Toonpack 11344 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 4 minutes ago, The Fish said: You're right, in that there are two CB positions that require depth. But Kelly isn't 2nd choice for either of them, he also isn't second choice at left back. That would be Big Dan Burn. And then it's a conversation about whether Lloyd Kelly is chosen ahead of Matt Targett or not. So he's possibly 3rd to 4th choice there as well. You're arguing to retain the services of someone that, in all likelihood, won't get a game. We 100% should be replacing him, but not with a middling, 26yr old, free transfer. We should replace him with a young and promising centreback (Hujsen at Bournemouth is a good example), or we should sign someone that pushes Schar down the pecking order by being as good as or better than Botman. Our #1 need (alongside RW) is someone to push Schar down the pecking order not a youngster to push him, a youngster to usurp him is what we need. I'm saying flogging Kelly now is stupid from a squad depth perspective, not for today but going forward, we're fucking ancient at CB. We're creating another hole to fill when we have other holes WAY more important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut 468 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 I'm surprised either last summer or this January we haven't done a "loan to buy" like with Hall just to kick the PSR issue down the line a bit? Someone like Tomori from Milan would be ideal if they're looking to get rid. We could do the same for Kelly with Juventus in that case and it'd only show another £10m or so down, but on a big upgrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 11344 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 5 minutes ago, Holden McGroin said: I’d say Tino was 2nd or 3rd choice LB. Hall Tino Targett Burn That’s decent cover in an emergency. Tino FFS, he's first choice RB, who plays there ?? (Tripps will be away next season, if not this window) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden McGroin 7575 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 5 minutes ago, Toonpack said: Tino FFS, he's first choice RB, who plays there ?? (Tripps will be away next season, if not this window) I meant in terms of this season. Trippier will move on the summer I assume. Maybe somewhere where the pace is a bit slower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzler 11733 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 5 minutes ago, Toonpack said: Tino FFS, he's first choice RB, who plays there ?? (Tripps will be away next season, if not this window) 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 11344 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 Just now, Holden McGroin said: I meant in terms of this season. Trippier will move on the summer I assume. Maybe somewhere where the pace is a bit slower. My point is about beyond this season though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 11344 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 Just now, Dazzler said: Aye, you disrupt the right side of your defence because the left side is in trouble, no, you play Kelly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 11313 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 1 hour ago, Toonpack said: Our #1 need (alongside RW) is someone to push Schar down the pecking order not a youngster to push him, a youngster to usurp him is what we need. I'm saying flogging Kelly now is stupid from a squad depth perspective, not for today but going forward, we're fucking ancient at CB. We're creating another hole to fill when we have other holes WAY more important. Priority is RW and RCB, I agree. Kelly doesn't solve either of those problems. Nor does he solve "who do we play if Hall is unavailable?", or "who do we play if Botman is out?". In terms of depth, he's not providing anything that other players aren't. For less wages. And unfortunately less resale value. Look, if we had two equal bids, one Targett and one for Kelly, I'd take the Targett money. But Kelly is the only one who appears to be attracting interest. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 11344 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 1 hour ago, The Fish said: Priority is RW and RCB, I agree. Kelly doesn't solve either of those problems. Nor does he solve "who do we play if Hall is unavailable?", or "who do we play if Botman is out?". In terms of depth, he's not providing anything that other players aren't. For less wages. And unfortunately less resale value. Look, if we had two equal bids, one Targett and one for Kelly, I'd take the Targett money. But Kelly is the only one who appears to be attracting interest. If we got an offer around £15 mill, I'd be ok with it IF that was reinvested at RCB (with pace) because that's a major need, now and into the future, but it does leave us relying on Burn next season as Botman back up and god forbid he has to be Hall's back up too, he's already slow. We also need a viable RB back up, that could possibly be Krafth if he's extended. Our fullbacks are incredibly young, and talented, and we're hopefully set for the next decade, so getting someone to come and be a back-up who will (hopefully) rarely play is not going to be easy, and I can't realistically see anyone beating Hall/Tino out. That's the thing with Kelly that makes me hesitant, we need viable back-ups going forward and he could be that for 2 positions, our current back-ups are getting very old in footballer terms, Kelly's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 11313 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 10 minutes ago, Toonpack said: If we got an offer around £15 mill, I'd be ok with it IF that was reinvested at RCB (with pace) because that's a major need, now and into the future, but it does leave us relying on Burn next season as Botman back up and god forbid he has to be Hall's back up too, he's already slow. We also need a viable RB back up, that could possibly be Krafth if he's extended. Our fullbacks are incredibly young, and talented, and we're hopefully set for the next decade, so getting someone to come and be a back-up who will (hopefully) rarely play is not going to be easy, and I can't realistically see anyone beating Hall/Tino out. That's the thing with Kelly that makes me hesitant, we need viable back-ups going forward and he could be that for 2 positions, our current back-ups are getting very old in footballer terms, Kelly's not. What if, we get £15m now, but couldn't reinvest it until the summer? Or, we get £15m and that plus Almiron's fee (and whatever we've got down the back of the PSR sofa) is spent on a RW who's better than what we've got? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 11344 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 11 minutes ago, The Fish said: What if, we get £15m now, but couldn't reinvest it until the summer? Or, we get £15m and that plus Almiron's fee (and whatever we've got down the back of the PSR sofa) is spent on a RW who's better than what we've got? If it's £15 million or thereabouts aye, I'd be ok, it was when folks were clamouring to get rid for £6-£10 mill I had severe reservations. I certainly don't agree with the second sentence, we need pace at CB way more than we need a new RW at this moment in time IMO. We do need a better/electric RW option but in summer would be fine for that. We only have one CB who is starting quality for the foreseeable future, all the others could be ready for the glue factory in 12 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 11344 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 18 minutes ago, LongTimeAdmirer said: Alex Murphy going on loan to Bolton Good, he needs proper game time. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 11313 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 5 minutes ago, Toonpack said: If it's £15 million or thereabouts aye, I'd be ok, it was when folks were clamouring to get rid for £6-£10 mill I had severe reservations. I certainly don't agree with the second sentence, we need pace at CB way more than we need a new RW at this moment in time IMO. We do need a better/electric RW option but in summer would be fine for that. We only have one CB who is starting quality for the foreseeable future, all the others could be ready for the glue factory in 12 months. Aye but it's not like going to the shops and picking up what you need, it's having the PSR room to spend when the right player becomes available. It'd be great to sell who we want, when we want so we could buy who we want, when we want. But it doesn't work like that. We need to have the cash here and now. Someone wants to give us money for our reserve centreback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 23606 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 51 minutes ago, Toonpack said: Good, he needs proper game time. must mean we’re keeping Kelly as losing both of them would leave us short if we had an injury crisis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 11344 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 1 minute ago, Dr Gloom said: must mean we’re keeping Kelly as losing both of them would leave us short if we had an injury crisis Read something last week where he (Murphy) had asked to go out on loan, he'll probably have a recall clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 11313 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 4 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said: must mean we’re keeping Kelly as losing both of them would leave us short if we had an injury crisis No it wouldn't. Not really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 23606 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 11 minutes ago, The Fish said: No it wouldn't. Not really. it would leave us with three options at centre back currently fit, with two still due to return from injury. you ideally want at least two players covering each position. i suppose it's a gamble they think is worth taking. murphy has looked quite promising to me, on the rare occasion he's had minutes. i wouldn't be against keeping him, but perhaps this means both krafth and lascelles are close to a return. i wouldn't be against him going out on loan in that case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut 468 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 Krafth can play RCB I guess, so would still mean 4 senior CBs? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 11313 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 6 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said: it would leave us with three options at centre back currently fit, with two still due to return from injury. you ideally want at least two players covering each position. i suppose it's a gamble they think is worth taking. murphy has looked quite promising to me, on the rare occasion he's had minutes. i wouldn't be against keeping him, but perhaps this means both krafth and lascelles are close to a return. i wouldn't be against him going out on loan in that case. Krafth is fit, no? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 23606 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 is he? i thought he's broken his shoulder or something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden McGroin 7575 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 He was named on bench v Wolves and then didn’t make it v Bournemouth along with Targett. I assume tactical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 22775 Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 Fuck psr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden McGroin 7575 Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 Looks like Wissa has a 18 months left on his deal so Brentford might do business here. I'd take him at backup for the wing and CF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougle 3677 Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 1 goal in 3.24 games for Brentford, 28. Seems a canny lad, but 5ft 9..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 11313 Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 I can't wrap my head around the value of this TBA rule they've brought in? Essentially wages can be 5x the revenue of the poorest club in the PL, right? So, without even looking, this year Ipswich's revenue will be £100m as a bare fucking minimum. So, that means Man City et al are allowed to spend £500m on wages this season. I think they spend around £300m a year. And their spend has to abide by UEFA's FFP rules anyway. So what exactly is this new level of bureaucracy for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now