7 minutes ago, Guppys left peg said:

Just seen the one in question. Can’t help thinking it’s someone on the windup. Only just joined Twitter and this is only tweet has made. I’m sceptical on that one.

I Dont really do twitter so no idea on followers etc but got sent that one,I saw that it was a rumour so posted it

I am concerned as much as the next person with regards to our striker situation at the club but surely the lesson has been learnt.  We got relegated from L1 because our recruitment was extremely poor with no strikers during the 2nd half of the season.  DM has been around long enough to realise the issues and situation.  The owners want a successful community club and success off the field is gained by success on the field.  Faal is not the answer, and neither is Brown as they are an insurance policy who hopefully make a positive contribution that potentially could be recalled at anytime.  It is a game of chess making the right move for the right person and I am hopeful something will be done before the window closes.
 

So after 0 minutes of seeing Brown in action and about 90 of Faal, you've seen enough to know that neither are the 'answer'?

34 minutes ago, Brian Johnson said:

They still can be called back even with a loan fee. It’s a risk a club takes by paying it.

Our neighbours down the road have been stung by it in the past and have had the managers complaining about it 

If you listen to professionals talking most clubs insert a recall clause. They insert it, it's not fixed. Nothing in a loan contract between 2 clubs is fixed, its as flexible or fixed as the 2 clubs agree. I have no idea if Stoke always or sometimes pay a loan fee. My guess is they do sometimes,  not always. Its not compulsory to have a release clause in a player's contract but increasingly players do. There isn't a fixed agreement between clubs, it's the registration document that is the standard document. There's no FIFA or EFL law that says all medical treatment HAS to be at the parent club. Bigger clubs always insist it is as part of the contract/loan agreement between them; as they don't trust the treatment at smaller clubs. The lad we had on loan from Swansea (Thomas) spent more time in Swansea than Burslem getting treatment. The bottom line if you are the club loaning the player you are going to insert a clause, unless the other club offers a lot of money not to have one. In theory a loan agreement between 2 clubs could include buying a bag of Malteesers for the chairman's grandson every day, if that's the terms agreed. There's also no rules on the percentage of wages each club must pay. Arblaster was allegedly the best paid player at the club, a fair chunk of that was being paid by United. Similarly there are no EFL rules on loan fees. Historically we haven't paid them. I suspect we did for Faal but that is only a guess. The EFL registration document isn't the contract between the clubs over the terms of the loan deal. It's the registration rules that determine when and which teams a player can play for, not be employed by. There is nothing in the EFL laws to say a player can't return to his parent club on 1 December, however the EFL rules would prevent him playing for the parent club until the January window opens and that he would remain a registered player of the loan club until that point.

Edited August 29, 2025Aug 29 by JRC

Just now, philmpv said:

4 hours ago, PVP said:

I am concerned as much as the next person with regards to our striker situation at the club but surely the lesson has been learnt.  We got relegated from L1 because our recruitment was extremely poor with no strikers during the 2nd half of the season.  DM has been around long enough to realise the issues and situation.  The owners want a successful community club and success off the field is gained by success on the field.  Faal is not the answer, and neither is Brown as they are an insurance policy who hopefully make a positive contribution that potentially could be recalled at anytime.  It is a game of chess making the right move for the right person and I am hopeful something will be done before the window closes.
 

So after 0 minutes of seeing Brown in action and about 90 of Faal, you've seen enough to know that neither are the 'answer'?

You do know that's what people do on here dont you

14 minutes ago, Guppys left peg said:

Just seen the one in question. Can’t help thinking it’s someone on the windup. Only just joined Twitter and this is only tweet has made. I’m sceptical on that one.

2 years left on his contract, Wrexham wages!!

16 minutes ago, Guppys left peg said:

Just seen the one in question. Can’t help thinking it’s someone on the windup. Only just joined Twitter and this is only tweet has made. I’m sceptical on that one.

Having thought about it mate,it's an odd one to put on as a wind up as surely knowing we want one you would put a strikers name and not a CB,plus the 2 clubs would be random as well as no clubs were mentioned when he was linked to league one teams

Who knows

He would be a very good signing though either way

4 minutes ago, philmpv said:

4 hours ago, PVP said:

I am concerned as much as the next person with regards to our striker situation at the club but surely the lesson has been learnt.  We got relegated from L1 because our recruitment was extremely poor with no strikers during the 2nd half of the season.  DM has been around long enough to realise the issues and situation.  The owners want a successful community club and success off the field is gained by success on the field.  Faal is not the answer, and neither is Brown as they are an insurance policy who hopefully make a positive contribution that potentially could be recalled at anytime.  It is a game of chess making the right move for the right person and I am hopeful something will be done before the window closes.
 

So after 0 minutes of seeing Brown in action and about 90 of Faal, you've seen enough to know that neither are the 'answer'?

I didn't say that.  If you read the post in context it is about loans players over permanent signings.  I hope Faal and Brown are very successful for us in everyway but as loan players they are here for a short time so not the longer term solution which is what I was getting at. 

3 minutes ago, Fosse69 said:

2 years left on his contract, Wrexham wages!!

Clubs are certainly after him,wont get in their team now so they probably want him off their books

33 minutes ago, PVP said:

FFS all I said in a post way back about loan players v permanent players was that if a parent club in exceptional circumstances needed their player back and the club who the player was loaned too was happy for that to happen then I am sure some agreemnt would be made in the best interest of both clubs and the player.   I have never mentioned several quoted items including the senario of 3 clubs and all I got bombarded with was out of context quotes on how everything is totally impossible.  

But he can't play for that club until January, even if they reached an agreement to bring him back. Its that simple.  You could only recall then play an emergency loan keeper, or a player who is on loan to a non league club.

Edited August 29, 2025Aug 29 by JRC

Anthony Grant. 

Ryan Loft [emoji16]

2 minutes ago, JRC said:

But he can't play for that club until January, even if they reached an agreement to bring him back. Its that simple.  You could only recall then play an emergency loan keeper, or he is on loan to a non league club.

The point is that they could still recall their player back if an agreement was made albeit not being able to play for them.  To be honest I wish I never mentioned this small point that was in a wider discussion.  

2 minutes ago, philmpv said:

1 hour ago, NW9Valiant said:

Anthony Grant. 

Ryan Loft

I'd rather forget he ever played for us, but that would be right I suppose... 

You do know that's what people do on here dont you

I've been on here long enough but it never fails to amaze me

2 hours ago, PVP said:

If all of Stokes strikers were injured and the only option was to end Lowes loan early I am sure they would of come to some agreement and let's say Faal is wanted back at Wrexham before his loan ends and both parties agree it's in the best interest of the player then I am sure it would happen.  The reason why it never happens is because all loan players are somewhat surplus to current 1st team requirements (except goalkeepers who can be recalled).

No.No.No.

1 hour ago, valefan16 said:

Ronan Curtis has 42 league one goals in 189 apps, 75 total goal contributions with 33 assists in those 189 games, that’s one contribution just over every 2 league games he’s played at this level…

You could argue we’d struggle even if we spend most of that £1 million to find a statically better finisher and he isn’t actually an out and out forward.

Genuinely if we signed two players with the League 1 experience and record of Stockley and Curtis there would be a parade in Burslem.

Between them, 346 League 1 games, 78 goals and 78 assists between them. 156 goal and assists in 346 games - as you say, each providing a goal or assist just over every 2 games. I can't be bothered to work out the minutes played but it'll be a lot less than 346 full nineties. You're probably look at bang on 1 in 2.

The obsession with the novelty of new signings causes people to overlook solutions which are already in front of us.