Town are reported to be one of a number of clubs keen on signing Reading striker Dominic Samuel on loan.

According to HITC Sport the Blues are one of six clubs interesting in landing the 22-year-old and are said to be leading the chase. Southend United had previously been linked.

Southwark-born Samuel came through the Reading academy and has made eight starts and eight sub appearances for the Royals first team, scoring twice, in addition to loan spells at Colchester, Dagenham and Redbridge, Coventry and Gillingham.

Capped three times by the England U19s, scoring two goals, 6ft 2in tall Samuel netted six goals in 12 starts and one sub appearance for the Sky Blues during the second half of their 2014/15 League One campaign and then seven times in 24 starts and one sub appearance for the Gills between November 2015 and the end of last season, also in League One.

Prior to those spells he had made only two appearances with the U's and one with the Daggers, both without scoring.

Speaking about his plans for Samuel a few days ago, Reading manager Jaap Stam told getreading: "I think several teams are interested in Dom but we need to make a decision about that," said the manager.

"Because if you let somebody go you need to have somebody in as well. We know Dominic's quality, he's got ability which can help us out.

"But he is still a young player and needs to learn a lot, and for him it's very good if he can play week in, week out to develop.”

Speaking yesterday, Town boss Mick McCarthy confirmed that he would be continuing his search for a striker to replace Daryl Murphy during the final day of the window."

The Blues, who have previously targeted Rotherham’s Danny Ward, Preston’s Jordan Hugill and Barnsley’s Marley Watkins among others, would ideally want a permanent signing but may have to settle for a loan having been unable to agree a fee for a longer term addition.

Photo: Action Images

Crawfordsboot added 14:40 - Jan 31 Without commenting on this particular player, who I have never seen play, can I suggest that all you folks who bemoan loan players and expect ME to spash the cash at this stage of the season take a look at the Beeb site listing all the transfers to date. http://www.bbc.com/sport/38482984 The huge majority are loan, or no fee. Very few involve any significant fees. That is the reality of transfer business today. How can we expect to be the exception.

-2

Mick_Mills_Tache added 14:46 - Jan 31 Rather than give Morris a go...we'd rather develop a rival CHAMPIONSHIP's team's youngster.... Makes perfect sense to me.... ...... ....... ...... Not.
1

dirtydingusmagee added 14:54 - Jan 31 the circus is in town .Same old story as predicted.
0

Bobby_Petta added 15:01 - Jan 31 Still think the main problem is central Midfield, We need a playmaker to give the strikers some service, agree loans are not the answer. When you see the money teams are spending Villa 10 mill, Norwich 7 mill we have no chance getting anyone, need keep looking for young and upcoming players from lower league.
3

Blue_Moses added 15:02 - Jan 31 No idea who this person is
1

tractorboybig added 15:05 - Jan 31 surely loans show this club to be clueless and having no plans or ambition for the future. How can any loanee (and we do have a good one) benefit the club to go forward. They are just short term solutions to maintain the status quo.
1

peteswindon added 15:52 - Jan 31 And what do we do just pull a striker out of our ar@e. God some idiotic statements on here. Tune into reality FM
-2

Seasider added 16:12 - Jan 31 After all the hype this month, I was a bit more hopeful that there would be more action in this window than some previously. Well there has been,five players brought in,for the princely sum of £110,000 approx. I think it was Midas Touch who pointed out earlier how little this club is spending,not only compared to other clubs,but ITFC historically. In the 1980's the amount spent per annum ranged between about £100k and £500. The 1990's between 150k in 1991 to£ 2& 3/4m in 1994.Half the years in this decade the club spent well over £1m and only 3 years substantially below £1m 2000-2010 saw amounts fluctuate from Nil during the 2 years in administration to nearly £15m in the splurge by George following the 5th place Premiership finish. In the first two years of this decade Mr Evans splashed out £10m;but since Mick McCarthy took over as we know the sums have plummeted and only Ward and Webster have cost over £500k with the odd £100k here and there. When Mr Sheepshanks told us shareholders, when Evans took over ,that we need no longer be a selling club;and painting a rosy picture of the future,I wonder how many thought it would turn out like this?

2

jayessess added 16:24 - Jan 31 What's the point of a short term loans when we probably need no more than 9 points from 18 games to stay up?
0

Toronto_Tractor added 16:26 - Jan 31 you're right dirtboy... developing players to flourish elsewhere... and we didnt make the playoffs with any of them!
1

phillo added 16:37 - Jan 31 so after 5 months the replacement for Murphy is ...... a youngster who can't get in the Reading side ! No disrespect but if we aren't going to replace Murphy wth proven quality now I'd rather stick with what we currently have & give Ben Morris some game time ..... rather than "bring on" a rivals younger squad players !!!
0

NSL added 16:41 - Jan 31 No disrespect to the lad but if your 22 and surplus to requirements at Reading, he must be utterly useless. In the nicest possible way.
0

jas0999 added 17:12 - Jan 31 If Evans fails to sign a replacement on a permanent basis for Murphy, I find it remarkable that anyone can back this very poor owner. It just isn't acceptable. A loan is pointless. Dreadful. Badly run club.
2

jas0999 added 17:13 - Jan 31 Dirty boy - topping the squad up with a quality loan - great. Replacing a permanent player with a loan, not for me I'm afraid. Backwards step.
2

blueboy1981 added 17:23 - Jan 31 ......... more sh-te ......... move on.
1

Gforce added 17:38 - Jan 31 Same every January,full of hope,but nothing ever happens.
1

Ipswichbusiness added 19:22 - Jan 31 I'm afraid that I agree with JAS0999. We need a quality, experienced replacement for Murphy. That means either a permanent signing or someone on a loan with a view to a permanent signing. This is neither. I'd rather chuck a couple of our own youngsters in.
1

BlueandTruesince82 added 19:25 - Jan 31 Let's think for a min The club has I'D, d 3 players. Let's call them Plan A, Ward Plan B, Hugil Plan C, Watkins. Plan A plays for a team fighting to stay up C and D play for teams that might make the play offs. As such all 3 want to keep their players and will require over the odds to part with them. So does the club A. Pay over the odds? B. Go to plan D? C. Pursue a short term option (that may yet be with a view to more) until such time as A, B and C may become avavailable. Given that A is in a team likely to relegated and will quite possibly be availble in the summer and B has allegedly handed in a transfer request perhaps setting aside the cash now to buy the players we actually want is more prudent than then now shelling out for plan D? Because let's face it, do we want plan D? It's Jan, it's silly season. The club has gone after the players it wants, the club's have refused to sell. So option 1. Buy someone, anyone, who cares! That was a waster of money Or 2 short term addition to see us safe and build for next year, a waste of less money Or 3. Stick as we are

0

BlueandTruesince82 added 19:44 - Jan 31 Sorry, C transfer request not B
0

Blogs 295 bloggers

Ipswich Town Polls