| Stansfield 09:53 - Jan 12 with 3795 views | bluesbrothers |
Another thread...
Do we think it's a fair assumption to make that if he's not here by Saturday, then he's not coming? Certainly if he plays for Bham, then he's not coming?
His insta post was one of two things - it was either a "goodbye" post (I was sure it was), or a "I'm staying" post. There's no other reason.
So if was goodbye, I'd expect him to move pretty quickly (certainly not play at the weekend). Therefore, if not here and plays on Saturday, we can assume it's not happening. |  | | |  |
| Stansfield on 09:54 - Jan 12 with 3197 views | Rimsy |
Yeah sounds about right |  |
| |
| Stansfield on 10:00 - Jan 12 with 3109 views | tractorboy1978 |
The Fulham recall window must be up soon if it isn't already. | | | |
| Stansfield on 10:05 - Jan 12 with 3066 views | _clive_baker_ |
There's been a lot of talk about this short recall window which Rooney alluded to. You would think that would be in the early stages of the month, I wouldn't have thought Birmingham would be comfortable to have him potentially recalled at the 11th hour. Having said that it would've been Fulham who held the cards when negotiating it, but equally I'm not sure what the benefit to them would've been of having it late in the window either really.
I make it unlikely, I think he's definitely one we would've spoken to Fulham about but I do think there would've been some movement by now.
It'll be interesting to see who we end up with, I'm sure there's multiple targets and probably a case of a couple of dominos falling further up the food chain first. |  | | |
| Stansfield on 10:12 - Jan 12 with 2995 views | Kieran_Knows |
At a glance, it looks like plenty of clubs have recalled players from loans this week, so my guess that clause could be similar for Stansfield.
As you say, I think if he starts/plays for Birmingham tomorrow, we can assume he's staying there. |  |
| |
| Stansfield on 10:17 - Jan 12 with 2918 views | santiagosentme |
People need to stop stalking players insta and reading too much into things. Just be patient and trust the process. I know the weather is sh1t but there is plenty of things to do instead of stalking football players social media lol |  | | |
| Stansfield on 10:17 - Jan 12 with 2904 views | Deano69 |
Listening to Marcus Stewart, Stansfield would be a great addition here |  |
| |
| Stansfield on 10:27 - Jan 12 with 2809 views | bluesbrothers |
| Stansfield on 10:17 - Jan 12 by santiagosentme |
People need to stop stalking players insta and reading too much into things. Just be patient and trust the process. I know the weather is sh1t but there is plenty of things to do instead of stalking football players social media lol |
So following players on a platform where the purpose is to follow them is now stalking. Good one. | | | |
| Stansfield on 10:30 - Jan 12 with 2793 views | Guthrum |
| Stansfield on 10:17 - Jan 12 by Deano69 |
Listening to Marcus Stewart, Stansfield would be a great addition here |
I'm fairly convinced that had Simms come to us he would be doing better than he has been at Coventry. However, as with all these situations, it's a matter of availability. We couldn't get Simms and it looks increasingly unlikely we'll get Stansfield. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Stansfield on 10:32 - Jan 12 with 2743 views | santiagosentme |
| Stansfield on 10:27 - Jan 12 by bluesbrothers |
So following players on a platform where the purpose is to follow them is now stalking. Good one. |
There's following them and then reading into their posts too much and using it to start some sort of silly rumour. | | | |
| Stansfield on 10:33 - Jan 12 with 2735 views | SomethingBlue |
| Stansfield on 10:30 - Jan 12 by Guthrum |
I'm fairly convinced that had Simms come to us he would be doing better than he has been at Coventry. However, as with all these situations, it's a matter of availability. We couldn't get Simms and it looks increasingly unlikely we'll get Stansfield. |
Was it ever confirmed that we went in hard for Simms and were pipped? Genuine question, I promise. It seems to have become accepted wisdom but if it's been said by a really trustworthy source then I've missed it. | |
| |
| Stansfield on 10:40 - Jan 12 with 2663 views | Guthrum |
| Stansfield on 10:33 - Jan 12 by SomethingBlue |
Was it ever confirmed that we went in hard for Simms and were pipped? Genuine question, I promise. It seems to have become accepted wisdom but if it's been said by a really trustworthy source then I've missed it. |
I assumed it was not so much 'pipped', as "the price very quickly moved beyond our acceptable range" and the club dropped whatever interest they may have had.
I'm only going by the fact that everybody believed we were after Simms, no hard evidence. | |
| |
| With Mowbray now as manager, if he plays Saturday suggest he’s not coming in on 10:41 - Jan 12 with 2650 views | unstableblue |
Chance of injury on Saturday playing for Brum, especially if we’re buying him from Fulham, mean can’t see a deal if he plays
Also Mowbray is probably seen as safe pair of hands manager to develop the player on behalf of Fulham |  |
| |
| Stansfield on 10:42 - Jan 12 with 2647 views | bluejacko |
It just isn’t Ashtons style is it ? Of all the players that various sites have us very heavily linked with actually how many have arrived here? | | | |
| Stansfield on 10:42 - Jan 12 with 2640 views | SomethingBlue |
| Stansfield on 10:40 - Jan 12 by Guthrum |
I assumed it was not so much 'pipped', as "the price very quickly moved beyond our acceptable range" and the club dropped whatever interest they may have had.
I'm only going by the fact that everybody believed we were after Simms, no hard evidence. |
I'm sure we had some kind of interest but there seems to be the perception that we "missed out" – that old chestnut – and I've never seen or heard anything to suggest that. Others will be better versed than me though! | |
| |
| Stansfield on 10:43 - Jan 12 with 2629 views | PhilTWTD |
| Stansfield on 10:33 - Jan 12 by SomethingBlue |
Was it ever confirmed that we went in hard for Simms and were pipped? Genuine question, I promise. It seems to have become accepted wisdom but if it's been said by a really trustworthy source then I've missed it. |
We were definitely interested, although not sure at what point we gave up the chase. Obviously that was in addition to Hirst. |  | | |
| With Mowbray now as manager, if he plays Saturday suggest he’s not coming in on 10:47 - Jan 12 with 2537 views | _clive_baker_ |
| With Mowbray now as manager, if he plays Saturday suggest he’s not coming in on 10:41 - Jan 12 by unstableblue |
Chance of injury on Saturday playing for Brum, especially if we’re buying him from Fulham, mean can’t see a deal if he plays
Also Mowbray is probably seen as safe pair of hands manager to develop the player on behalf of Fulham |
I would agree with that. If we take off our tinted specs and look at it objectively, he's seemingly getting what they want out of that deal I'm sure. Assuming the player is happy enough there then he's playing regularly, scoring, developing, and at the same level as us. Experiencing a bit of pressure and adversity isn't such a bad thing at a young age. McKenna is certainly a pull factor but as you say Mogga is a very experienced manager too and a top bloke. If I were in charge of his development at Fulham I wouldn't see much rationale to upset the apple cart and pull him from there to send to us tbh, certainly not on another loan. | | | |
| Stansfield on 10:51 - Jan 12 with 2493 views | Guthrum |
| Stansfield on 10:42 - Jan 12 by SomethingBlue |
I'm sure we had some kind of interest but there seems to be the perception that we "missed out" – that old chestnut – and I've never seen or heard anything to suggest that. Others will be better versed than me though! |
I didn't think we were ever in serious contention at the level Coventry (having just lucratively sold players) was willing to pay. We missed out only in the sense that Simms was too expensive to remain on our list for very long.
That was really my point. Simms was way out of reach on price, Stansfield likely also, due to the allegedly restricted loan recall arrangement and Birmingham having changed manager. There's no point in pining after the unavailable. | |
| |
| About the same amount… on 10:53 - Jan 12 with 2453 views | Bloots |
| Stansfield on 10:42 - Jan 12 by bluejacko |
It just isn’t Ashtons style is it ? Of all the players that various sites have us very heavily linked with actually how many have arrived here? |
….as any other regime. |  |
| Enduringly lovable, intelligent and thunderingly exquisite. |
| |
| Stansfield on 11:37 - Jan 12 with 2137 views | John_Warks_Willy |
| Stansfield on 10:30 - Jan 12 by Guthrum |
I'm fairly convinced that had Simms come to us he would be doing better than he has been at Coventry. However, as with all these situations, it's a matter of availability. We couldn't get Simms and it looks increasingly unlikely we'll get Stansfield. |
Agreed, I think Simms would fly under McKenna |  |
| |
| About the same amount… on 11:40 - Jan 12 with 2100 views | PhilTWTD |
| About the same amount… on 10:53 - Jan 12 by Bloots |
….as any other regime. |
I'd say yes and no on that. Clearly there's a lot more nonsense around at the moment, far more names just thrown at the wall or put out there by agents with us mentioned as it's known we're one of the clubs with money. But most names we sign have got out there from one source or another, as has always been the case.
I actually thought in the summer we signed 19 players more was getting out than at any point since I've been running TWTD. | | | |
| Stansfield on 11:54 - Jan 12 with 1992 views | yorkshireblue |
| Stansfield on 10:05 - Jan 12 by _clive_baker_ |
There's been a lot of talk about this short recall window which Rooney alluded to. You would think that would be in the early stages of the month, I wouldn't have thought Birmingham would be comfortable to have him potentially recalled at the 11th hour. Having said that it would've been Fulham who held the cards when negotiating it, but equally I'm not sure what the benefit to them would've been of having it late in the window either really.
I make it unlikely, I think he's definitely one we would've spoken to Fulham about but I do think there would've been some movement by now.
It'll be interesting to see who we end up with, I'm sure there's multiple targets and probably a case of a couple of dominos falling further up the food chain first. |
If the window is at the start of January, Fulham would have to make a decision to recall him or not without knowing how their own transfer business plays out.
They may choose to recall him on Jan 1... then on Jan 28th Haaland announces he's a lifelong Cottager and wants to move there and only there and they sign him. Now they are stuck with Stansfield further down the pecking order not getting game time and developing. |  | | |
| Stansfield on 12:03 - Jan 12 with 1910 views | Vegtablue |
| Stansfield on 11:54 - Jan 12 by yorkshireblue |
If the window is at the start of January, Fulham would have to make a decision to recall him or not without knowing how their own transfer business plays out.
They may choose to recall him on Jan 1... then on Jan 28th Haaland announces he's a lifelong Cottager and wants to move there and only there and they sign him. Now they are stuck with Stansfield further down the pecking order not getting game time and developing. |
If he was getting minutes before Haaland's arrival, he would only be an injury away from getting minutes again and the man's luscious locks may rub off on him in training. If he wasn't getting any minutes he could come to us on the 30th, once Haaland's contact is finalised. I would send an email to Fulham today promising that we'll make room, even if we sign others in the meantime. [Post edited 12 Jan 12:04]
| | | |
| Stansfield on 12:15 - Jan 12 with 1842 views | Illinoisblue |
| Stansfield on 10:05 - Jan 12 by _clive_baker_ |
There's been a lot of talk about this short recall window which Rooney alluded to. You would think that would be in the early stages of the month, I wouldn't have thought Birmingham would be comfortable to have him potentially recalled at the 11th hour. Having said that it would've been Fulham who held the cards when negotiating it, but equally I'm not sure what the benefit to them would've been of having it late in the window either really.
I make it unlikely, I think he's definitely one we would've spoken to Fulham about but I do think there would've been some movement by now.
It'll be interesting to see who we end up with, I'm sure there's multiple targets and probably a case of a couple of dominos falling further up the food chain first. |
Stansfield Recall Window has strong early potential to be one of the first pieces of Banter Era 2.0 |  |
| |
| Stansfield on 12:22 - Jan 12 with 1788 views | Jon_456 |
| Stansfield on 11:54 - Jan 12 by yorkshireblue |
If the window is at the start of January, Fulham would have to make a decision to recall him or not without knowing how their own transfer business plays out.
They may choose to recall him on Jan 1... then on Jan 28th Haaland announces he's a lifelong Cottager and wants to move there and only there and they sign him. Now they are stuck with Stansfield further down the pecking order not getting game time and developing. |
It’s an interesting point (the dates, not haaland).
Most transfer business doesn’t happen until the last week or two of Jan other than deals agreed pre Christmas.
It may be that Fulham’s recall window is in the next week knowing that it was always unlikely anyone would want to sign him in the first two weeks of January. That way he stays sharp playing for Birmingham rather than training with Fulham reserves while they wait / hope for another offer. | | | |
| Stansfield on 12:39 - Jan 12 with 1692 views | Vegtablue |
| Stansfield on 12:22 - Jan 12 by Jon_456 |
It’s an interesting point (the dates, not haaland).
Most transfer business doesn’t happen until the last week or two of Jan other than deals agreed pre Christmas.
It may be that Fulham’s recall window is in the next week knowing that it was always unlikely anyone would want to sign him in the first two weeks of January. That way he stays sharp playing for Birmingham rather than training with Fulham reserves while they wait / hope for another offer. |
Earlier in January makes sense to me because it covers the danger of an injury crisis for the parent club, or simply the player showing they are now capable of stepping up. It also slightly reduces the risk of the asset injuring themselves.
Many conversations are had before the window opens of course and strikers remain top of most clubs' wishlist, so the risk for the parent club of being saddled with a good player beyond January is low. They can send him back out on loan towards the end of the window if offers fall through, don't materialise or he doesn't look ready still, providing they don't play him in a competitive game.
You'd also have the added jeopardy for interested clubs otherwise, who would have little time to operate in if the player moved elsewhere and probably wouldn't be keen on waiting until much of the window was finished. [Post edited 12 Jan 12:48]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
