(That long since we've had any, couldn't find the thread)

Alan Nixon: "Top Liverpool starlet Cameron Branagan will Ben allowed out on loan in Jan.

Bolton lead the race for the 20 year old midfielder"

Edited December 11, 20169 yr by Ratwhite

9 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

It generally means the player forgoes bonuses, or at least used to

Aye.

Makes it easier for the selling club to accept a slightly smaller fee.

"Bolton have taken the most shots (453 in League One this season) but 27.9% of shots end up on target which is lower than Doncaster 28.3% and Rotherham on 31%"

Just seen this from the BN site.

Don't know if it's true, but if so, then it makes our main issue quite stark.

28 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

"Bolton have taken the most shots (453 in League One this season) but 27.9% of shots end up on target which is lower than Doncaster 28.3% and Rotherham on 31%"

Just seen this from the BN site.

Don't know if it's true, but if so, then it makes our main issue quite stark.

Wonder how many of those misses come from our wingers cutting inside to shoot and hitting the first man. 

11 minutes ago, Zog1 said:

Wonder how many of those misses come from our wingers cutting inside to shoot and hitting the first man. 

Or row Z

5 hours ago, thebells said:

His slice of what? 

Unless specifically part of his contract (which I highly doubt it is), him handing in a transfer request doesn’t really mean anything other than the club knowing he wants to leave.

It certainly is normally part of the contract ... I obviously can't speak on this specific one but it's been the case for a very long time. 'Loyalty bonuses' are not paid when a player submits a transfer request ... on account of it not being, well, loyal.

In the olden days if they hadnt put in a written transfer request they got a set percentage of the transfer fee

There is rightly a focus on attacking re-enforcements but I think there is a case for adding at least one new player each to midfield and defence. If he wants to play three central defenders then we are in to using Taylor and Christie as replacements - but they are also covering full back roles. One injury to either of those two and that is your cover gone in two positions. Lewis Temple is presumably viewed as "one for the future".

Midfield strengthening probably contingent on whether Morley goes or not.

Going to be a fascinating 8 or 9 days now to see whether the club go for loans, invest etc. Just be interesting to see what the strategy is.

Wrong thread 

Edited January 24Jan 24 by Eddie

Nombe starts for Rotherham. 

Dunno if that means anything, other than he is now fit. 

21 hours ago, Johnnyrotten said:

From what we've seen, its a mystery how Burstow and Forss ever had fairly regular championship games.  If and when we go up we won't be going anywhere near that standard of player, and if we don't go up we still need better.

imagine if we crossed ball into box first time 

was listening to GMT earlier and Dave Challinor being interviewed - he sounded just like Schumacher about transfer window and how cagey it is 

they’re also after a striker (as is probably 90% of teams) 

it’ gonna go to wire IMHO

20 minutes ago, Ratwhite said:

was listening to GMT earlier and Dave Challinor being interviewed - he sounded just like Schumacher about transfer window and how cagey it is 

they’re also after a striker (as is probably 90% of teams) 

it’ gonna go to wire IMHO

That reaction from both of them makes me think they've been humbled. 

Let off, what a ball in. I wish we could put some balls in like that 

 

Wrong fred

Edited January 24Jan 24 by CambridgeBWFC

Although I think he may well leave, I reckon Morley should be kept.

Sheehan has a knock, others not ripping up trees, and wingers injured/less effective. 

If anything, maybe a replacement for Randall- someone who is strong and will be more of a goal threat.

Morley put some reasonable balls in today too, and maybe can still play a part.

If he does go, then it won't be until deadline day; I think we would replace like-for-like or get a ball carrier in.

15 minutes ago, jmjhb said:

If he does go, then it won't be until deadline day; I think we would replace like-for-like or get a ball carrier in.

Striker also a greater priority with Forss out.

I would mind seeing Morley playing in a more attacking role neither. He also is as good as anyone from free-kicks.

Can't help feeling that given the numbers that have left and now injured, clubs may feel they can hold us to ransom a little. Especially as there isn't that long left

Anyway, we will see. 

I know transfers are a mystery box and can go either way, but really we've seen enough with Morley. If he was going to become a serious player for us at this level he'd have done it in his 100+ appearances.

We're just cycling around people who haven't been in the team much, expecting them to come back in as difference makers. It was Randall, then McAtee today, now it might move on to Morley. These players are who they are. If shifting them on can bring somebody new in then we shouldn't think twice.

Edited January 24Jan 24 by Tombwfc

Fair points. 

It's just that at the moment none of them are ripping up trees, whether they're Evatt's or SS's.

There isn't long left and arguably injuries make things worse.

We could end up with one or two who are no better purely out of desperation.

Is it a case of better the devil you know?

At least until the end of the season.

Board need to dig deep if we’ve lost ACD and forss in a week. Massive blow for us

31 minutes ago, Matt Lofthouse said:

Board need to dig deep if we’ve lost ACD and forss in a week. Massive blow for us

Two loans back and two in

4 minutes ago, RUREADY2ROLL said:

Two loans back and two in

You can't just cancel loans

But, the limit is 5 in a matchday squad.

Edited January 24Jan 24 by jmjhb

14 minutes ago, jmjhb said:

You can't just cancel loans

But, the limit is 5 in a matchday squad.

I suppose that will depend upon how both clubs want to approach it.

Longer term injuries do seem to see a loan player go back to the parent club for treatment- they may want to be in charge of it.

We don't know the extent yet though, so fingers crossed it won't be so bad.

28 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

I suppose that will depend upon how both clubs want to approach it.

Longer term injuries do seem to see a loan player go back to the parent club for treatment- they may want to be in charge of it.

We don't know the extent yet though, so fingers crossed it won't be so bad.

A longish term one usually leads to their club recalling them. They are their asset & they will want their medical & recovery teams to be in charge. Wellsee.

1 hour ago, Matt Lofthouse said:

Board need to dig deep if we’ve lost ACD and forss in a week. Massive blow for us

Forss isn't a miss - he could've gone back in October and nobody would've noticed.