Transfer rumours, targets & new signings

[manc_vale]

1 hour ago, rob1983 said:

Need to break the bank or we're going no where. Where's the ambition? Small little vale. Perhaps if we spent less money on the backroom staff we'd have more money for signings.

Disagree, clubs can achieve success and promotion without breaking the bank. Accrington is a great example, who I hope we shall be playing next year to renew our friendship with the manager.

[Walka003]

If you are on about the comments on the tweet from Peter O Rourke there is only 1 fan saying they don’t rate him (at the time of writing)… that may be totally representative of the Ipswich fan base, or might be one of their mouth breathers… we have a few of our own.

It was based on that comment on twitter but also the comments on the Ipswich forum.

[Iron Curtain]

Just now, Walka003 said:

It was based on that comment on twitter but also the comments on the Ipswich forum.

It’s the old classic isn’t it… some fans on their forum are saying they prefer him over Hladky who was the best keeper in our league by a country like for Salford.

If he signs we can but wait and judge.

In the meantime a vid of some of his saves whilst at Gillingham

 

[Walka003]

Just now, Iron Curtain said:

It’s the old classic isn’t it… some fans on their forum are saying they prefer him over Hladky who was the best keeper in our league by a country like for Salford.

If he signs we can but wait and judge.

In the meantime a vid of some of his saves whilst at Gillingham

 

I would say that the postives are in the minority on the forum from what ive seen...

I really can't imagine hes going to start, as i don't think Stone has done anything wrong. As a cheap bench warmer its probably alright.

[Fosse69]

54 minutes ago, 1 said:

Why don’t they pay decent players more, then if anyone complains tell them that the more expensive player has achievements inkeeping with their remuneration. Want more money? Do good football stuff and then ask.

I assume they do pay their better/experienced  players more, just have a limit.  

[Walka003]

4 minutes ago, Fosse69 said:

I assume they do pay their better/experienced  players more, just have a limit.  

Didn't DC say it was £1.8k in his interview with the national press?

[CAVALIER]

Are we paying the price for the mixed recruitment last summer? The fact we can't get folks like Loft because of our structure puts out red flags and means we have to be spot on with signings or we will go nowhere.

[valiant_593]

Can’t say I’m jumping at the prospect of another loan signing. 
 

Potentially:

Cass, Harrat, Edmonson, the guy from Aberdeen, striker at Villa and now Holy all on loan. That’s not the way to go, we’ve tried that before and failed miserably 

(if they all sign of course) all very young as well. Not a receipt for success that. 

[Joe B]

Holy would be good. Hopefully the statue gets built for Lucas regardless.

Disappointed that we were offered Loft and Hemmings (and Politic) but rejected all due to the 'wage structure'. Unfortunately, creative players/goalscorers command a higher fee than the average League 2 player. If we're going to entrap ourselves with the idea that grown men like Tom Pett would blart because Kane Hemmings earns more than them then, we're not going to get a proper forward.

Reassuring about Gibbo. 

Big, big signings these. Monumental. If Flitters pulls it off and we end up in top 7 then great. If he ballses it and we finish mid-table again...

[Joe B]

6 minutes ago, Walka003 said:

Didn't DC say it was £1.8k in he interview with the national press?

Think it was £1,900 a week was the max anyone was on, according to that interview (seems a bit daft to announce it imo), but lots of incentives.

Whether people want to moralise about it being right or wrong, good strikers in League 2 will set you back more than that. That's just the market now. 

Flitcroft must trust himself to sign players for cheaper who can offer the same output. It's very ballsy. Hemmings would have cost more but a player who regularly gets 15 a season is going to.

[Joe B]

10 minutes ago, Walka003 said:

I would say that the postives are in the minority on the forum from what ive seen...

I really can't imagine hes going to start, as i don't think Stone has done anything wrong. As a cheap bench warmer its probably alright.

Holy will 100% start over both Lucas and Stone if he comes. Absolutely no question about it. He's been a regular League 1 player and will not come cheaply.

[Walka003]

4 minutes ago, Joe B said:

Think it was £1,900 a week was the max anyone was on, according to that interview (seems a bit daft to announce it imo), but lots of incentives.

Whether people want to moralise about it being right or wrong, good strikers in League 2 will set you back more than that. That's just the market now.

Flitcroft must trust himself to sign players for cheaper who can offer the same. It's very ballsy. Hemmings would have cost more but a player who regularly gets 15 a season is going to.

I wouldn't have been blown away with Hemmings in all honesty, Loft would have been a decent pick up (didn't realise he was only 24).

Announcing the limitations of the wage structure is a peculiar move, and what the motivation for it was i don't know.

That being said, I would say 90% of the transfer business done under the new structure has been great, difficult to argue against it.

[Joe B]

1 hour ago, maccapvfc said:

On what evidence do you basis that on? So every club that gets out of league two, spends above their means do they? No one at the club has said that we can't afford new signings, we're just not signing players that want more money than we're willing to spend. It makes complete commercial sense - it's not difficult to comprehend.

There's a difference between not exceeding the overall budget Carol has set (good!) and not giving an individual player more than an amount which is above the arbitrary limits of a wage structure (bad and daft!).

I wouldn't want us to overspend, but as long as we remain within the overall budget then in my view it doesn't matter whether player X earns more than Tom Pett and Nathan Smith. Just get out the league before Wrexham and Stockport arrive.

It's a strawman argument to defend the wage structure by saying 'don't want to spend beyond our means', as no one is asking for that.

[mr.hobblesworth]

5 minutes ago, Joe B said:

Think it was £1,900 a week was the max anyone was on, according to that interview (seems a bit daft to announce it imo), but lots of incentives.

Whether people want to moralise about it being right or wrong, good strikers in League 2 will set you back more than that. That's just the market now.

Our current players fit in to the wage structure and they got us in to the automatics.

[darren1810]

4 minutes ago, valiant_593 said:

Can’t say I’m jumping at the prospect of another loan signing. 
 

Potentially:

Cass, Harrat, Edmonson, the guy from Aberdeen, striker at Villa and now Holy all on loan. That’s not the way to go, we’ve tried that before and failed miserably 

(if they all sign of course) all very young as well. Not a receipt for success that. 

Any time a loanee comes in i can't but help have that recurring nightmare of Browns 26( huge exaggeration )  loan signings of which some weren't even able to be sub as we had the full quota. 

A couple who i got attached too with a view to signing after doing so well were Mitch Clark and obviously Politic. Any loan deal can get hijacked by a bigger fish impressed with their form and jumping in to scupper our hopes.

January notorious though for panic and poor signings, ideally we want a Hall type from a ' lesser ' club or someone with just 6 months left on current contract. I have to agree with others a striker with reasonable pedigree is an absolute must. The young lads will run all day, Wilson still nowhere near at it in my opinion. So an experienced figurehead with a midfielder are top of my own wish list.