural talents we'd have a real gem on our hands!
I do think we'd be in a good position to poach some of the lower-half League 1 teams' best players, like Scott Fraser from MK Dons or Ollie Rathbone from Rochdale. They'd be good additions, especially Fraser who got 14 goals this season, and their clubs would probably agree to sell for a decent six-figure sum. Question is, do we try and sign the likes of Fraser and Rathbone or stick with who we know and go for Crowley and Slater? Striker-wise, I'd rather go for the lad at Accrington Stanley than Akpom. Akpom's return this season hasn't been great, he's one of Boro's highest earners and he cost £2.75 million and has two years left on his contract. It would be an expensive risk. Not saying he's crap, but they'd probably want to recoup some of their losses and his wages would probably make him our highest earner. It doesn't make sense as a transfer for us at this time. It would be a Proschwitz-esque signing all over again. We have a good set of lads who got us promoted, and even with their promotion wage-increases they'll all be earning less than a new signing who had a poor season in the Championship? Nah, don't see it happening. As for loans, we're not in a position to be allowing 8-10 outgoings and bringing in 8-10 replacements. The lads going out on loan will be academy players to League 1 and 2. Max Clark is looking to buy property in the East Yorkshire area. Whether that means he's signing a new contract, I don't know. Flores, Eaves, Scott, McLaughlin are all somewhat decent squad players. If McLaughlin leaves, we have Burke, Greaves and Alfie Jones at centre-half and an injury to any one of them would leave us in a ****e position.
Crowley's naturally very talented too. More a question of whether or not he really fits into McCann's Plan A.