Engvall

[Fiale]

1 hour ago, Olé said:

I've been busy with work and haven't had a chance to read the whole thread. Was it actually ever confirmed that he had gone to Sweden in the first place? This is the first time I've seen anyone at City comment on his being back in Sweden. Either way this lad's morale is going to be beyond shot to pieces now.

 

Feel sorry for the kid, he was over there training with them at the begining of February and set to sign a loan deal so he could play (he wants games so he can get a place in the National Side). We then cancelled the loan and called him back because Tammy was out, he did not even make the subs bench, but when we knew Tammy was coming back, the loan was back on. We let him go back over, start training with them again, do interviews with the club local papers etc. saying how happy he is to be there and looking forward to play. We get a injury with Djuric, still let Engvall stay over there for almost 2 weeks and then cancel the loan again calling him back.

He has spent weeks over there, then back here, then back there, now back here still got no games, still not being allowed to settle. We have messed him around and I imagine right now he would be bordering on hate for our club. I wonder if we will actually play him, or are we just out to ruin his career ? Anyway, this sort of stuff gets around, I think we will find bringing over young foreign players harder in the future.

[BCFChayden]

3 minutes ago, Fiale said:

 

Feel sorry for the kid, he was over there training with them at the begining of February and set to sign a loan deal so he could play (he wants games so he can get a place in the National Side). We then cancelled the loan and called him back because Tammy was out, he did not even make the subs bench, but when we knew Tammy was coming back, the loan was back on. We let him go back over, start training with them again, do interviews with the club local papers etc. saying how happy he is to be there and looking forward to play. We get a injury with Djuric, still let Engvall stay over there for almost 2 weeks and then cancel the loan again calling him back.

He has spent weeks over there, then back here, then back there, now back here still got no games, still not being allowed to settle. We have messed him around and I imagine right now he would be bordering on hate for our club. I wonder if we will actually play him, or are we just out to ruin his career ? Anyway, this sort of stuff gets around, I think we will find bringing over young foreign players harder in the future.

No mate what I find embarrassing his our club just does what it wants...

[yatesuperreds]

give the kid a chance then cant be any worse than we have now him and abraham up front 

[Major Isewater]

2 hours ago, bristolcitysweden said:

De hade haft en rätt stökig vecka och avlägsnat en del personal i klubben som gjorde att man inte hann göra klart låneavtalet. På fredagen innan fick man dock ytterligare en skada på Djuric, en forward i matchtruppen. Det var som sagt tung arbetsbelastning på personalen i Bristol och den som skulle göra avtalet klart skulle springa ett maraton och bad att få göra det klart under veckan istället. Vi litade på klubben och att det skulle lösa sig administrativt. Det var det vi hade planerat för och vi har haft kontakt under veckan, sedan läser vi detta på Twitter, säger Bosse som poängterar att det är viktigt att i nuläget ta hand om Gustav som definitivt inte mår bra av det här.

http://dif.se/gustav-engvall-aterkallas-till-bristol/

 

Just a small point but I guess that most of us on OTIB don't speak Swedish, any chance of a translation ? 

This looks like Mrs Isewater's till receipt from Ikea. 

[Monkeh]

I don't get why people are losing their shit over this, he is staying to cover, if he goes and tammy gets injured again I bet everyone slagging the club off over this would slag the club off for loaning him out,

[Phileas Fogg]

23 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

I don't get why people are losing their shit over this, he is staying to cover, if he goes and tammy gets injured again I bet everyone slagging the club off over this would slag the club off for loaning him out,

It's because it seems a bit pointless. He's not playing and it seems the management don't rate him that highly right now.. a spell in Sweden in more familiar surroundings would've probably done him good and he'd have hopefully got some gametime and maybe some goals.

We've got McCoulsky at Bath who is scoring and it wouldn't be much disruption to use him instead as 4th or 5th choice.

We've chosen to recall Engvall which will cause him disruption and maybe make him unhappy.

[Monkeh]

1 minute ago, Phileas Fogg said:

It's because it seems a bit pointless. He's not playing and it seems the management don't rate him that highly right now.. a spell in Sweden in more familiar surroundings would've probably done him good and he'd have hopefully got some gametime and maybe some goals.

We've got McCoulsky at Bath who is scoring and it wouldn't be much disruption to use him instead as 4th or 5th choice.

We've chosen to recall Engvall which will cause him disruption and maybe make him unhappy.

we haven't recalled him though, he never went out on loan in the first place

[Phileas Fogg]

6 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

we haven't recalled him though, he never went out on loan in the first place

Well if you're going to be really realy unnecessarily pedantic about it then you're right.

It's not really relevant though because clearly the intention was to loan him there. 

Silly straw man argument.

[cityloyal473]

6 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

It's because it seems a bit pointless. He's not playing and it seems the management don't rate him that highly right now.. a spell in Sweden in more familiar surroundings would've probably done him good and he'd have hopefully got some gametime and maybe some goals.

We've got McCoulsky at Bath who is scoring and it wouldn't be much disruption to use him instead as 4th or 5th choice.

We've chosen to recall Engvall which will cause him disruption and maybe make him unhappy.

Yep. We've basically called him back to do what he's done all season: not make the team or bench. Farcical. 

[The_Don]

2 hours ago, BCFChayden said:

No mate what I find embarrassing his our club just does what it wants...

"Played and looked decent".

Yes against Hull he controlled the ball well, that was pretty much it.

[BCFChayden]

4 minutes ago, The_Don said:

"Played and looked decent".

Yes against Hull he controlled the ball well, that was pretty much it.

I didn't write that so... and from people say he is good?

[The_Don]

I didn't say you wrote, was just quoting the laughable twitter overhype on one ok performance.

I didn't go to Fleetwood away but was at Burnley and he made no impression on me good or bad in his 30 minutes, you wouldn't have known he was on the pitch.

[Monkeh]

29 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Well if you're going to be really realy unnecessarily pedantic about it then you're right.

It's not really relevant though because clearly the intention was to loan him there. 

Silly straw man argument.

I'm not being pedantic, people are slagging off the club for recalling him from loan when he never actually went out in the first place,

there are plenty of things to slag the club off over at the moment but this isn't one, its the correct decision to be fair, focus on the inept head coach, stubborn owner and stupid season ticket renewals and prices

[Vincent Vega]

23 minutes ago, BCFChayden said:

I didn't write that so... and from people say he is good?

Not what I've heard I'm afraid.

[Alessandro]

4 hours ago, Major Isewater said:

I reckon the club have something against Swedish players .

We certainly showed Ekstrand and now Engval no great love .

Way to build loyalty.

Ah yes Ekstrand, another one that got away. Got on to do great things at.....Rotherham, 1 appearance for a team that has leaked over 80 goals and has a goal difference of -50.

 

[BCFC Rich]

1 hour ago, Major Isewater said:

Just a small point but I guess that most of us on OTIB don't speak Swedish, any chance of a translation ? 

This looks like Mrs Isewater's till receipt from Ikea. 

 

They had a right messy week and removed some staff in the club that made them were not able to clear the loan agreement. On Friday, before you had to be further damage to Djuric, a forward in the match squad. It was said that the heavy workload of staff in Bristol and it would make the agreement would clearly run a marathon and asked to make it clear during the week instead. We relied on the club and it would resolve itself administratively. It was what we had planned and we have been in contact during the week, then we read this on Twitter, says Bosse who points out that it is important at this stage to take care of Gustav who definitely do not feel good about this.

[Red Grovesy]

10 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

Ah yes Ekstrand, another one that got away. Got on to do great things at.....Rotherham, 1 appearance for a team that has leaked over 80 goals and has a goal difference of -50.

 

My mate who is a Rotherham season ticket holder told me last week that Ekstrand needs a knee op and will be out for 4 to 6 weeks.

[Alessandro]

1 hour ago, Red Grovesy said:

My mate who is a Rotherham season ticket holder told me last week that Ekstrand needs a knee op and will be out for 4 to 6 weeks.

He arrived at City having had problems with his knees for a while and those problems continued when he was here.

We recognised that and decided not to foot the bill on any surgery and he moved on.

Yet some still say they think we treated him badly and he got a rough deal from us, because he came out in the press and said it wasn't a fitness issue that caused him to leave City.

Lo and behold, a few months on, he needs major knee surgery pretty much taking him out of the rest of the season .

Bullet seen and then dodged, IMO.

[The Journalist]

5 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

He arrived at City having had problems with his knees for a while and those problems continued when he was here.

We recognised that and decided not to foot the bill on any surgery and he moved on.

Yet some still say they think we treated him badly and he got a rough deal from us, because he came out in the press and said it wasn't a fitness issue that cause him to leave City.

Lo and behold, a few months on, he needs major knee surgery pretty much taking him out of the rest of the season .

Bullet seen and then dodged, IMO.

And, in many respects, this is exactly why people need to get off their high horse about Gustav Engval without knowing for absolute certain the full story.

As others have said, there's plenty to bash the club about this season without getting hysterical over this.

[ontariored]

3 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

He arrived at City having had problems with his knees for a while and those problems continued when he was here.

We recognised that and decided not to foot the bill on any surgery and he moved on.

Yet some still say they think we treated him badly and he got a rough deal from us, because he came out in the press and said it wasn't a fitness issue that cause him to leave City.

Lo and behold, a few months on, he needs major knee surgery pretty much taking him out of the rest of the season .

Bullet seen and then dodged, IMO.

What I don't understand is surely we did a medical and I assume medicals check out footballers injuries and a stress test. Someone didn't do their homework. I am not normally a negative person but I am struggling to comprehend my club who I have followed for 60 years. It's one cock up after another and oh yeay let's blame JP. This club is run by amatuers with no clear accountability or plan. SL, be a man, stand up and take accountability, nobody else is.....

[ontariored]

2 minutes ago, The Journalist said:

And, in many respects, this is exactly why people need to get off their high horse about Gustav Engval without knowing for absolute certain the full story.

As others have said, there's plenty to bash the club about this season without getting hysterical over this.

Normally I would agree with you but it's one calamity over another. If this were an industrial public company there would have been a shareholders meeting by now asking who is managing this club.

[Alessandro]

1 minute ago, ontariored said:

What I don't understand is surely we did a medical and I assume medicals check out footballers injuries and a stress test. Someone didn't do their homework. I am not normally a negative person but I am struggling to comprehend my club who I have followed for 60 years. It's one cock up after another and oh yeay let's blame JP. This club is run by amatuers with no clear accountability or plan. SL, be a man, stand up and take accountability, nobody else is.....

On this point, to be fair to the club, Joel was signed very much under the caveat of proving his fitness.

It was a short term deal and I remember it was said that he brings good experience, but needs to prove his fitness. 

It was low risk for us and he didn't prove his fitness, so not really a problem for me.

[BobBobSuperBob]

11 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

He arrived at City having had problems with his knees for a while and those problems continued when he was here.

We recognised that and decided not to foot the bill on any surgery and he moved on.

Yet some still say they think we treated him badly and he got a rough deal from us, because he came out in the press and said it wasn't a fitness issue that cause him to leave City.

Lo and behold, a few months on, he needs major knee surgery pretty much taking him out of the rest of the season .

Bullet seen and then dodged, IMO.

The mistake with Eistrand as I see it was not necessarily signing him on a short term basis , certainly not releasing him but signing him expecting him to play in a majority of games  ) as LJ and MA have alluded to when stating they didn't expect HM to play as much)

With his recent injury record that was IMHO madness - By all means sign him as an extra / a gamble if there was a belief he might get fit and play a part but to expect that ?

 

[ontariored]

1 minute ago, Alessandro said:

On this point, to be fair to the club, Joel was signed very much under the caveat of proving his fitness.

It was a short term deal and I remember it was said that he brings good experience, but needs to prove his fitness. 

It was low risk for us and he didn't prove his fitness, so not really a problem for me.

Good point Alessandro. However, what the cost of a medical? Surely its a form of due diligence to know where we have to start in managing his training. It's a bit like taking anyone on this forum and say to them, we will pay you but you have to prove your fitness. Bit extreme I know, but its the same thing

[Alessandro]

1 minute ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

The mistake with Eistrand as I see it was not necessarily signing him on a short term basis , certainly not releasing him but signing him expecting him to play in a majority of games  )as LJ and MA have alluded to) 

With his recent injury record that was IMHO madness - By all means sign him as an extra / a gamble if there was a belief he might get fit and play a part but to expect that ?

I never thought or heard they expected him to play a majority games? I thought they were clear it was a bit of a gamble? Eitherway I suspect they expected him to play more than the, what 2 games(?) he did. 

If so, yes, an error somewhere from someone regarding his potential fitness.

Eitherway, there wasn't sufficient cover at CB with too much pressure of Maggers until the Jan window came.

[Alessandro]

2 minutes ago, ontariored said:

Good point Alessandro. However, what the cost of a medical? Surely its a form of due diligence to know where we have to start in managing his training. It's a bit like taking anyone on this forum and say to them, we will pay you but you have to prove your fitness. Bit extreme I know, but its the same thing

I'm sure they did a medical, hence why they only gave him a short deal to prove himself.

It was a gamble, a low risk gamble, his wages would have been minimal too. Maybe heavily performance related.

Given his experience, I think it was worth the gamble, it didn't work out, but no great loss to BCFC IMO.

[BobBobSuperBob]

5 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

I never thought or heard they expected him to play a majority games? I thought they were clear it was a bit of a gamble? Eitherway I suspect they expected him to play more than the, what 2 games(?) he did. 

If so, yes, an error somewhere from someone regarding his potential fitness.

Eitherway, there wasn't sufficient cover at CB with too much pressure of Maggers until the Jan window came.

They said that they didn't expect HM to play anywhere near as many games as he had , because of Engvall

*The fact that those two were our centre back options along with Flint was poor judgement IMO - 

*As I say no problem with signing Ekstrand as a bonus / extra if he attained fitness but not as one of a choice of three

( *Sorry you've said this in your above post as I typed)

[Garland-sweden]

Its like the town Donald Duck lives. In Sweden its called Ankeborg. The whole situation is a mess. Be honest: Gustav is our player and we believe in him. He is in our plans for next season. Or: we have been ****** and dont know how to do. To send Gustav to Sweden with false hope is not ok. We have a baad season and G not played one minute in the leauge. On telly I saw Gustav happy to be in a team again. Feel sory for the guy. He was not cheap, What is this whole about?

[Fiale]

4 hours ago, Major Isewater said:

Just a small point but I guess that most of us on OTIB don't speak Swedish, any chance of a translation ? 

This looks like Mrs Isewater's till receipt from Ikea. 

 

They had had a right messy week and removed some staff in the club that made you were not able to clear the loan agreement. On the Friday before had to be further damage to Djuric, a forward in the match squad. It was said that the heavy workload of staff in Bristol and it would make the agreement would clearly run a marathon and asked to make it clear during the week instead. We relied on the club and it would resolve itself administratively. It was what we had planned and we have had contact during the week, then we read this on Twitter, says Bosse who points out that it is important at this stage to take care of Gustav that definitely does not feel good about this.

 

4 hours ago, Monkeh said:

I don't get why people are losing their shit over this, he is staying to cover, if he goes and tammy gets injured again I bet everyone slagging the club off over this would slag the club off for loaning him out,

 

Like when Tammy got injured and we called him back from Sweden and he did not even make the bench still because He is after Tammy, Wilbs, Djuric, Taylor, Paterson and Tomlin

 

3 hours ago, Monkeh said:

we haven't recalled him though, he never went out on loan in the first place

 

The loan was never signed, but he was over there in Sweden, living in his new pad, training with the team, doing press interviews getting excited to have game time so he could showcase himself so he can try to get a national team space.

 

3 hours ago, Monkeh said:

I'm not being pedantic, people are slagging off the club for recalling him from loan when he never actually went out in the first place,

there are plenty of things to slag the club off over at the moment but this isn't one, its the correct decision to be fair, focus on the inept head coach, stubborn owner and stupid season ticket renewals and prices

 

He did go there, and this is the second time, as he also went over before Tammy got injured - so twice now we have allowed him to go over, start living there, training etc - and twice we have then cancelled it ( this time without even telling the player, he and the club found out from our twitter feed) - if you think this is a ok way to treat a player and that he's going to be all happy and smiles here, where we do not even put him on the subs bench. We are in a relegation scrap, who knows maybe some miracle will happen and LJ will put him on the bench or play him - but does anyone believe it likely - and if we do, how much do you think he want's to perform for us and the club ? 

[Monkeh]

3 minutes ago, Fiale said:

 

They had had a right messy week and removed some staff in the club that made you were not able to clear the loan agreement. On the Friday before had to be further damage to Djuric, a forward in the match squad. It was said that the heavy workload of staff in Bristol and it would make the agreement would clearly run a marathon and asked to make it clear during the week instead. We relied on the club and it would resolve itself administratively. It was what we had planned and we have had contact during the week, then we read this on Twitter, says Bosse who points out that it is important at this stage to take care of Gustav that definitely does not feel good about this.

 

 

Like when Tammy got injured and we called him back from Sweden and he did not even make the bench still because He is after Tammy, Wilbs, Djuric, Taylor, Paterson and Tomlin

 

 

The loan was never signed, but he was over there in Sweden, living in his new pad, training with the team, doing press interviews getting excited to have game time so he could showcase himself so he can try to get a national team space.

 

 

He did go there, and this is the second time, as he also went over before Tammy got injured - so twice now we have allowed him to go over, start living there, training etc - and twice we have then cancelled it ( this time without even telling the player, he and the club found out from our twitter feed) - if you think this is a ok way to treat a player and that he's going to be all happy and smiles here, where we do not even put him on the subs bench. We are in a relegation scrap, who knows maybe some miracle will happen and LJ will put him on the bench or play him - but does anyone believe it likely - and if we do, how much do you think he want's to perform for us and the club ? 

and we've had players here holding u p the shirt and we've gone on to cancel the deal because it was the right thing to do, at those times the clubs been slagged off and at those times it was proven the club made the correct decision, 

as i said there are many things to moan about lately but this isn't one of them