General Transfer Talk

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,510]

Just now, OrangeRab said:

Shite because our players are shite. Man City submitted a squad of 21. How are they getting on again?

If you have 17 good and fit players along with Jack, Souttar and McCrorie. And you have your Lowry, Devine and King back ups.

That’s absolutely fine. It’s a nonsense to go out and sign shite spl dross to pad up numbers that aren’t going to feature just to hit some magical 25 number for 6 games

Man City's u21 list is probably worth about 5 times a much as our first team squad.

[rossco87 712]

1 minute ago, Somemightsay7 said:

Players u21 don't need to be registered only if they have been at the club for 2 years iirc. 

So we can't just buy a 20 year old and then not need to register them. 

Aye that makes sense.
 

Knew that that was the case for them being eligible for club/home grown status but wasn’t sure if there was a loophole that they would still not need registered if they are u21. 
 

From a quick google search looks like u21 players have had to be at the club 2 years before they can then not required to be registered.

 

Seems mental that in theory you could sign a 17 year old and need to register him when they are 17 & 18 but then not need to for the next 2/3 years and then need to register them again but guess that is pretty rare and is more to stop clubs hoovering up promising players at 19/20 and then using them to bulk out their squad.

[Somemightsay7 2,623]

1 minute ago, rossco87 said:

Aye that makes sense.
 

Knew that that was the case for them being eligible for club/home grown status but wasn’t sure if there was a loophole that they would still not need registered if they are u21. 
 

From a quick google search looks like u21 players have had to be at the club 2 years before they can then not required to be registered.

 

Seems mental that in theory you could sign a 17 year old and need to register him when they are 17 & 18 but then not need to for the next 2/3 years and then need to register them again but guess that is pretty rare and is more to stop clubs hoovering up promising players at 19/20 and then using them to bulk out their squad.

I'm assuming it's so that the rich teams can't just spend a tonne of money on 20 year olds then have a squad of 30 to use or as a way to get around the home grown rules by just buying a tonne of youngsters that don't need to be registered. 

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,510]

Another wee quirk of the rule is that a player can count as home grown in 2 different clubs/countries.

There is a 7 year window for counting as home grown. You need 3 years in a club/country to count as 'homegrown'.

A player could be at us from 15-17 and get home grown in Rangers/Scotland then transfer to Chelsea from 18-21 and be homegrown in Chelsea/England.

[rossco87 712]

1 minute ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

Another wee quirk of the rule is that a player can count as home grown in 2 different clubs/countries.

There is a 7 year window for counting as home grown. You need 3 years in a club/country to count as 'homegrown'.

A player could be at us from 15-17 and get home grown in Rangers/Scotland then transfer to Chelsea from 18-21 and be homegrown in Chelsea/England.

Must be pretty rare at the moment but wonder with the rise of multi-club ownership models if we might start seeing more teams transfer their players to another club in their own “group” to get them multiple home grown status which would potentially make them more valuable assets.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,510]

3 minutes ago, rossco87 said:

Must be pretty rare at the moment but wonder with the rise of multi-club ownership models if we might start seeing more teams transfer their players to another club in their own “group” to get them multiple home grown status which would potentially make them more valuable assets.

Dont think it really makes much sense outside of our weird Scottish bubble to be honest.

The big nations that pay big money tend to have enough home grown talent to chose from. An English team aint gonna send Joe Bloggs to Almeria for 3 years in case Real Madrid dont have enough spanish players to choose from. 

Us and them are weird in that we are massive clubs who play in a country that does not really generate enough talent to adequately fill our squads, and when we do, they get poached by our incredibly rich neighbours. 

[Jamie0202 12,591]

1 hour ago, rossco87 said:

While I agree there is a level of snobbery about signing players from SPFL clubs I think part of the issue is smaller teams in bigger leagues have taken notice that there are some decent young players coming through in Scotland and are willing to take a chance on signing them up on the potential and playing and developing them.

 

Similar to what @Laudrupsleftfoot highlighted with Shankland, given the best talent is leaving Scotland at a younger age, at the stage we are able to pick them up on the cheap we aren’t going to be giving them regular game time to develop.

Talented Scottish players leaving Scottish football isn't a new thing. In the 80s the best English teams ALWAYS had quality Scottish players. In 1983 we had to prise McCoist from Sunderland who started at ST Johnstone lol.

[rossco87 712]

4 minutes ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

Dont think it really makes much sense outside of our weird Scottish bubble to be honest.

The big nations that pay big money tend to have enough home grown talent to chose from. An English team aint gonna send Joe Bloggs to Almeria for 3 years in case Real Madrid dont have enough spanish players to choose from. 

Us and them are weird in that we are massive clubs who play in a country that does not really generate enough talent to adequately fill our squads, and when we do, they get poached by our incredibly rich neighbours. 

Probably not their top talent they are pretty certain are going to make it, but the level or two down from that that the likes of Chelsea have been harvesting and selling on to European clubs for years now I can see it make sense.
 

Wasn’t really the Real Madrid’s for the buyers I was thinking of, probably more the teams that have relatively lower resources who make Europe less frequently (eg Sociedad this year). Those clubs have been taking a punt on players who aren’t quite going to make it at the elite academies for years, and having an added home grown element to them might make them a little more attractive / higher value going forward.

[Jimfanciesthedude 25,086]

52 minutes ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

And the way to improve that is to sign a pile of shit SPFL players who would hardly have got a game for us seven years ago under Mark Warburton? 

Surely you must believe there is two or 3 youngish SPFL players who we can bring in to both develop but back up our first team

Lets be honest we could register every single B team player but none of them currently look good enough for europe

[graeme_4 35,592]

5 hours ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

Surely you must believe there is two or 3 youngish SPFL players who we can bring in to both develop but back up our first team

Lets be honest we could register every single B team player but none of them currently look good enough for europe

Most of our first team squad didn’t look good enough either.

Signing Liam Kelly, Kal Naismith and Reece McCabe isn’t going to help there. 

[KeyserSoze 14,781]

The way Kamara hugged folks at the start of the game looked like he was also for the off. 
 

 

thankfully

 

[BlueSuedeSambas 54,869]

8 hours ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

Surely you must believe there is two or 3 youngish SPFL players who we can bring in to both develop but back up our first team

Lets be honest we could register every single B team player but none of them currently look good enough for europe

Who would fit the criteria? Not really no. Guys like Johnston are cleary talented but wouldn’t count as club trained for us. Maybe take Nisbet at a push and for the right price, but fuck the idea of signing guys like Shankland.

[Jimfanciesthedude 25,086]

27 minutes ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

Who would fit the criteria? Not really no. Guys like Johnston are cleary talented but wouldn’t count as club trained for us. Maybe take Nisbet at a push and for the right price, but fuck the idea of signing guys like Shankland.

Even if they aren't club trained, all it takes is the likes of souttar and jack etc being injured and we cant even replace them unless with youth

[ForeverAndEver 72,491]

44 minutes ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

Who would fit the criteria? Not really no. Guys like Johnston are cleary talented but wouldn’t count as club trained for us. Maybe take Nisbet at a push and for the right price, but fuck the idea of signing guys like Shankland.

Would take Shankland over Nisbet

[BlueSuedeSambas 54,869]

23 minutes ago, ForeverAndEver said:

Would take Shankland over Nisbet

Nisbet would fit into what we want to do in terms of style of play a lot better than Shankland would. 

[esquire8 43,849]

28 minutes ago, ForeverAndEver said:

Would take Shankland over Nisbet

Would take a hard kick to the balls over both.

[The Dude 20,026]

10 hours ago, OrangeRab said:

Shite because our players are shite. Man City submitted a squad of 21. How are they getting on again?

If you have 17 good and fit players along with Jack, Souttar and McCrorie. And you have your Lowry, Devine and King back ups.

That’s absolutely fine. It’s a nonsense to go out and sign shite spl dross to pad up numbers that aren’t going to feature just to hit some meaningless 25 number for 6 games

Man City's list of  21 consists of several players who, on their own, cost more in transfer fees than our cumulative spending on transfer fees in the last decade. You're not so much comparing apples and oranges here as an apple and a machine gun.

[Smell the hotdog 4,062]

Few on FF saying Tim Iroegbunam was at Auchenhowie yesterday along with Dowell.

YT looks the part, on loan at QPR from Villa, would imagine be a loan if any truth in it.

 

[OrangeRab 3,096]

12 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Man City's list of  21 consists of several players who, on their own, cost more in transfer fees than our cumulative spending on transfer fees in the last decade. You're not so much comparing apples and oranges here as an apple and a machine gun.

It was just a flippant response to the straw man reply I got.

Point is we will have 17 players + McCrorie, Souttar, Jack. And then King, Devine and Lowry.

Thats a squad of 23 which is absolutely fine if your 17 are fit.

There’s no need for us to go out and sign some of the dross being mentioned on here just to get to 25 because we can. Other clubs in the CL don’t do it.

We’re much better off making sure that the 17 are good enough and fit enough.

23 is already one cover for every position. And of course players can cover multiple positions.

So why would we sign Fleck or Naismith to be 4th choice back up. Total waste of wages for probably 6 games.

A squad of 23 is plenty

 

[toolongawake 1,224]

3 hours ago, KeyserSoze said:

The way Kamara hugged folks at the start of the game looked like he was also for the off. 
 

 

thankfully

 

The minute the starting lineup announcement was made I thought the same.

[Loyal72 12,496]

 

 

[toolongawake 1,224]

20 minutes ago, Smell the hotdog said:

Few on FF saying Tim Iroegbunam was at Auchenhowie yesterday along with Dowell.

YT looks the part, on loan at QPR from Villa, would imagine be a loan if any truth in it.

 

 

In all seriousness though he looks a good player, taken to QPR by Beale. Scotsman linked him to us a few weeks ago. 

[esquire8 43,849]

1 minute ago, Loyal72 said:

 

 

Well that's that confirmed then.....

[BlueSuedeSambas 54,869]

1 minute ago, esquire8 said:

Well that's that confirmed then.....

Not interested. Doesn’t count as homegrown. 

[PromDeAnglais 5,802]

4 hours ago, KeyserSoze said:

The way Kamara hugged folks at the start of the game looked like he was also for the off. 
 

 

thankfully

 

Him, Colak and Davies are for the off shortly apparently.