Kane Wilson to Derby - Confirmed

[glynriley]

22 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said:

Very strange to accept only a sell on clause on a two year deal as he's unlikely to be sold after a year , then he can leave for free the next year

Could it be wage related? Derby paying the player a bit more so we don’t have to and we’ve waived the fee?

[GrahamC]

24 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said:

Very strange to accept only a sell on clause on a two year deal as he's unlikely to be sold after a year , then he can leave for free the next year

The clause doesn’t last 2 years though, does it?

Derby presumably hope he’ll be there for longer & if they do then sell him down the line, we benefit.

Looks to me from the outside that this arrangement is an adjustment as part of the Knight deal but also would mean we’d get a sell on of any fee received, because there is nothing upfront.

[Super]

Shame it didn't work out for him here. Hope he does well at Derby.

[BCFCGav]

So surely we've had some money knocked off the Knight deal then. Otherwise I'd have rather kept Wilson than lost for zilch! But I'm sure it's all part of the Knight deal.

[Spike]

I never get these deals, like I understand that he was signed because of potential but what has changed between then and now? Pearson was manager when we signed him, he's still manager just a year later when we let him go? 
My only understanding is that maybe Wilson doesn't feel he can make his way into the team, maybe Tanner having a good season but it still seems madness that we've signed McRorie if Wilson actually was a talent.

Ah well, it is what it is, I'm also interested to know in the details of the Knight deal if this is, as we expect, a part of it? Is Wilson a fee to us which then goes straight back into the fee for Knight? Something just seems odd to me about the whole deal.

[tin]

This time last year, he was set to start the season as first-choice RWB. Then the injury comes, which he’ll need to manage for the rest of his career, we change system and the rest is history. 

If he’s fully fit and over his injury, Derby have got a bargain IMO. He’ll slot into their system very well. Best of luck to him. 

[DT The Optimist]

All strange one, reminds me a bit of the Liam Walsh scenario few years back, when he had a storming season at Coventry, great expectations, came back to us got injured and never really saw the light of day at BS3.

KW great season at FGR gets injured and rest is history…. He might well be one who got away and will be interesting to see how it all pans out at Derby. Interesting watch this season.  Time will tell

[1960maaan]

11 minutes ago, BCFCGav said:

So surely we've had some money knocked off the Knight deal then. Otherwise I'd have rather kept Wilson than lost for zilch! But I'm sure it's all part of the Knight deal.

From the bits I've seen; 
It was 2 separate deals, and the fee seems to vary from £150-£250K. Whatever it was it was rumoured to cover all our costs including wages for his time here.

6 minutes ago, Spike said:

I never get these deals, like I understand that he was signed because of potential but what has changed between then and now? Pearson was manager when we signed him, he's still manager just a year later when we let him go? 
My only understanding is that maybe Wilson doesn't feel he can make his way into the team, maybe Tanner having a good season but it still seems madness that we've signed McRorie if Wilson actually was a talent.

Ah well, it is what it is, I'm also interested to know in the details of the Knight deal if this is, as we expect, a part of it? Is Wilson a fee to us which then goes straight back into the fee for Knight? Something just seems odd to me about the whole deal.

He was first choice WB playing with a back 3 until injury. Tanner and Sykes did very well in his absence and then the switch to a back 4 called for a slightly different player. Tanner and now McCorie seem a better fit as FB and maybe more in the bigger more powerful player Nige wants. 
I think he is a good player, hopefuly he shines and we have a decent sell on clause.

* I see @tin has said similar *

[Betty Swallocks]

8 minutes ago, Spike said:

I never get these deals, like I understand that he was signed because of potential but what has changed between then and now? Pearson was manager when we signed him, he's still manager just a year later when we let him go? 
My only understanding is that maybe Wilson doesn't feel he can make his way into the team, maybe Tanner having a good season but it still seems madness that we've signed McRorie if Wilson actually was a talent.

Ah well, it is what it is, I'm also interested to know in the details of the Knight deal if this is, as we expect, a part of it? Is Wilson a fee to us which then goes straight back into the fee for Knight? Something just seems odd to me about the whole deal.

I guess the answer is that Pearson see’s what goes on during the week and makes decisions accordingly. It’s not just about talent. Pearson has been working hard to get the attitude of the club changed, he won’t take anything less that 100% dedication now.

I can’t see anything odd about the deal, only that Derby were interested in one of our players at the same time that we were interested in theirs. The deals will be separate in the books but I’d be massively surprised if both weren’t discussed at the same time. Wilson going for a free was probably used to sweeten the deal for Derby but I don’t see anything odd about that.

[GrahamC]

17 minutes ago, Spike said:

I never get these deals, like I understand that he was signed because of potential but what has changed between then and now? Pearson was manager when we signed him, he's still manager just a year later when we let him go? 
My only understanding is that maybe Wilson doesn't feel he can make his way into the team, maybe Tanner having a good season but it still seems madness that we've signed McRorie if Wilson actually was a talent.

Ah well, it is what it is, I'm also interested to know in the details of the Knight deal if this is, as we expect, a part of it? Is Wilson a fee to us which then goes straight back into the fee for Knight? Something just seems odd to me about the whole deal.

Obviously just my opinion but this is what I think has changed in the year since he signed.

The management team has had the opportunity to assess him more both as a player & a character & simply don’t think he’s for us.

His availability record hasn’t been great, of course he could have just had an unlucky year (it was decent at FGR) but references to having to manage his injury & the rumour that he failed the medical at Bolton are red flags.

Pearson is big on seeing how players deal with adversity, he’s certainly tested the likes of Pring, Vyner, Atkinson & Wells in the past & liked what he sees.

I know someone (he doesn’t post on here) who retired a year or so ago so sees most of the home U21 games, he’s a very positive sort but told me when we caught up that Wilson was consistently really poor for the 21s & described him as “passive” & at a game where you can hear every word completely silent, in a side where by a distance he was the most experienced player in a team that was almost entirely comprised of teenagers.

Not long after that he stopped getting picked for the 21s at all.

I knew at that time (April?) he wasn’t in our plans & would leave this summer, which is exactly what happened.

Edited July 11, 2023 by GrahamC

[Betty Swallocks]

5 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Obviously just my opinion but this is what I think has changed in the year since he signed.

The management team has had the opportunity to assess him more both as a player & a character & simply don’t think he’s for us.

His availability record hasn’t been great, of course he could have just had an unlucky year (it was decent at FGR) but references to having to manage his injury & the rumour that he failed the medical at Bolton are red flags.

Pearson is big on seeing how players deal with adversity, he’s certainly tested the likes of Pring, Vyner, Atkinson & Wells in the past & liked what he sees.

I know someone (he doesn’t post on here) who retired a year or so ago so sees most of the home U21 games, he’s a very positive sort but told me when we caught up that Wilson was consistently really poor for the 21s & described him as “passive” & at a game where you can hear every word completely silent, in a side where by a distance he was the most experienced player in a team that was almost entirely comprised of teenagers.

Not long after that he stopped getting picked for the 21s at all.

I knew at that time (April?) he wasn’t in our plans & would leave this summer, which is exactly what happened.

My dad went down to watch one of the under 21 games he played him and described him as a ‘shambles’. 

[IAmNick]

20 minutes ago, Spike said:

I never get these deals, like I understand that he was signed because of potential but what has changed between then and now? Pearson was manager when we signed him, he's still manager just a year later when we let him go? 
My only understanding is that maybe Wilson doesn't feel he can make his way into the team, maybe Tanner having a good season but it still seems madness that we've signed McRorie if Wilson actually was a talent.

Ah well, it is what it is, I'm also interested to know in the details of the Knight deal if this is, as we expect, a part of it? Is Wilson a fee to us which then goes straight back into the fee for Knight? Something just seems odd to me about the whole deal.

Obviously something has changed, but what else would you like to happen? Could be attitude, ability, injury, personal reasons, who knows? Humans are complex, and football is an unforgiving business.

As I mentioned the other day the other option is we keep him around, pay his wages, and he sees out his 3 year deal with a couple of season long loans to L1 before leaving anyway. That's what we've done in the past - if we don't think he's good enough OR isn't the right fit for us I'd much rather we move him on ASAP, accept that occasionally we might let a good one get away, and focus on the players we do want to keep.

[petehinton]

Fair play to him. Brilliant move and still in a damn better place than he was 2 years ago. Would imagine the clauses are a mixture of a sell on, or based on the amount of games he plays. Maybe Derby were wary of his availability/medical as well?
 

Think I’d put in this thread somewhere already, but seems like it’s just one of those things. Had a good pre season, got injured. Never properly got over it. Surgery is a bugger for anyone. Whenever he did play, as others mentioned he did look way off it and like he’d already played a full 90 that morning or something.  
 

Was living on his own, with partner and kid moving back to the midlands full time, so any days off he was back up there, didn’t seem properly “in”.  Derby allows him to be back there with his family full time and at a very big club. And no real loss to us, as harsh as that is.

Fair play to him. 

Edited July 11, 2023 by petehinton

[BetterRedthanBlue]

Good move for him and Derby wish him all the best.

[And Its Smith]

Not sure what’s strange about this move. We signed a player for a free and it hasn’t worked out.  Pearson obviously doesn’t rate him highly enough so has moved him on. All very normal. Show me a manager who gets 100% of signings correct.  I will wait! No harm done here. 

[Ben1980]

Brummies and city don’t seem to be a good mix - Mark Ashton, SOD, now Kane Wilson. 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Probably a bit unlucky with early injuries then change of shape. Derby play a back 3 and wingbacks so injury permitting that might see him improve a bit. Plus maybe the League Two to Championship leap a bit quick..honing his game in League One may have served him better, work his way up a bit. Good luck to him.

Free transfer bit is interesting, although could it have been to knock a small chunk off the Knight deal..what was the final fee there in the end.

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

RE the fee/clauses etc. He's a make weight for Knight coming the other way, and will offset some of his fee, it will make sense in a few days.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Lorenzos Only Goal

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, cidercity1987 said:

Very strange to accept only a sell on clause on a two year deal as he's unlikely to be sold after a year , then he can leave for free the next year

I heard there are some appearance add-ons, so maybe Derby playing safe re initial fee and if he plays a lot, we will do a bit better out of it.

I guess it might’ve made a little difference in smoothing the Knight deal through.

57 minutes ago, Spike said:

I never get these deals, like I understand that he was signed because of potential but what has changed between then and now? Pearson was manager when we signed him, he's still manager just a year later when we let him go? 
My only understanding is that maybe Wilson doesn't feel he can make his way into the team, maybe Tanner having a good season but it still seems madness that we've signed McRorie if Wilson actually was a talent.

Ah well, it is what it is, I'm also interested to know in the details of the Knight deal if this is, as we expect, a part of it? Is Wilson a fee to us which then goes straight back into the fee for Knight? Something just seems odd to me about the whole deal.

Got distracted…looks as if loads of others have replied with what I was gonna say.

53 minutes ago, tin said:

This time last year, he was set to start the season as first-choice RWB. Then the injury comes, which he’ll need to manage for the rest of his career, we change system and the rest is history. 

If he’s fully fit and over his injury, Derby have got a bargain IMO. He’ll slot into their system very well. Best of luck to him. 

 

[Sarumred]

The OS says the fee is undisclosed!

[Dredd]

From what I've read on Twitter (so probably not quite correct) is that Derby are still operating under EFL restrictions and therefore if they can tick this one off to show it as a 'free transfer' but we know we've got say 200k off the Knight deal then that works for both parties. 

[22A]

On 15/06/2023 at 20:33, GrahamC said:

Plymouth much more likely, Rotherham & Derby would be my 2 other guesses.

 

On 15/06/2023 at 20:33, GrahamC said:

Plymouth much more likely, Rotherham & Derby would be my 2 other guesses.

Now for the lottery numbers please.

Edited July 11, 2023 by 22A

[Engvall’s Splinter]

1 hour ago, DT The Optimist said:

All strange one, reminds me a bit of the Liam Walsh scenario few years back, when he had a storming season at Coventry, great expectations, came back to us got injured and never really saw the light of day at BS3.

KW great season at FGR gets injured and rest is history…. He might well be one who got away and will be interesting to see how it all pans out at Derby. Interesting watch this season.  Time will tell

Wasn’t Walsh good spell with Coventry in the league below?

[redkev]

The writing was on the wall a fair while ago in my eyes , when he come back from injury got himself ( fittish ) there was still no match minutes even when he was sub then not even named sub and youngsters coming in before him .

one of those things I suppose , as I have said before gas mate ( mate in the loosiest context ) said he was best player on the pitch both times for FGR against the gas 

[INCRED]

2 hours ago, DT The Optimist said:

All strange one, reminds me a bit of the Liam Walsh scenario few years back, when he had a storming season at Coventry, great expectations, came back to us got injured and never really saw the light of day at BS3.

KW great season at FGR gets injured and rest is history…. He might well be one who got away and will be interesting to see how it all pans out at Derby. Interesting watch this season.  Time will tell

And what has Walsh done since he left??

[Super]

4 minutes ago, INCRED said:

And what has Walsh done since he left??

About as much as when he was here.

[Major Isewater]

8 minutes ago, INCRED said:

And what has Walsh done since he left??

Isn’t he a sort of footballer ? 

[Mr Popodopolous]

I understand Walsh had a great loan spell at Coventry in 2019-20 in their promotion year. There were some reasonable hopes for him iirc.

Why did he barely play in 2020-21 here? I know he had injuries prior to the Coventry loan but what about the season in which he returned?

Edit, just checked back. Yes he had injuries that year too!

Edited July 11, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Spike]

10 hours ago, tin said:

This time last year, he was set to start the season as first-choice RWB. Then the injury comes, which he’ll need to manage for the rest of his career, we change system and the rest is history. 

If he’s fully fit and over his injury, Derby have got a bargain IMO. He’ll slot into their system very well. Best of luck to him. 

 

10 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

From the bits I've seen; 
It was 2 separate deals, and the fee seems to vary from £150-£250K. Whatever it was it was rumoured to cover all our costs including wages for his time here.

He was first choice WB playing with a back 3 until injury. Tanner and Sykes did very well in his absence and then the switch to a back 4 called for a slightly different player. Tanner and now McCorie seem a better fit as FB and maybe more in the bigger more powerful player Nige wants. 
I think he is a good player, hopefuly he shines and we have a decent sell on clause.

* I see @tin has said similar *

I understand that but surely you would think he'd be able to adapt rather than being sold after just 5 games. I mean I understand it and I suppose Pearson wants that height at the back but it's still a very odd decision to not even try to teach him that role and instead sell. 

I understand the logic, I do wonder if Pearson will think twice about buying a player specifically for one role and one role only going forward.

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, Spike said:

 

I understand that but surely you would think he'd be able to adapt rather than being sold after just 5 games. I mean I understand it and I suppose Pearson wants that height at the back but it's still a very odd decision to not even try to teach him that role and instead sell. 

I understand the logic, I do wonder if Pearson will think twice about buying a player specifically for one role and one role only going forward.

FWIW, Wilson has played RB lots of times in his career, so it’s not about him not being taught the role.

The simple answer is that after a year here, he’s been deemed to not be what we want going forward…for whatever reason that is, whether that be ability, attitude, fitness, size (unlikely)…who knows.  The club / squad is always evolving.

Seeing as Nige is very much one to give players a real chance (sometimes more than one), this just needs to be put down to “one of those things”.  I think trying to second guess the reason and then decide that is the reason is a bit futile.

But it’s a forum, so fill your boots!

Overall our recruitment has been much better under Nige.