| Why Swansea shouldn't have recalled Whittaker 20:09 - Jan 5 with 1861 views | tractordownsouth |
Apologies for another Whittaker thread but I've written something in article form summarising my view on the topic. It's a general overview rather than focussing on Town's perspective because I don't think he'll be coming here anyway.
As the first working day of 2023 ended, Plymouth Argyle fans returned home to the news they had been dreading: Swansea City had exercised their recall option for Morgan Whittaker. While the potential derailing of the League One leaders’ promotion charge is the most talked-about aspect of the decision, the recall makes very little sense for the Swans either.
At first glance, bringing him back seems logical; Russell Martin’s side are enjoying a solid but unspectacular season in the Championship and a player contracted to the club has enjoyed a stunning half-season loan spell in the third tier. Given the congested table, the 21-year-old— a flair player with an impressive highlight reel of long-range strikes — re-joining the squad could be the difference between a mid-table finish and a run to the play offs.
Yet it appears Martin has no such plans to reintroduce Whittaker to the first team — last week he indicated his wish for the youngster to remain at Home Park and boasted of the strength of his attacking options, with Oli Cooper and Joel Piroe among the Swans’ star performers this season. The player himself vented his frustration at being unable to stay in Devon, wishing his now-former club well for the remainder of League One’s relentless promotion race in an emotional Instagram post.
Swansea’s plethora of forward options is a possible justification for them wanting to cash in, especially if they need to free up funds to strengthen in other areas. However, the rumoured £1.5m asking price seems low for the third tier’s standout player, especially compared to the fees commanded by the likes of Ivan Toney and Will Grigg, even when factoring in the scarcity of free-spending Championship and League One clubs at present.
Although the price is low, it is still unaffordable to Argyle, whose transfer record remains the 500k paid to Cardiff City for Steven MacLean in 2008. Ipswich Town and hometown club Derby County have been mentioned as alternative destinations for Whittaker, but these are both sideways moves at least in the short-term and would be unlikely to interest him, barring an irresistible contract offer. This leaves Swansea with the unattractive prospect of selling to a divisional rival in a depressed market. Even if the forward has no long-term future in South Wales, his value could be much higher in six months’ time with a likely League One player of the year award and promotion with Plymouth on his CV and a greater number of Championship clubs able to spend a fee on him.
Another course of action could be a renegotiated loan deal for the rest of the season with a greater percentage of Whittaker’s wages covered, but this has already been offered by Argyle and rejected by the Swans. Even if Ipswich or Derby were to pay an even higher proportion of the youngster’s salary to take him for the remainder of 2022-23, would it be worth it for Swansea to remove him out of an environment where he is thriving - and could potentially increase his long-term value — just for the sake of what could only amount to a five-figure sum between now and June? And if the standoff results in Whittaker back at the end of Home Park by the end of January on terms more favourable to his parent club, a successful loan will have been disrupted only to strike a deal which The Pilgrims proposed at the back end of 2022.
Overall, the desire from the Swansea boardroom to recall Whittaker without a manager willing to reintegrate him or another club both willing and able to take him seems like a high risk, low reward and confused strategy.
|  |
| |  |
| Why Swansea shouldn't have recalled Whittaker on 21:08 - Jan 5 with 1531 views | Swansea_Blue |
They haven’t really got a plethora of attacking options. Piroe is the main (only) out and out striker (and bang out of form). Cullen is a no 10 and has been on the fringes and Martin is probably playing him more recently because Obafemi is sulking / fallen out with Martin. Cooper is in his breakthrough season - a good prospect but learning the game. That’s it. Paterson (no 10) rarely plays these days and then they’ve got a young winger in Congreve. I think that’s it for all attacking options across the front 3-4 positions depending how they set up. There’s little no cover for rotation or injuries. |  |
| |
| Why Swansea shouldn't have recalled Whittaker on 21:25 - Jan 5 with 1399 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
I would imagine they are now playing off a few clubs for who will pay the most for a saleable asset at a time when fees are inflated. Even if they can't get a sale done, they can get a higher value out of the loan sending him back to Plymouth. Forces Plymouth's hand to up their offer to the highest they are willing to as well. |  |
| |
| Why Swansea shouldn't have recalled Whittaker on 21:59 - Jan 5 with 1246 views | Eiffel78 |
From what Plymouth have said, there was a limited recall window written into the original deal which may have forced their hand. Ideally they'd leave him in place until something concrete was lined up, but they were in a position where it was recall him now or not at all. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
