| Why are we going for Taylor? 11:24 - Jan 3 with 10210 views | KieranMcKenna1 |
He’s just going to be sitting on bench isn’t he? Would rather we spent most of our January budget on a number 9. |  |
| |  |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 12:31 - Jan 3 with 2251 views | Kieran_Knows |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 12:26 - Jan 3 by TalkingBlues |
We need at least 1 more CM for cover, the confusion for me is that Luongo seems perfect for that, ideally on a short term contract, so I don't see why we would be keen to spend £millions on someone else, maybe McK wants both? Or doesn't fancy Luongo? I agree that a quality number 9 should be our top priority. |
I really don't see why people are finding this so hard to understand.
We are currently operating with 3 centre mids, one of which who has only just come back from a long term (ish) injury and the other being a 19 year old trying to make his way in the game (and doing a very good job at it). The likelihood is that we won't see either Ball or Camara again this season, and I'd go as far to say would we sell them in the summer if we got promoted as well.
Luongo would be an ideal stop gap signing for 6 months to bring experience and back up at CM, at a club that he knows.
Taylor will be seen as someone we'd clearly love to make an instant impact, but with the view to a long term investment as per Leif Davis. I also wonder whether McKenna see's Taylor more as a number 10, then straight out CM anyway.
If the club want to spend £1m+ on Taylor and £1m+ on a striker, they'll do it. We're not operating under Marcus Evans anymore, times have changed. |  |
| |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 12:32 - Jan 3 with 2230 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 11:50 - Jan 3 by KieranMcKenna1 |
I would rather we get a loan or short term cover like Luongo so that we can spend more on a number 9 or someone like Whittaker. |
I would imagine it'll be Luongo too, but on a 6 month deal with an optional year or a year triggered on appearances.
That gives us 4 CM players. Ball and likely Camara will be de-registered for the 2nd half of the season.
We'll get a striker too, but not Whittaker, obviously. Possible we might go for Collins at Bristol Rovers, also possible is JCH, but both will cost £1.5m+ [Post edited 3 Jan 2023 12:33]
|  |
| |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 12:36 - Jan 3 with 2191 views | TalkingBlues |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 12:27 - Jan 3 by Skip_Intro |
Taylor would be seen as a long term investment, much like Davis... |
I get that, but unless we have bags and bags of money available (which we quite possibly do?) I don't think it's crucial to be making long term plans for that position yet and would prefer a banging number 9. If the guy is a target of McK though and thinks he can help us push on, I'm all for it. |  |
| |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 12:39 - Jan 3 with 2166 views | tractorboy1978 |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 12:36 - Jan 3 by TalkingBlues |
I get that, but unless we have bags and bags of money available (which we quite possibly do?) I don't think it's crucial to be making long term plans for that position yet and would prefer a banging number 9. If the guy is a target of McK though and thinks he can help us push on, I'm all for it. |
Have you been asleep for the last 18 months? |  | | |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 12:55 - Jan 3 with 2075 views | TalkingBlues |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 12:31 - Jan 3 by Kieran_Knows |
I really don't see why people are finding this so hard to understand.
We are currently operating with 3 centre mids, one of which who has only just come back from a long term (ish) injury and the other being a 19 year old trying to make his way in the game (and doing a very good job at it). The likelihood is that we won't see either Ball or Camara again this season, and I'd go as far to say would we sell them in the summer if we got promoted as well.
Luongo would be an ideal stop gap signing for 6 months to bring experience and back up at CM, at a club that he knows.
Taylor will be seen as someone we'd clearly love to make an instant impact, but with the view to a long term investment as per Leif Davis. I also wonder whether McKenna see's Taylor more as a number 10, then straight out CM anyway.
If the club want to spend £1m+ on Taylor and £1m+ on a striker, they'll do it. We're not operating under Marcus Evans anymore, times have changed. |
I'm not sure anybody is failing to understand. I imagine the concern is that we are operating under SCMP and therefore under the rules, can only divert "x" funds to new players and if a majority of that is going into Midfielders, it means we don't have much going into a number 9, which many see as a high priority position to fill. | |
| |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 12:57 - Jan 3 with 2063 views | TalkingBlues |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 12:39 - Jan 3 by tractorboy1978 |
Have you been asleep for the last 18 months? |
SCMP dictates how we can spend, makes no difference what we spend on the ground/pitch etc but when it comes to players and wages, there are defined limits | |
| |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 12:57 - Jan 3 with 2068 views | tractorboy1978 |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 12:55 - Jan 3 by TalkingBlues |
I'm not sure anybody is failing to understand. I imagine the concern is that we are operating under SCMP and therefore under the rules, can only divert "x" funds to new players and if a majority of that is going into Midfielders, it means we don't have much going into a number 9, which many see as a high priority position to fill. |
SCMP at this level is a nonsense. Owners can put in as much equity as they want and it counts as turnover. It's easier to build a squad at this level than it is in the Championship. [Post edited 3 Jan 2023 12:57]
| | | |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 13:01 - Jan 3 with 2005 views | PrideOfTheEast |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 12:57 - Jan 3 by tractorboy1978 |
SCMP at this level is a nonsense. Owners can put in as much equity as they want and it counts as turnover. It's easier to build a squad at this level than it is in the Championship. [Post edited 3 Jan 2023 12:57]
|
Indeed. Which will be a motivation to spend money now before we get there.
I can see us signing 4 or 5 this window, including a couple for serious £. [Post edited 3 Jan 2023 13:01]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Why are we going for Taylor? (n/t) on 13:09 - Jan 3 with 1927 views | TalkingBlues |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 12:57 - Jan 3 by tractorboy1978 |
SCMP at this level is a nonsense. Owners can put in as much equity as they want and it counts as turnover. It's easier to build a squad at this level than it is in the Championship. [Post edited 3 Jan 2023 12:57]
|
[Post edited 3 Jan 2023 13:10]
| |
| |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 13:15 - Jan 3 with 1870 views | tractorboy1978 |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 12:57 - Jan 3 by TalkingBlues |
SCMP dictates how we can spend, makes no difference what we spend on the ground/pitch etc but when it comes to players and wages, there are defined limits |
The only rule is wages can't be more than 60% of turnover - which is easily manipulated when owners can inject equity which counts as turnover. There are no rules about allowed profits/losses like in the Championship and no limits or restrictions on what we can spend on transfer fees. [Post edited 3 Jan 2023 13:17]
| | | |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 13:18 - Jan 3 with 1868 views | WubbleU |
There will be departures over the next couple of windows and it probably won't just be the fringe players.
Ashton is an experienced CEO and would sell a Morsy, Burns or Chaplin if the right offer came in. So a purchase like Taylor is good future planning. | | | |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 13:23 - Jan 3 with 1810 views | Horsham |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 13:15 - Jan 3 by tractorboy1978 |
The only rule is wages can't be more than 60% of turnover - which is easily manipulated when owners can inject equity which counts as turnover. There are no rules about allowed profits/losses like in the Championship and no limits or restrictions on what we can spend on transfer fees. [Post edited 3 Jan 2023 13:17]
|
The main limiting factor is squad size, with us at 20 of an allowed 22 over 21 outfield players.
Getting 3 and Kenlocking Ball is reasonable but any more and we’re likely to have fit players we need to move on or keep but not be able to pick which I’m sure we’d sooner avoid. |  | | |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 13:27 - Jan 3 with 1781 views | itfcjoe |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 12:20 - Jan 3 by FrimleyBlue |
We will just have to wait and see. |
No we won't, it's bleedingly obvious Sam Morsy will play every minute he is available for between now and the end of the season |  |
| |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 13:28 - Jan 3 with 1733 views | TalkingBlues |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 13:15 - Jan 3 by tractorboy1978 |
The only rule is wages can't be more than 60% of turnover - which is easily manipulated when owners can inject equity which counts as turnover. There are no rules about allowed profits/losses like in the Championship and no limits or restrictions on what we can spend on transfer fees. [Post edited 3 Jan 2023 13:17]
|
Unless I'm mistaken, the problem with the "equity" injection bit is that has to be a donation, it can't be a loan and I'm not sure how that sits with Gamechanger/Pension Fund? But I honestly can't be bothered to venture down that rabbit hole.
We'll sign who we sign and at the end of January, we can all express our opinion on how successful we all think the window has been. I do miss being linked with a 1,000 players every day, but the new regime is far more professional and I'm glad for that. | |
| |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 13:49 - Jan 3 with 1601 views | FrimleyBlue |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 13:27 - Jan 3 by itfcjoe |
No we won't, it's bleedingly obvious Sam Morsy will play every minute he is available for between now and the end of the season |
If that's the case then it's a shame KM isn't more proactive in certain situations. |  |
| |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 13:56 - Jan 3 with 1574 views | PhilTWTD |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 12:31 - Jan 3 by davblue |
Ahadme can only go to Burton in this Country i believe, so will probably have to be abroad. |
Don't think he can go abroad, other than to somewhere where the season runs through the summer, so don't think that will be happening. |  | | |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 13:56 - Jan 3 with 1550 views | Stu_boy |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 11:49 - Jan 3 by PhilTWTD |
Think so. Think Posh need the cash. |
If the posh need the cash, can we do a double deal for Taylor and jch? | | | |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 13:57 - Jan 3 with 1543 views | SpruceMoose |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 13:49 - Jan 3 by FrimleyBlue |
If that's the case then it's a shame KM isn't more proactive in certain situations. |
Genuinely curious about the creative process behind how you come up with some of these theories. There's probably a good novel in you somewhere FrimleyMakin! |  |
| Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country." | | Poll: | Selectamod |
| |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 14:00 - Jan 3 with 1482 views | Dyland |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 13:49 - Jan 3 by FrimleyBlue |
If that's the case then it's a shame KM isn't more proactive in certain situations. |
He would play him deeper or more forward during a game with someone else being subbed, switching our shape.
The idea that Morsy is subbed or dropped for any other reason than injury, tiredness or suspension, is fantastical. |  |
| |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 14:00 - Jan 3 with 1478 views | pointofblue |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 12:20 - Jan 3 by FrimleyBlue |
We will just have to wait and see. |
When fit and not suspended I’m pretty sure Morsy will be ever present. It’ll be Evans role which will be shared with Taylor, or perhaps the latter may take the place of Chaplin or Harness for a few games. | |
| |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 14:07 - Jan 3 with 1434 views | PhilTWTD |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 13:28 - Jan 3 by TalkingBlues |
Unless I'm mistaken, the problem with the "equity" injection bit is that has to be a donation, it can't be a loan and I'm not sure how that sits with Gamechanger/Pension Fund? But I honestly can't be bothered to venture down that rabbit hole.
We'll sign who we sign and at the end of January, we can all express our opinion on how successful we all think the window has been. I do miss being linked with a 1,000 players every day, but the new regime is far more professional and I'm glad for that. |
That's how they have invested money over the last year or so.
| | | |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 14:08 - Jan 3 with 1417 views | DJR |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 14:00 - Jan 3 by pointofblue |
When fit and not suspended I’m pretty sure Morsy will be ever present. It’ll be Evans role which will be shared with Taylor, or perhaps the latter may take the place of Chaplin or Harness for a few games. |
I could see circumstances in which Morsy was replaced in a game which isn't going our way by a player who offers something different from an attacking midfield point of view. At present, I don't think we have such a player, and whether Taylor is such a player, I don't know. |  | | |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 14:10 - Jan 3 with 1387 views | Kieran_Knows |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 13:18 - Jan 3 by WubbleU |
There will be departures over the next couple of windows and it probably won't just be the fringe players.
Ashton is an experienced CEO and would sell a Morsy, Burns or Chaplin if the right offer came in. So a purchase like Taylor is good future planning. |
I think that's something people will need to get on board with soon as well, us selling key players (for the right money obviously).
That time will come, soon. Especially if we don't go up this season ... and even if we do go up, the exposure in the Championship compared to League 1 will be greater so no doubt we'll be fielding more offers. | |
| |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 14:16 - Jan 3 with 1327 views | PrideOfTheEast |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 13:28 - Jan 3 by TalkingBlues |
Unless I'm mistaken, the problem with the "equity" injection bit is that has to be a donation, it can't be a loan and I'm not sure how that sits with Gamechanger/Pension Fund? But I honestly can't be bothered to venture down that rabbit hole.
We'll sign who we sign and at the end of January, we can all express our opinion on how successful we all think the window has been. I do miss being linked with a 1,000 players every day, but the new regime is far more professional and I'm glad for that. |
Not much difference between an injection in exchange for equity versus a donation in our setup. The pension fund will invest it, receiving additional share capital (equity) thus diluting the ownership of the minority shareholders who presumably will opt not to invest. | | | |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 14:23 - Jan 3 with 1258 views | davblue |
| Why are we going for Taylor? on 13:56 - Jan 3 by PhilTWTD |
Don't think he can go abroad, other than to somewhere where the season runs through the summer, so don't think that will be happening. |
i stand corrected, thanks Phil! |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
