|
Post by FullerMagic on Jan 7, 2020 10:12:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jan 7, 2020 10:17:09 GMT
I don't understand why people on here can't see the correlation between keeping your good younger players and then having a stock of decent assets to sell on.
If he leaves then the club has been remarkably short-sighted....again. We also spent a relatively high amount of money bringing him here, developing him etc. It's bonkers to let that slide without so much of a whimper.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Jan 7, 2020 13:05:07 GMT
I don't understand why people on here can't see the correlation between keeping your good younger players and then having a stock of decent assets to sell on. If he leaves then the club has been remarkably short-sighted....again. We also spent a relatively high amount of money bringing him here, developing him etc. It's bonkers to let that slide without so much of a whimper. I don't understand why poeple think a club just has to offer a contract and a player will accept. He left Man City to sign for us in search of getting more game time. He'd barely reached double figures before this season so a)Why would the club offer him a lucrative new contract b)why would he sign a contract when we aren't playing him.
|
|
|
Post by stokesupporter on Jan 7, 2020 13:24:58 GMT
He has only played a few league matches per season and despite that he's struggling to play the full 90 minutes. I don't think he could play 35-40 matches per season what could be expected if he'd considered to be our main attacker.
He is a very good goalscorer though and therefore I'd would a little bit sad to see him go but taking account the minutes we could realisticly expect him to play over the course of the season I'd be not too bothered if he goes.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 7, 2020 13:27:29 GMT
I don't understand why people on here can't see the correlation between keeping your good younger players and then having a stock of decent assets to sell on. If he leaves then the club has been remarkably short-sighted....again. We also spent a relatively high amount of money bringing him here, developing him etc. It's bonkers to let that slide without so much of a whimper. I don't understand why poeple think a club just has to offer a contract and a player will accept. He left Man City to sign for us in search of getting more game time. He'd barely reached double figures before this season so a)Why would the club offer him a lucrative new contract b)why would he sign a contract when we aren't playing him. Does anyone think that overly? The issue is, why have we seemingly left it with 6 months of his contract left? I'd like to think we'd learn from the best ie Chelsea and offer contracts before loans to our young players. I know we're not Chelsea so the uptake on signing them might be different. But to let 2 England under 20 internationals go into the final year of a contract appears to be woeful management. And this is where you'd hope a technical director would come into it.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jan 7, 2020 13:27:51 GMT
I don't understand why people on here can't see the correlation between keeping your good younger players and then having a stock of decent assets to sell on. If he leaves then the club has been remarkably short-sighted....again. We also spent a relatively high amount of money bringing him here, developing him etc. It's bonkers to let that slide without so much of a whimper. I don't understand why poeple think a club just has to offer a contract and a player will accept. He left Man City to sign for us in search of getting more game time. He'd barely reached double figures before this season so a)Why would the club offer him a lucrative new contract b)why would he sign a contract when we aren't playing him. That's the club's fault though, and yet another indication that they don't have a plan. It's not the fault of Tyrese Campbell that since he's been at the club we've changed managers about 4 times with no real indication of where they want to take the club. None of which have been willing to play younger attacking players like virtually every other club in the division does. There's no point in bringing players like Campbell to the club if you've got no intention of doing anything with them? It's just a waste of everyone's time. It smacks yet again of the lack of direction the club has off the pitch in terms of long term strategy. It's precisely why we need a Sporting Director. Campbell has played the equivalent of 6 games this season in terms of minutes, in that time he's scored 4 goals and got an assist. That's a fantastic record in a team that creates fuck all from midfield and has been underperforming all year. He should get a contract because you should protect your younger players so they don't leave for practically nothing if they come good, which we run a real risk of. It's also one of the only ways to make money outside the top flight, which allows you to build towards a promotion push in the long run if the player outgrows you (Maddison etc) He probably won't accept it even it was offered now, but that speaks more about the club than it does about Campbell. A complete absence of long term planning and a refusal to lay down any sort of pathway for players to move from the academy to the first team.
|
|
|
Post by berahinosgoals on Jan 7, 2020 13:37:40 GMT
I don't understand why poeple think a club just has to offer a contract and a player will accept. He left Man City to sign for us in search of getting more game time. He'd barely reached double figures before this season so a)Why would the club offer him a lucrative new contract b)why would he sign a contract when we aren't playing him. That's the club's fault though, and yet another indication that they don't have a plan. It's not the fault of Tyrese Campbell that since he's been at the club we've changed managers about 4 times with no real indication of where they want to take the club. None of which have been willing to play younger attacking players like virtually every other club in the division does. There's no point in bringing players like Campbell to the club if you've got no intention of doing anything with them? It's just a waste of everyone's time. It smacks yet again of the lack of direction the club has off the pitch in terms of long term strategy. It's precisely why we need a Sporting Director. Campbell has played the equivalent of 6 games this season in terms of minutes, in that time he's scored 4 goals and got an assist. That's a fantastic record in a team that creates fuck all from midfield and has been underperforming all year. He should get a contract because you should protect your younger players so they don't leave for practically nothing if they come good, which we run a real risk of. It's also one of the only ways to make money outside the top flight, which allows you to build towards a promotion push in the long run if the player outgrows you (Maddison etc) He probably won't accept it even it was offered now, but that speaks more about the club than it does about Campbell. A complete absence of long term planning and a refusal to lay down any sort of pathway for players to move from the academy to the first team. I agree we don't have a plan, it's very much a deal by deal basis at scfc and has been for a long time, that's why we end up with a dysfunctional team
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Jan 7, 2020 14:19:20 GMT
I don't understand why poeple think a club just has to offer a contract and a player will accept. He left Man City to sign for us in search of getting more game time. He'd barely reached double figures before this season so a)Why would the club offer him a lucrative new contract b)why would he sign a contract when we aren't playing him. Does anyone think that overly? The issue is, why have we seemingly left it with 6 months of his contract left? I'd like to think we'd learn from the best ie Chelsea and offer contracts before loans to our young players. I know we're not Chelsea so the uptake on signing them might be different. But to let 2 England under 20 internationals go into the final year of a contract appears to be woeful management. And this is where you'd hope a technical director would come into it. Exactly, the issue is him being allowed to get anywhere near less than 12 months on his contract after what we've outlayed on him. My issue is the sudden outcry now of "If the club lets him leave now" There's sod all the club can do now, it's too late, only a silly money offer to him could pursuade him, something we're no longer in a position to do. Like you said the perfect time to negotiate is when they're after a loan move, should of added an extra 12 months onto his contract then if he wanted the loan move.
|
|
|
Post by wakefieldstokie on Jan 7, 2020 20:58:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by GreaterGlasgowstokie on Jan 7, 2020 21:05:58 GMT
Campbell arrived with that performance at Huddersfield, we have to get him signed up.
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Jan 7, 2020 21:18:33 GMT
Like has been mentioned before you can't make a player sign and as much as some would say why have we left it so long, his dad has been stirring the shit for sometime now and maybe his agent has just refused to talk about it.
|
|
|
Post by Jimm on Jan 7, 2020 21:25:05 GMT
It's mad people actually think he'll still be here in the Summer...
|
|
|
Post by heworksardtho on Jan 7, 2020 21:26:02 GMT
He’s got to show it in more than just one game
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Jan 7, 2020 21:26:25 GMT
I don't understand why poeple think a club just has to offer a contract and a player will accept. He left Man City to sign for us in search of getting more game time. He'd barely reached double figures before this season so a)Why would the club offer him a lucrative new contract b)why would he sign a contract when we aren't playing him. Does anyone think that overly? The issue is, why have we seemingly left it with 6 months of his contract left? I'd like to think we'd learn from the best ie Chelsea and offer contracts before loans to our young players. I know we're not Chelsea so the uptake on signing them might be different. But to let 2 England under 20 internationals go into the final year of a contract appears to be woeful management. And this is where you'd hope a technical director would come into it. Prior to the last couple of games he hadn't done anything to warrant being considered for a longer contract. Three goals in two games and there's some on here would have him as the new Ronaldo. We could let him go and him turn out to be a success elsewhere - similarly we could give him four years and find his best contrbution was a wonder goal on New Year's Day against poor opposition and be saddled with another underachiever. Either way it's a punt.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 7, 2020 21:29:06 GMT
Does anyone think that overly? The issue is, why have we seemingly left it with 6 months of his contract left? I'd like to think we'd learn from the best ie Chelsea and offer contracts before loans to our young players. I know we're not Chelsea so the uptake on signing them might be different. But to let 2 England under 20 internationals go into the final year of a contract appears to be woeful management. And this is where you'd hope a technical director would come into it. Prior to the last couple of games he hadn't done anything to warrant being considered for a longer contract. Three goals in two games and there's some on here would have him as the new Ronaldo. We could let him go and him turn out to be a success elsewhere - similarly we could give him four years and find his best contrbution was a wonder goal on New Year's Day against poor opposition and be saddled with another underachiever. Either way it's a punt. He’s an England youth international who still has a value irrespective of what he had or hadn’t done. We haven’t protected an asset.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Jan 7, 2020 21:48:37 GMT
Prior to the last couple of games he hadn't done anything to warrant being considered for a longer contract. Three goals in two games and there's some on here would have him as the new Ronaldo. We could let him go and him turn out to be a success elsewhere - similarly we could give him four years and find his best contrbution was a wonder goal on New Year's Day against poor opposition and be saddled with another underachiever. Either way it's a punt. He’s an England youth international who still has a value irrespective of what he had or hadn’t done. We haven’t protected an asset. In order for him to want to sign a contract he would likely want assurances about game time. If he's not worth his place he's not going to get it and will therefore want to consider options from elsewhere. We could have offered him a contract last summer to 'protect our asset' and in doing so been stuck with a player who's level is ultimately League 1 or 2 who typically deal in loans and free transfers. If he was playing more regularly I would agree with you - but on the evidence to date I'm still leaning towards 'flash in the pan' (but would be happy to be wrong).
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Jan 8, 2020 0:07:06 GMT
Does anyone know for certain that the club didn't offer him a contract? They generally seem quite good at keeping young players on contracts (Collins and Verlinden being two). I think it would be very surprising if Kevin had advised Tyrese to sign anything until he was getting game time and I don't think he was impressed with Jones as the manager to take his son forward either. I'm quite impressed with the way he has managed his son so far (apart from the racist accusations that is).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2020 7:12:45 GMT
He’s got to show it in more than just one game He was pretty crap at Brentford wasn't he and he gave away the free kick for the goal? Definitely think that qualifies him for an early cancellation of his contract.
|
|
|
Post by heworksardtho on Jan 8, 2020 7:33:36 GMT
He’s got to show it in more than just one game He was pretty crap at Brentford wasn't he and he gave away the free kick for the goal? Definitely think that qualifies him for an early cancellation of his contract. 👍
|
|
|
Post by thehoof on Jan 8, 2020 7:45:12 GMT
Amazing- 14 months of Ince shit and you still get people defending him. Campbell gives away a free kick ( which Ince wouldn’t do as he’d be strolling around out of the way somewhere), has scored 4 league goals to Ince’s 1 despite playing substantially less minutes, yet we go on about “ he hasn’t proved anything”. Given the choice of offering an improved contract and perhaps “guaranteeing” game time to a youngster who at least has the ability to beat a man and shoot on target, or continuing to pick and defend the one paced, one trick pony that Ince has been since December 2018 really shouldn’t take much thinking about.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2020 7:51:56 GMT
He was pretty crap at Brentford wasn't he and he gave away the free kick for the goal? Definitely think that qualifies him for an early cancellation of his contract. 👍 Is that a thumbs up because you agree with it or a thumbs up because you recognise a whoosh when you see one? Does that count as a double whoosh for me?
|
|
|
Post by wilcopotter on Jan 8, 2020 7:57:49 GMT
Too hasty in giving Edwards a long contract, hopefully not Campbell as well.
|
|
|
Post by heworksardtho on Jan 8, 2020 10:13:50 GMT
Is that a thumbs up because you agree with it or a thumbs up because you recognise a whoosh when you see one? Does that count as a double whoosh for me? Whooooooooooooooooooosh 😎
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jan 8, 2020 12:19:06 GMT
Amazing- 14 months of Ince shit and you still get people defending him. Campbell gives away a free kick ( which Ince wouldn’t do as he’d be strolling around out of the way somewhere), has scored 4 league goals to Ince’s 1 despite playing substantially less minutes, yet we go on about “ he hasn’t proved anything”. Given the choice of offering an improved contract and perhaps “guaranteeing” game time to a youngster who at least has the ability to beat a man and shoot on target, or continuing to pick and defend the one paced, one trick pony that Ince has been since December 2018 really shouldn’t take much thinking about. apart from Bayern is anyone defending Ince?
|
|
|
Post by marylandstoke on Jan 8, 2020 16:54:18 GMT
Bought for 1.75 million Going to Scotland for 400 Thousand apparently
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jan 8, 2020 17:10:19 GMT
We paid £750k for him rising to £1.75m So £750k then
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2020 17:10:32 GMT
Not seeing this reported anywhere at all?
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Jan 8, 2020 17:13:14 GMT
It couldn't be someone making it up could it, surely not on this site!
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Jan 8, 2020 18:48:12 GMT
It's all part of Kevin's master plan...worked up in conjunction with Ince senior...these two really know how to develop a players career
|
|
|
Post by ursemboys on Jan 8, 2020 18:50:53 GMT
Bought for 1.75 million Going to Scotland for 400 Thousand apparently Would you like to tell us your source
|
|