Bcfc24 Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 4 minutes ago, Harry said: Nowhere near £1m. Sorry. Mightily underwhelming if he goes back to Aldershot for the season though, still hope we bring in one more attacking player but can’t see it now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TammyAB Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 5 minutes ago, Ian M said: Where's Vardy on that list? I thought he was £1m? I think it's because they won promotion before he was sold. Andre Gray the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo88 Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 4 minutes ago, DOZZYBCFC said: Where has this been confirmed? OTIB rule 26, subsection 4: Lack of confirmation is no barrier to speculation 4 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 Nobody has mentioned Murphy, where does he fit in to this as he looks a similar player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bcfc24 Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 5 minutes ago, Port Said Red said: Nobody has mentioned Murphy, where does he fit in to this as he looks a similar player. Exactly and if they both aren’t ready are we just stockpiling 10’s for the future Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 1 minute ago, Bcfc24 said: Exactly and if they both aren’t ready are we just stockpiling 10’s for the future The master plan could be Twine until the Summer while we integrate these two and save ourselves £4/5m? Or we at least look less desperate to Burnley in our negotiations? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedReg Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 1 hour ago, Harry said: Someone that was mentioned in the pinned recruitment thread a few weeks back. Josh Stokes. Attacking midfielder from Aldershot. There’s been a number of Championship clubs taking a very keen interest in him. I understand we are one of those clubs who are very very interested. He’s a number 10. So maybe someone to compete with Twine if he signs permanently in the summer. An understudy perhaps until Stokes matures enough for Champ football? Anyway; here’s an obligatory YouTube vid. Anyone who watched the fa cup match Stockport v Aldershot on BBC the other week will have been suitably impressed at how he dispatched top of league 2 defenders so easily. Obviously a big step up but looks decent in that video Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveF Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 5 minutes ago, Bcfc24 said: Exactly and if they both aren’t ready are we just stockpiling 10’s for the future He plays further back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRoss Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 1 minute ago, Bcfc24 said: Exactly and if they both aren’t ready are we just stockpiling 10’s for the future Adam Murphy isn't strictly a 10 but can play there: What sort of midfield role did he tend to play for St Pat's, in what sort of system/formation? St Pat's generally play 4-2-3-1 and Adam was versatile, with the club not afraid to hand him one of the two holding roles in midfield, trusting him despite being so young. He could also play in a more advanced central role in the attacking three behind the striker. The recently crowned PFAI Player of the Year, Chris Forrester, was a St Pat's team-mate and played holding midfield a lot of the time, which meant Adam wouldn't always start. https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/bristol-city-signing-adam-murphy-9013539 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Red Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 18 minutes ago, Crimson Crayola said: Is this the player Ian Gay refused to name I wonder?! He will be now. 3 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
italian dave Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 13 minutes ago, pongo88 said: OTIB rule 26, subsection 4: Lack of confirmation is no barrier to speculation OTIB rule 27, subsection 6 @Robboreds objection to rule 26, subsection 4 is noted. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bcfc24 Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 Always seems to just be jam tomorrow with this club 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRoss Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 Just now, Bcfc24 said: Always seems to just be jam tomorrow with this club You seem to be annoyed we potentially might be signing a young talent. You do know the club isn't finished after this season? I wouldn't jump to the conclusion this is the last signing we might make. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Harry Posted January 18 Author Popular Post Report Share Posted January 18 21 minutes ago, Bcfc24 said: Mightily underwhelming if he goes back to Aldershot for the season though, still hope we bring in one more attacking player but can’t see it now Why is it underwhelming? He’s a 19 year old from the national league. Lots of clubs want him. If we manage to get him it’ll be quite a coup to be fair. He’s not ready to step straight into Championship football. He needs a bit more experience first. If part of the deal to secure his signing is an agreement to go back on loan this season, then it’s good business. Hey, listen - I’ve always been the first one to be critical of our recruitment. But there is nothing to get angry about on this one. It’s a low fee for a sought after player. 27 3 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midred Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 2 minutes ago, RedRoss said: You seem to be annoyed we potentially might be signing a young talent. You do know the club isn't finished after this season? I wouldn't jump to the conclusion this is the last signing we might make. OTIB rule 26, subsection 5? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 8 minutes ago, Northern Red said: He will be now. Not even Ian’s wooly description covers Josh Stokes…and he was referring to a forward (not a head on a stick though - FFS ) 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveF Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 4 minutes ago, Harry said: Why is it underwhelming? He’s a 19 year old from the national league. Lots of clubs want him. If we manage to get him it’ll be quite a coup to be fair. He’s not ready to step straight into Championship football. He needs a bit more experience first. If part of the deal to secure his signing is an agreement to go back on loan this season, then it’s good business. Hey, listen - I’ve always been the first one to be critical of our recruitment. But there is nothing to get angry about on this one. It’s a low fee for a sought after player. Seems like we're making a few exciting young signings to bolster our already strong academy. If 2 or 3 of these make the grade at Championship level they'll be worth the modest outlay, this fella and Murphy seem to have very decent potential. I'm all for snapping up the best available youth players we can find. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bcfc24 Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 11 minutes ago, Harry said: Why is it underwhelming? He’s a 19 year old from the national league. Lots of clubs want him. If we manage to get him it’ll be quite a coup to be fair. He’s not ready to step straight into Championship football. He needs a bit more experience first. If part of the deal to secure his signing is an agreement to go back on loan this season, then it’s good business. Hey, listen - I’ve always been the first one to be critical of our recruitment. But there is nothing to get angry about on this one. It’s a low fee for a sought after player. Totally agree with all that, what I meant was it underwhelming in terms of what the rest of this season looks like, as imo we still need to add 1 more that can add to the first team straight away 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shauntaylor85 Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 23 minutes ago, Northern Red said: He will be now. He said the player we are after isn’t a striker but is out of contract in summer. I wouldn’t be surprised if he has made mates with our Tech Director. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claverham_Red Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 Interesting. Looked great in their FA Cup run. I'd thought City would try to get a League 1 or League 2 loan for the rest of the season though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petehinton Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 Our ‘punts’ on youngsters for the future used to be £2m for Eisa and £3m on Engvall. I am absolutely more than fine with our ‘punts’ (if you can even call it that as this lad seems v highly rated) coming from non league, for a fraction of the cost, now. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 45 minutes ago, Crimson Crayola said: Is this the player Ian Gay refused to name I wonder?! Comments like that from Ian Gay are him saying “I know something that others don’t” and it can be likened to the old adage of ‘knowledge is power’ Typical Ian. I take it all with a pinch of salt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 26 minutes ago, Harry said: Why is it underwhelming? He’s a 19 year old from the national league. Lots of clubs want him. If we manage to get him it’ll be quite a coup to be fair. He’s not ready to step straight into Championship football. He needs a bit more experience first. If part of the deal to secure his signing is an agreement to go back on loan this season, then it’s good business. Hey, listen - I’ve always been the first one to be critical of our recruitment. But there is nothing to get angry about on this one. It’s a low fee for a sought after player. My only disappointment would be him not being moved up to say league 2 if being loaned out again, he’s succeeding at national league level, he did very well against Stockport and therefore think a loan for the rest of the season would be a really good indicator as to where he’s at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexukhc Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 Tbh Aldershot have a lovely little set up from academy up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted January 18 Author Report Share Posted January 18 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Bcfc24 said: Totally agree with all that, what I meant was it underwhelming in terms of what the rest of this season looks like, as imo we still need to add 1 more that can add to the first team straight away But I guess in response to that I’d say - This transfer would have absolutely no bearing on whether we bring someone else in this January. This is a young kid at low cost. It won’t impact any other business. 22 minutes ago, Claverham_Red said: Interesting. Looked great in their FA Cup run. I'd thought City would try to get a League 1 or League 2 loan for the rest of the season though? 11 minutes ago, Lrrr said: My only disappointment would be him not being moved up to say league 2 if being loaned out again, he’s succeeding at national league level, he did very well against Stockport and therefore think a loan for the rest of the season would be a really good indicator as to where he’s at. Re the loan back. I think you are both correct that ideally we’d want him at a higher level. But, if it was a condition of the deal then it’s good business. Let’s say “hypothetically” that other clubs wanted him but weren’t prepared to loan him back this season, and that this is what clinched it for us, then I guess we’d say “well done”. Aldershot have hopes of the playoffs. They’ll want to keep Stokes to aid them in that pursuit. So if we’ve been prepared to play ball on that and it’s kept us in the running then it’s good. Edited January 18 by Harry 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted January 18 Author Report Share Posted January 18 34 minutes ago, DaveF said: Seems like we're making a few exciting young signings to bolster our already strong academy. If 2 or 3 of these make the grade at Championship level they'll be worth the modest outlay, this fella and Murphy seem to have very decent potential. I'm all for snapping up the best available youth players we can find. Exactly. For me it’s the way we should always be doing things. It’s all well and good having the academy pathway, but not every player is gonna make it. So for me we should always be looking for the best 17-20 year olds in the lower leagues - low cost, high potentials. Without going over old ground, we should have done this for the likes of Grimes, Watkins, Bowen, Key, Twine when they were all available for under half a mil (some even less) when local. Given this, picking up the likes of Stokes is very much a step in the right direction. 11 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRoss Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 4 minutes ago, Harry said: But I guess in response to that I’d say - This transfer would have absolutely no bearing on whether we bring someone else in this January. This is a young kid at low cost. It won’t impact any other business. Re the loan back. I think you are both correct that ideally we’d want him at a higher level. But, if it was a condition of the deal then it’s good business. Let’s say “hypothetically” that other clubs wanted him but weren’t prepared to loan him back this season, and that this is what clinched it for us, then I guess we’d say “well done”. Aldershot have hopes of the playoffs. They’ll want to keep Stokes to aid them in that pursuit. So if we’ve been prepared to play ball on that and it’s kept us in the running then it’s good. I agree if it was the clincher in getting the deal over the line then fine by me. Plus it's not the end of the world he stays with Aldershot. He's doing well at a decent standard and I'm a firm believer that momentum is massive in football. If he carries on doing well in a familiar team that's more of a benefit than potentially joining another club higher up the pyramid and getting a bit part role. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 12 minutes ago, Harry said: But I guess in response to that I’d say - This transfer would have absolutely no bearing on whether we bring someone else in this January. This is a young kid at low cost. It won’t impact any other business. Re the loan back. I think you are both correct that ideally we’d want him at a higher level. But, if it was a condition of the deal then it’s good business. Let’s say “hypothetically” that other clubs wanted him but weren’t prepared to loan him back this season, and that this is what clinched it for us, then I guess we’d say “well done”. Aldershot have hopes of the playoffs. They’ll want to keep Stokes to aid them in that pursuit. So if we’ve been prepared to play ball on that and it’s kept us in the running then it’s good. If it was the only way to keep us in the running sure, hard to think it would be the case though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CityFarAndWide Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 21 minutes ago, alexukhc said: Tbh Aldershot have a lovely little set up from academy up Can vouch, I spent some time there and have nothing but positive experiences, hindered by catchment area a little but superb setup with what they are working with. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 (edited) 52 minutes ago, Davefevs said: Not even Ian’s wooly description covers Josh Stokes…and he was referring to a forward (not a head on a stick though - FFS ) Wooly description eh? So, possibly a forward with a curly perm? Probably a Gay red herring (cue the jokes). Difficult, if not impossible, to find someone fitting that description nowadays. Edited January 18 by Bazooka Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.