2 minutes ago, philmpv said:

6 minutes ago, philpvfc said:

Not gone for the big money we hoped at a guess. Hopefully large sell on clause. 

How have you established that?

Clue was in the word Guess. 

And it all makes sense!

Best of luck to him and this is the best move. He isn't good enough now to make a sustained impact but his career could stagnate if he doesn't get minutes, so best for all if we cash in now.

Good luck to him. I think it’s the right thing as I honestly think we were going to ruin him. Sticking him out wide will do nothing for his development. Hopefully the fee is a good one. 
 

I still don’t agree with the signings yesterday and don’t think any are needed. 

Edited August 31, 20241 yr by valiant_593

Just now, valiant_593 said:

Good luck to him. I think it’s the right thing as I honestly think we were going to ruin him. Sticking him out wide will do nothing for his development. Hopefully the fee is a good one 

He just isn't better than the three other strikers we've got right now, so we either risk what was hopefully going to be a promotion campaign by playing an inferior striker, shoehorn him out wide for the sake of minutes, or don't play him at all.

This works for everyone and the widespread carping about Hackford last night looks a bit daft.

I think that’s a good move all round tbh. I think we’ve seen odd glimpses but at the moment it’s all potential. Apart from the Bristol Rovers game when they were on the beach and generally defended atrociously all afternoon, it’s not like we saw the types of game changing performances and constantly running teams ragged with him building a genuine connection with the fans. It means that hopefully we’ve got a good price especially with a sell-on, going to a big club who tend to develop and sell on for decent money.

In a weird sort of way, I feel a bit more reassured now, which is very strange given we’ve just sold a potentially very good (future world class?) player as I’m hoping this means the outlay on all these players has been covered and it means his progress won’t be stifled by loan players.

So, well played Vale on this one I’d say.

 

Just now, JoeB2 said:

He just isn't better than the three other strikers we've got right now, so we either risk what was hopefully going to be a promotion campaign by playing an inferior striker, shoehorn him out wide for the sake of minutes, or don't play him at all.

This works for everyone and the widespread carping about Hackford last night looks a bit daft.

Isn’t that what I said? It’s the best move all round. I still dont think we signed correctly yesterday. The areas we needed were full back. We didn’t need attacking mids and I still think we have more than enough up top without hackford signing. 

Clue was in the word Guess. 

Ok....what information have you seen to 'guess' that?

Just now, valiant_593 said:

Isn’t that what I said? It’s the best move all round. I still dont think we signed correctly yesterday. The areas we needed were full back. We didn’t need attacking mids and I still think we have more than enough up top without hackford signing. 

We did sign a full back last night he just happens to be able play cm too

Not gone for the big money we hoped at a guess. Hopefully large sell on clause. 

Why do you think he hasn't gone for big money

4 minutes ago, Southern_Valiant said:

We did sign a full back last night he just happens to be able play cm too

Hes a cm who can play full back. Both vale and Leicester describe him as a cm

Edited August 31, 20241 yr by valiant_593

5 minutes ago, Southern_Valiant said:

We did sign a full back last night he just happens to be able play cm too

That’s not true though is it, unless your source is Joe. We signed a midfielder who can stand in at fullback for the other midfielder we already have standing in as fullback. 

10 minutes ago, philpvfc said:

Not gone for the big money we hoped at a guess. Hopefully large sell on clause. 

What makes you think that? just because it's Southampton? I think differently but hey ho

Southampton are the ideal club for him to go to imo if he does well there they will have bigger clubs wanting to pay big money and there will no doubt be a sell on fee included,so win win and i also think he will of gone for big money and add ons but i guess we wont find that out

3 minutes ago, Southern_Valiant said:

We did sign a full back last night he just happens to be able play cm too

We've got 4 fullbacks (Sang, John, Hart, Cover) - 5 if you include Jones. For now, we've also got Plant and Shorrock as wingbacks. As well as other big wage on the books in Clark. Not sure how many people want.

We perhaps have too many attacking midfielders but if you categorise Curtis, Benicio, and Edwards as wingers and Garrity, Chislett, and Richards as attacking central players, it doesn't feel too daft.

Sitting midfielders will always be Byers and Croasdale when fit, with Cover, Garrity, and Lowe as back up.

You always need 4 strikers, so Hackford had to be signed once we knew Dipepa was going.

I'm just not getting the complaints. It's a larger squad than we're used to - thank God, considering how we usually drop off post-Christmas and have an attacking player injury crisis every January.

Just now, JohnDoe said:

That’s not true though is it, unless your source is Joe. We signed a midfielder who can stand in at fullback for the other midfielder we already have standing in as fullback. 

He played 75% of his games at fullback last season.

Does this mean we wont be loaning Dipepa to a National League team now 🙂 

This should be a massive incentive to all the young lads at Vale now and those in the Academies