robf

Ha! Precisely the browser tabs I have open!

For any late comers, here's a summing up of the day so far in OVF features (my typing fingers are starting to hurt)... "Underlying injury issue" - Port Vale loanee returns to club without making an appearance - onevalefan.co.uk WWW.ONEVALEFAN.CO.UK Port Vale sign Nottingham Forest winger on loan - onevalefan.co.uk WWW.ONEVALEFAN.CO.UK Lewis Cass goes on loan to Stockport County - onevalefan.co.uk WWW.ONEVALEFAN.CO.UK "Minimum ten to twelve weeks" - Port Vale manager has bad news on Ikpeazu injury - onevalefan.co.uk WWW.ONEVALEFAN.CO.UK "Commanding unit" - Port Vale replace departed Williams with Barnsley stopper - onevalefan.co.uk WWW.ONEVALEFAN.CO.UK "Undisclosed fee" - Port Vale youngster joins Premier League side - onevalefan.co.uk WWW.ONEVALEFAN.CO.UK

I think Flitcroft's comments in the press release give a hint of why he's moved. No U21s football at Vale and the loans haven't worked out, so he's moved into the Burnley U21 set-up. It makes sense from his perspective. I can't imagine the fee is much but all income is no doubt welcome... -- Speaking of McDermott’s departure, Port Vale FC’s Director of Football, Dave Flitcroft, said: "At the start of last season, Tommy was the first professional contract that we gave to a player out of our academy since I arrived at the club. "Due to not having an U21s group, in order for Tommy to get playing minutes, we loaned him out. The loan vehicle was excellent for James Plant, but it hasn’t been as successful for Tommy. The deal gives Tommy the opportunity to now continue his development in the U21s system at Burnley. We feel this is the right deal for him and for the club. "We wish Tommy all the best with his future and will be monitoring the success of this deal."

Where the heck has that come from? Best of luck to him though...

He signed a four year deal with Barnsley in 2023 so I suspect it's very doubtful

Looking at the Sheffield press, they do seem to want to move him on and obviously he'll be familiar with the area. I guess it depends on who else is interested (Wrexham were at one point) and what his wage demands are.

why? was robbie injured?????????? I think it's a reference to the so-called takeover bid being dismissed by the Vale 😉

From Liverpool... makes sense as we've done great by them so far this season... 🙂 Will he come with a "sorry about the last one" apology note? 😀

Yep, I think that's where we appear to have done better than Aberdeen who were saddled with him for half a season. It appears to have been a bad move but at least the club have appeared to move quickly to resolve it. And although there's not much time left, at least there is some time to get a replacement in. Perhaps even longer if there are any free agent centre halves out there.

I wouldn't say hang out to dry though either. All I am saying is IF it's an internal mistake then there should be repercussions. Those repercussions don't have to be nuclear but should be proportionate. So, yeah if it's something minor that wouldn't warrant hanging out to dry - but the flipside of that is if it is something major then they should. But what I'm getting at is are there repercussions - because if there aren't any then there's no incentive for the club to learn from mistakes and no way for underperforming staff to improve or to be replaced. I don't think we'll ever know (or even should) because I would imagine anything would be inhouse and not public - but I would hope there are measures in place.

Absolutely. However, as I said in a previous post - surely they need to do an internal review if something was missed or a mistake made. If it wasn't and was a fluke injury or something then fair enough - but if (I'm not saying it was just if it was) it was an internal mistake there has to be appropriate measures in place as we're a professional club, we can't be carrying people if they are not up to the role.

To be fair it has appeared now so perhaps it was just a timing thing and I spoke too soon.

I agree. Surely, as in any role, there are repercussions if you make a huge mistake? I appreciate that the club will probably keep any such actions inhouse (and that's fair enough - there's no need to publicly shame someone) but I would hope there's some repercussion (disciplinary or dismissal) if someone on the medical team has just made a major mistake. After all, we're supposed to be a professional football club.

Perhaps I'm jumping to conclusions but the news story announcing it: https://www.port-vale.co.uk/news/2024/february/rhys-williams-returns-to-liverpool/ isn't anywhere on the official site homepage or on the news index. There may be an innocent explanation but if it's a case to try and slip bad news out without people noticing it's a bit rubbish - do they think people will forget he signed and not notice he's not in the squad? I'm not saying you need to lead on this story (the club would obviously prefer to have a good news story as the top story) but surely it deserves to be somewhere on the homepage and news index?

Explaining Williams' spell at Aberdeen (where he failed to make a League appearance) their manager said "Rhys came up injured and has struggled." Was that not a bit of a red flag?

I think by games he means appearances. I think it's bit unfair to lump Massey in there though. He's played out of position upfront and then a lot of his appearances have been at wingback. If you make it Loft, Ikpeazu and Wilson, for instance, then it's five League goals in 42 appearances.

I would suspect he's on big wages there though.

Absolutely agree. I'd be pretty concerned about the medical team if it's true. We've already had several signings this summer who have broken down, despite the improvements to pitch and training facilities. Two of them (Jones and Grant) were considered to be good enough to be handed 2 year deals (rather than the rather more obvious - you have had injury issues so it's a one year deal with an option if you play a certain number of games). To bring in a player who isn't fit to make the squad for his first game is a bit worrying. It's not even like it's the first transfer window where that has happened (Matty Taylor). However, to bring in a player who has to return because he is miles away from playing is a huge error!

The Burke move seems wrong on so many levels... He's mainly a winger which we don't play The club have said they won't pay over the odds yet presumably he would be on huge wages with presumably Vale expected to meet some of them He's a loanee but we can only have five in the squad. If we get him that means we only have room for one more (and we are supposedly targeting a striker and a LWB - i.e. two more) We could get more loans but then you'd have to start leaving some out of the squad. That goes against the idea of gaining favour from big clubs by taking on talented young kids on loan and playing them

I know it's a bit rubbish to be thinking about other teams losing players rather than Vale adding them, but that's good news I reckon. Reading have sold another player too, so those two teams look weaker after this window.

A round-up of the latest X/Twitter/Whatever it's called today rumours... Port Vale deadline day rumours - "at least two signing" - onevalefan.co.uk WWW.ONEVALEFAN.CO.UK

Yep, it seems to be a pattern in recent windows. Didn't the last two last-minute deals bring us Ryan Loft and Matty Taylor... it looks like we don't have much choice other than to hope one works out this time...

I should probably know this but when does this window close? Is it tonight or does it go on to Feb 1st like some other windows have?

Sorry, I'm already breaking my own rule here in coming back onto the thread... In the press articles on that fine, Vale received it because among the pitch invasion there was violence, missiles thrown etc. That's referenced as part of the reason for the fine. FA quote - "Port Vale FC admitted failing to (prevent its fans) using threatening and violent behaviour whilst encroaching onto the pitch area..." I presume the Reading verdict was lesser because there wasn't any violence. Yes, it was disruptive and annoying but not violent and I think that's the difference. As I've said earlier, I think it's odd to fine clubs for individual actions anyhow - personally I think only the people who are found to have been violent should be fined and not the club.

Not picking and choosing. His punishment is to do with him clearly looking to be violent against the ref, just as some of those at the Swindon game were given harsh individual punishments for violence on the pitch then. There was no violence at the Reading protest, the majority of the Vale pitch invaders for the Swindon game were non-violent. They didn't get harsh penalties as a result. That is the differential factor I think - it's not a black and white same ban for anyone treading on the turf, just the same as it's not the same ban for every foul tackle in the game - some get greater punishments than others. It's people taking it to extremes, fighting other fans, trying to attack the referee who get harsher penalties than those simply coming onto the pitch. I fear I've taken this off topic far too much. I've made my point, some will doubtless disagree but I'll shut up now.