BritAbroad

58 minutes ago, petehinton said:

For me, Based on all pre seasons games so far If season started tomorrow….

Max

Tanner
Vyner
Dickie
Roberts

Scott
James
Knight

Bell
Conway
Wells

I like that side, although Cam will probably get the nod ahead of Roberts, and I'd be happy with that also, but I think Roberts has shown enough in pre-season that it's going to be a close contest between those 2.

Retegui is going for about 15m Euros - not sure how they can afford Alex if they can't afford that.

Surprising move to me, but fair play to him for doing it, and good luck.

What I'm not understanding is why the French Player's Union are suddenly threatening to sue PSG because they are sending him to train with the U21s. As long as they are letting him train, paying his wages and not fining him, I don't see they are doing anything that requires union involvement. Also, if it's such a concern, why didn't the Union step in before this with the other players that PSG have done this to, including Draxler and Wijnaldum?

1 minute ago, firstdivision said:

To be honest, BA, I can't quite work out the point you are trying to make. Also, there are a few unknowns and 'I don't knows' in there.

This is what I know: NP said he wants players who are committed. HNM didn't want to sign (so loaned out); Tomas Kalas hasn't signed (yet?) and has missed pre-season. Neither committed. One treated differently to the other.

Also, I would say there were definitely times last season when we had injuries in midfield and could have used HNM. We had to use OTC who was reasonably promising, but not a patch on HNM. We didn't have to play TK in the final game of the season, but we did (when he clearly hadn't agreed a new contract).

One other point re: HNM. We (and clubs) are perfectly happy to play players who will be leaving at the end of their contracts (eg Jay Dasilva) when it suits.

There are (possibly) some differences in the HNM and TK situations but it does look like double standards to me. 

My main point was that we needed DaSilva and Kalas to cover injuries... we didn't need HNM to cover injuries. Not saying it's not double standards, just what was best for the club at the time.

The fact that everything has gone quiet makes me think that Wolves don't have enough to meet our demands. Also the fact that Bournemouth and Wolves fans were begging him to join shows that Premier League fans know how good he is.

7 hours ago, firstdivision said:

So we hang on for TK (leave the contract on the table and play him in the final game despite the fact that he hadn’t committed to the club) but bin off HNM halfway through a season because he wouldn’t re-sign. This smacks of double standards to me. 
People will doubtless say the situation is different (‘I might re-sign’; ‘I won’t re-sign’), but I can’t see how in principle. (‘I can’t commit to you, Mr NP.’)

 

I think there were a lot of differences with the two cases - I believe Massengo would've been offered at least equal terms to stay, otherwise we wouldn't get compensation (at least that's how it used to be), and made it clear pretty early on that he wasn't going to re-sign. Kalas had those injury issues, so I don't know when he would have been offered a new contract, but it's clearly on lesser terms... plus we had minimal injury cover at CB, so we needed him. Also there's attitude. We don't know how Massengo was acting behind the scenes, nor Kalas. NP has hinted that it may be a situation like with Baker.

I wonder if the French team would pick him if they played him with the u21s for the season.

Good double-header from the lads. I'm optimistic about our chances for the upcoming season

Is this game going to finish 7-1, to continue our streak of having 8 goals scored in each of our preseason games?

He changed his shirt according to Post commentary

20 minutes ago, Gillies Downs Leeds said:

No McCrorie today

I wonder if he's picked up a knock?

4 hours ago, Monkeh said:

Because for the billionanth time, we can't stand in the players way, how many times do you have to be told this

Sell Scott and we set the club up for the next five years,

Keeping Scott doesn't garentee us promotion, the team as it stands isn't as strong as Leeds, Middlesborough,  Millwall, Southampton, Leicester, Sunderland that's just six teams who should finish above us, without further strengthening of City's squad,

We finished mid table, we've added players but so has everyone else,

You seem to fail the very basics of economics with regards to ffp and club finances 

With Scott in the side its still doubtful we will finish top 6 and if we do, it's even more doubtful we would win the play offs as this club has never done that,

It is even less likely we'd finish top 2 

I agree with most of this, but football is weird. Just because a team is better than us, doesn't mean they will finish above us. We could finish any position, from 1st to 24th with the team we have. We could sell Scott and finish 1st to 24th.  It's all a gamble. Personally, as much as I would love him to stay, I do think it would be better for Alex if he made the step up - better coaching, better standard of opposition, better standard of team-mates to learn from.... but he has to make the right choice - I'm not sure if Wolves or Bournemouth are the right choice. If he went, I'm sure NP would strengthen the squad with players who would maximize our chances at a high finish. If he stays, maybe he'll help us up, maybe he won't.

Edit: For what it's worth, I think we can at least make the playoffs with or without Alex in the side.

5 hours ago, Davefevs said:

It’s a history thing.  Back in the day, before the summer transfer window hype we see today, players would go OOC and nobody would pick them until much later.  Clubs themselves had no income over the summer so wouldn’t commit to signing anyone straightaway either.  So players had no wage over the summer.  So they introduced the severance payout.

Even further back in time, players had a season wage and a reduced summer wage (almost like a retainer).

I’d argue at the top levels it seems unnecessary but there are probably many a player outside top ends this summer very grateful of a month’s severance.

I didn't know that.  Now it makes sense. Thank you for enlightening me.

6 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Why?  This isn’t working his notice….he’s ended his contract, he is no longer employed by the club.  It’s severance….not pay.  If he came in we’d have to pay him.  Hence why he’s staying fit privately.

You wouldn’t leave a job, get paid severance and expect to have to go to the office / factory every day would you?  It’s no different.

Ditto Massengo, although Han has always had his own personal trainer.

I guess it's more for the fact that his contract has ended, he's decided not to renew, yet we still have to pay him severance. I could understand it if we had fired him or let him go, but I can't think of many jobs that would pay you another month after you decided to leave.

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

No, his contract ended on 30.06….he has already been paid for working until 30.06.

But he is then entitled to an extra month’s “pay” / severance, which I believe is paid weekly until the end of July.  It stops if he gets a new contract this month.

So nothing about being paid a month in hand at all.

I would say that they should be at least training (or working) at the club to get that money.... but I suspect most managers wouldn't want players who are leaving to be hanging around in pre-season. Do we think this is the same reason we've heard nothing about Massengo signing?

Done and good luck

I think we need at least one CB, assuming Kalas doesn't re-sign, possibly a second if Vyner isn't going to sign the new contract they offered him and they cash in before he goes on a free. I think a midfielder to replace the departing Scott, although I don't know who that would be. Maybe a Goalie - I have no idea how good Bajic is. I personally would like a striker - I like Wells, but he's not scored enough for me.

I know their interest has waned, but I'd have loved to have seen Alex go to Brighton - I think he would've thrived there under De Zerbi and they are happy to move players on at a high price to reinvest in younger players, which we could've benefitted from in the future.

4 hours ago, Bcfcshags said:

Been told Bournemouth aren’t far away from matching our valuation (20m + add ons) although West Ham is his preferred destination. Let’s see what comes in the next few days! 

Ugh. West Ham. Not a great club to deal with. I know when they went to sign Benrahma from Brentford, they kept trying to change the deal, then when everything was agreed, at the last minute once everything was agreed with the player, they changed it again to a season long loan with an obligation to buy.

Awesome news on Andy signing a new contract.

1 hour ago, BLRed said:

There is no ‘middle ground’ on an offer. Bournemouth are trying to create that middle ground by low balling disrespectfully. £25mill is the starting point and lowest acceptable offer and if others come in (we’re not in a rush to sell) then the Dutch auction begins and the weak get filtered out.

 

 

Given the amount of interest in Scott, the fact the club don't need to sell, also that he's happy to stay and NP wants to keep him, I do think that 25m is the minimum the club will accept. As soon as one club's bid is accepted, the others will swoop.

27 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

According the one Ipswich fan, they weren’t in for Yates, Surridge or Simms because they have bigger and better awaited…”experienced PL” he said.

Nothing like Ashton putting his eggs into one basket and missing out!

Billy Sharp?

2 minutes ago, HoldenBall said:

Own up. Who wrote this on Knights Wiki page 

 

NP?

It would've been nice to have him back, but I'm not sure how he would've fitted without blocking a younger player's progress.