| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? 10:55 - Jan 2 with 5524 views | GlasgowBlue |
Having stated that he will decide in his own future at the end of the season should he be allowed to sell a player who may be just what the next manager needs?
We aren’t going up and we aren’t going down. Now would be the time to clarify the future of the club’s managerial direction and all players should have a clean slate with the new man.
If Moore goes I’d suggest that is a strong hint that Mick will be here this time next year. |  |
| |  |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 10:58 - Jan 2 with 4071 views | chicoazul |
I think i know what you mean but it's the thin end of the wedge innit. Otherwise why should any Manager have power over transfers? Which in itself is an interesting argument and is how I think several clubs operate now including Chelsea. But Ipswich is a dictatorship of 1 and the Manager has total control which is probably a good thing. |  |
| |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 11:01 - Jan 2 with 4054 views | Swailsey |
Does Mick have the final say over transfers, or is his hand forced slightly?
With Cresswell/Mings, wasn't the money a 'bonkers' bid? Is it MM or ME who defines bonkers? |  |
| Who said: "Colin Healy made Cesc Fabregas look like Colin Healy"? | We miss you TLA |
| |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 11:05 - Jan 2 with 4030 views | Radlett_blue |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 11:01 - Jan 2 by Swailsey |
Does Mick have the final say over transfers, or is his hand forced slightly?
With Cresswell/Mings, wasn't the money a 'bonkers' bid? Is it MM or ME who defines bonkers? |
Exactly. After the fiasco of Keane/Clegg wasting £ms in the transfer market, Evans has taken far more control of transfers & clearly he's going to have some say in this one. Sure, he'll listen to Mick, but if he says £500k is a decent price for Moore, he'll go & Evans will have reduced the losses he has to fund at Town each year.
I reckon we will pad out the squad with a few loanees. |  |
| |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 11:05 - Jan 2 with 4030 views | Johnny_Boy |
The problem is, had Moore been a MID - he'd be back in the squad no questions asked.
Our glut of FWD's, the majority of which are finding the net regularly (with the exception of Sears) has possibly make the decision to sell Moore slightly easier.
Of course, if McG leaves in January, Celina returns to Man City end of the season, another poor season from Sears might see him jettisoned elsewhere - that untimely only leaves us Waggy & Garner as our only permenant strikers on the books. |  | | |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 11:07 - Jan 2 with 4014 views | Herbivore |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 11:01 - Jan 2 by Swailsey |
Does Mick have the final say over transfers, or is his hand forced slightly?
With Cresswell/Mings, wasn't the money a 'bonkers' bid? Is it MM or ME who defines bonkers? |
I think they discuss it between them. £7m plus for Didz was a bonkers bid but we turned it down as Mick felt our need for Didz (and the lack of time available to replace him) outweighed the value of the bid. Palace's bid for Mings was bonkers in the context of how little football he'd played but we also turned that down as Mick saw a player there. I think it's pretty evident that Mick thinks Moore is weaker than his other options up front and so if there is money on the table and he can spend it elsewhere I imagine he'll take that. |  |
| |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 11:08 - Jan 2 with 4010 views | homer_123 |
Well, given we are running at a loss, Moore isn't going to be a starter and, apart from Bart and Webster, we have no other sellable assets - not surprising we may well sell Moore. |  |
| |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 11:09 - Jan 2 with 4007 views | homer_123 |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 11:01 - Jan 2 by Swailsey |
Does Mick have the final say over transfers, or is his hand forced slightly?
With Cresswell/Mings, wasn't the money a 'bonkers' bid? Is it MM or ME who defines bonkers? |
His hand isn't forced. He's well aware of the financial situation he's working in. | |
| |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 11:12 - Jan 2 with 3995 views | SomethingBlue |
Won't tell us anything. Mick can give Evans his preference but it's up to Evans. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 11:16 - Jan 2 with 3978 views | Bluebell |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 11:07 - Jan 2 by Herbivore |
I think they discuss it between them. £7m plus for Didz was a bonkers bid but we turned it down as Mick felt our need for Didz (and the lack of time available to replace him) outweighed the value of the bid. Palace's bid for Mings was bonkers in the context of how little football he'd played but we also turned that down as Mick saw a player there. I think it's pretty evident that Mick thinks Moore is weaker than his other options up front and so if there is money on the table and he can spend it elsewhere I imagine he'll take that. |
Yes we turned down the offer for Didzy but not the one for Murphy which left us really in the sh*te!
Not sure how long the 'window' is but I am surprised that Rotherham are able to dictate (if that is true) whether Moore plays tonight or Saturday.
I would be happy to see Moore play a couple of games so we can judge how he would cope now with Championship football. If he is unable to cope, then sell him to the highest bidder before the window closes. |  | | |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 11:18 - Jan 2 with 3966 views | chicoazul |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 11:12 - Jan 2 by SomethingBlue |
Won't tell us anything. Mick can give Evans his preference but it's up to Evans. |
Isnt it the case that Mick knows more or less what his budget is and Evans leaves him to get on with it? Otherwise Evans would have ripped Leicester's hand off for McG a while back for instance? | |
| |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 11:20 - Jan 2 with 3958 views | Kieran_Knows |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 11:16 - Jan 2 by Bluebell |
Yes we turned down the offer for Didzy but not the one for Murphy which left us really in the sh*te!
Not sure how long the 'window' is but I am surprised that Rotherham are able to dictate (if that is true) whether Moore plays tonight or Saturday.
I would be happy to see Moore play a couple of games so we can judge how he would cope now with Championship football. If he is unable to cope, then sell him to the highest bidder before the window closes. |
I think the issue is that if we play Moore, he can't go to another club other than Rotherham because of the 2 clubs a season rule.
Perhaps someone knows a bit more on that? Or if its already been said, then I apologise for missing it! |  |
| |
| This is all pure conjecture.... on 11:21 - Jan 2 with 3952 views | Bloots |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 11:18 - Jan 2 by chicoazul |
Isnt it the case that Mick knows more or less what his budget is and Evans leaves him to get on with it? Otherwise Evans would have ripped Leicester's hand off for McG a while back for instance? |
....none of us know the conversations that take place between Scrooge and Mick.
He could have been told that if he wants to keep McGoldrick this summer then he needs to find £500K from somewhere towards the cost.
Who knows? |  |
| Elite Level Poster: Elite Level Supporter: Elite Level Human |
| |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 11:27 - Jan 2 with 3938 views | Herbivore |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 11:16 - Jan 2 by Bluebell |
Yes we turned down the offer for Didzy but not the one for Murphy which left us really in the sh*te!
Not sure how long the 'window' is but I am surprised that Rotherham are able to dictate (if that is true) whether Moore plays tonight or Saturday.
I would be happy to see Moore play a couple of games so we can judge how he would cope now with Championship football. If he is unable to cope, then sell him to the highest bidder before the window closes. |
The situations were a bit different though. Leicester came in for Didz very late in the day leaving no time at all to find a replacement and whilst Didz would have liked to have gone, he was at an age where (without the injuries he subsequently had) he would have had other opportunities for a big move. Murphy had one last chance for a big move and put in a transfer request, it was big money for his age and coming off a less productive season. The move was instigated with time left in the window and we were confident of replacing him. Obviously with both deals things didn't end up panning out as planned though. | |
| |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 11:38 - Jan 2 with 3912 views | Illinoisblue |
Depressingly it feels like it doesn’t really matter that much; we’re a club that’s at best stagnating and at worst continuing on a downward spiral. |  |
| |
| You're ignoring the Evans masterplan mate.... on 11:42 - Jan 2 with 3888 views | Bloots |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 11:38 - Jan 2 by Illinoisblue |
Depressingly it feels like it doesn’t really matter that much; we’re a club that’s at best stagnating and at worst continuing on a downward spiral. |
....spend just enough to:
a: Keep the club afloat
b: Keep the club in the Championship
Then wait for every other club in the country to go bankrupt and go out of business.
Win the Premier League.
(and come last at the same time obviously) | |
| Elite Level Poster: Elite Level Supporter: Elite Level Human |
| |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 11:43 - Jan 2 with 3888 views | Herbivore |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 11:38 - Jan 2 by Illinoisblue |
Depressingly it feels like it doesn’t really matter that much; we’re a club that’s at best stagnating and at worst continuing on a downward spiral. |
Compared to last season we're, at best, on an upward trajectory and at worst stagnating. I don't really see where the downward spiral fits in. Mick was backed more heavily last summer than in any other window (though that's not saying much) and we're having a decent season. We've got some good players and some promising youngsters coming through. If not for a ridiculous injury crisis things would be looking rosier still. Chin up. | |
| |
| This is all pure conjecture.... on 11:44 - Jan 2 with 3876 views | chicoazul |
| This is all pure conjecture.... on 11:21 - Jan 2 by Bloots |
....none of us know the conversations that take place between Scrooge and Mick.
He could have been told that if he wants to keep McGoldrick this summer then he needs to find £500K from somewhere towards the cost.
Who knows? |
Speculating is fun though blud. | |
| |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 12:15 - Jan 2 with 3794 views | Keaneish |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 11:12 - Jan 2 by SomethingBlue |
Won't tell us anything. Mick can give Evans his preference but it's up to Evans. |
Agreed. Mick won't be here next summer but its irrelevant in the business world, he's still contracted so its business until normal until he leaves. The only hope is that we have someone teed up in place now who has time to watch us and understand the fabric of the club prior to may.
Selling Moore is no biggy for me. He's not good enough at this level. Could he be? Maybe but only from a solid run in lower league football for a while. |  |
| |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 12:16 - Jan 2 with 3793 views | homer_123 |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 11:43 - Jan 2 by Herbivore |
Compared to last season we're, at best, on an upward trajectory and at worst stagnating. I don't really see where the downward spiral fits in. Mick was backed more heavily last summer than in any other window (though that's not saying much) and we're having a decent season. We've got some good players and some promising youngsters coming through. If not for a ridiculous injury crisis things would be looking rosier still. Chin up. |
Taking this season in isolation Herbs, that's about right.
The wider issue, however, cannot be ignored. In short, chronic under investment in the team means that we are behind.
Imagine where we 'might' be if the sort of investment Mick had this last summer, had been in place during each and every transfer window?
Annoyingly, Mick has shown that he can be competitive on a very tight budget and, generally, he buys well when given money....if only Evans had a little more faith? | |
| |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 12:18 - Jan 2 with 3770 views | PhilTWTD |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 11:20 - Jan 2 by Kieran_Knows |
I think the issue is that if we play Moore, he can't go to another club other than Rotherham because of the 2 clubs a season rule.
Perhaps someone knows a bit more on that? Or if its already been said, then I apologise for missing it! |
No, I think that's right. There was a situation where short-term loans didn't count but they don't exist any more and Moore's loan was a long-term spell anyway. |  | | |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 12:21 - Jan 2 with 3756 views | Illinoisblue |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 11:43 - Jan 2 by Herbivore |
Compared to last season we're, at best, on an upward trajectory and at worst stagnating. I don't really see where the downward spiral fits in. Mick was backed more heavily last summer than in any other window (though that's not saying much) and we're having a decent season. We've got some good players and some promising youngsters coming through. If not for a ridiculous injury crisis things would be looking rosier still. Chin up. |
Upward trajectory is a low bar though after our worst league finish in 50 years. Fair point about the injury situation; a couple of loans won’t be enough to cover the loss of an entire midfield | |
| |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 12:22 - Jan 2 with 3750 views | imsureazzure |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 11:07 - Jan 2 by Herbivore |
I think they discuss it between them. £7m plus for Didz was a bonkers bid but we turned it down as Mick felt our need for Didz (and the lack of time available to replace him) outweighed the value of the bid. Palace's bid for Mings was bonkers in the context of how little football he'd played but we also turned that down as Mick saw a player there. I think it's pretty evident that Mick thinks Moore is weaker than his other options up front and so if there is money on the table and he can spend it elsewhere I imagine he'll take that. |
Perhaps that is why MM should not be allowed a say? McGoldrick is potentially our best player when fit but he does not play enough games ( he also has some real stinkers).
Evans must think the manager turned him over in persuading him to turn down the bid of £7m. |  | | |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 12:24 - Jan 2 with 3741 views | Herbivore |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 12:16 - Jan 2 by homer_123 |
Taking this season in isolation Herbs, that's about right.
The wider issue, however, cannot be ignored. In short, chronic under investment in the team means that we are behind.
Imagine where we 'might' be if the sort of investment Mick had this last summer, had been in place during each and every transfer window?
Annoyingly, Mick has shown that he can be competitive on a very tight budget and, generally, he buys well when given money....if only Evans had a little more faith? |
The summer before we spent money on Webster and Ward as well as decent loan fees for the likes of Lawrence. We are underfunded compared to the big spenders in this league but it's by such a massive distance that we can't really begin to conceive of bridging that gap, I think the issue is that our strategy means you're not going to get the players you want all that often. How many Garners and Waghorns are there, realistically? We picked them up for under a million, I can't imagine too many players of their ability are around at that kind of value. Same with the likes of Ward and Webster, Ward cost £500k and although he's been hit and miss that was still a good price for a Prem youngster with a successful loan spell at this level under his belt. We look at it and say 'imagine what we could do with another few million' but I think in reality there aren't enough quality players available in our budget that an extra few million would do much. To really improve the squad you're looking at tens of millions I expect, not just a bit extra. | |
| |
| This is all pure conjecture.... on 12:24 - Jan 2 with 3737 views | imsureazzure |
| This is all pure conjecture.... on 11:21 - Jan 2 by Bloots |
....none of us know the conversations that take place between Scrooge and Mick.
He could have been told that if he wants to keep McGoldrick this summer then he needs to find £500K from somewhere towards the cost.
Who knows? |
Perhaps the 500k will be used to keep MM? | | | |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 12:26 - Jan 2 with 3721 views | Radlett_blue |
| Should Mick be allowed to sell Moore? on 12:22 - Jan 2 by imsureazzure |
Perhaps that is why MM should not be allowed a say? McGoldrick is potentially our best player when fit but he does not play enough games ( he also has some real stinkers).
Evans must think the manager turned him over in persuading him to turn down the bid of £7m. |
With the benefit of hindsight, we should have taken the £7m, but I'm sure most of it would have been used to reduce losses rather then reinvested in the squad, while the timing of the 11th hour bid was unfortunate. The interesting decision is what do we do now, as McG is out of contract in the summer. Would you offer a substantial new deal to so injury prone a player? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
