(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

17 minutes ago, Rizlar said:

Or is it down to bad coaching ? 

Could well be and also tactics not bringing a centre half on at Accrington when we had one on the bench didn’t add up . But all the signings were rushed in and he obviously feels the ones he is getting rid of don’t cut it . Prepared to see what he does with the new batch coming in first 

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

We're aware of the limits, however it's the perception that fans will go off.

So far, regular first team players have gone. No explanation, was it parent club requests or us?

Possible they may come back, but on the face of it, we seem to have shot ourselves in the foot.

Hope you're right, and replacements come later, just can't see anyone better, which defeats the object.

There has been explanation. We know that Verlinden was recalled and we know that Hill passed on re-signing Earl. We also know that Hill wants Bridcutt to return but that the decision rests with the player.

38 minutes ago, Farnywhite said:

Could well be and also tactics not bringing a centre half on at Accrington when we had one on the bench didn’t add up . But all the signings were rushed in and he obviously feels the ones he is getting rid of don’t cut it . Prepared to see what he does with the new batch coming in first 

Agree 

1 hour ago, bwfcfan5 said:

You can look at it lots of ways. As it stood we weren’t good enough to get enough points to stay up. So if we’ve saved money and effectively given this season up that would make sense.

Equally if we’ve gambled and are trying to bring in better and give it a go that also makes sense.

The limit on numbers has the biggest effect. Am sure if squad size was not impacted we would have immediately kept Earl at very least.

It's a difficult balancing act. We also need to get players out to free up places. If we make too many signings early on and then don't manage to move out players we don't want or who aren't better than players we might be able to sign in their place, then we might miss out on those better signings.

Mid-season transfer windows are always going to be the most difficult in our predicament because there aren't as many free agents available as there are in the summer.

2 hours ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

There has been explanation. We know that Verlinden was recalled and we know that Hill passed on re-signing Earl. We also know that Hill wants Bridcutt to return but that the decision rests with the player.

Wright?

It's ok not wanting to renew earl's loan, but he's been first choice recently. Doesn't make any sense.

Now zouma is back in, with a debutant. Weird.

23 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Wright?

It's ok not wanting to renew earl's loan, but he's been first choice recently. Doesn't make any sense.

Now zouma is back in, with a debutant. Weird.

Wright is probably the only one other than Chicksen that we don't yet know about for certain. But it's possible that he's returned to his parent club whilst we explore the market. If we can't find anyone better we can always look to come back in for him later on. If that is what we're doing then we aren't likely to publicly confirm that.

Alternatively, given we've just signed Nsiala and are reportedly looking for other players, it might just be that Hill thinks he's not good enough. Either way, we've had plenty of explanations for players leaving.

If Hill knew he wasn't going to keep earl, Wright etc, why didn't he have people to go right away? I know it can't be easy in this situation but from our perspective it looks like he started looking this week. You'd think they want to be proactive 

10 hours ago, leadfrog1 said:

If Hill knew he wasn't going to keep earl, Wright etc, why didn't he have people to go right away? I know it can't be easy in this situation but from our perspective it looks like he started looking this week. You'd think they want to be proactive 

Not quite as easy as that. Their deals all expired early in the window, whereas clubs are generally not keen on loaning players out until later in January in case they pick up any injuries, not to mention such players being likely to get a run out in the FA Cup. 

49 minutes ago, Leyther_Matt said:

Not quite as easy as that. Their deals all expired early in the window, whereas clubs are generally not keen on loaning players out until later in January in case they pick up any injuries, not to mention such players being likely to get a run out in the FA Cup. 

Right. Also how do we know Hill hasnt been told to cut the wage bill on a forlorn hope to stay up this season? While we are reliant on free signings and loans the manager is not going to be able to be proactive in transfer market

Hilly just needs to stop ballooning in interviews if he actually can?

43 minutes ago, snowball said:

Right. Also how do we know Hill hasnt been told to cut the wage bill on a forlorn hope to stay up this season? While we are reliant on free signings and loans the manager is not going to be able to be proactive in transfer market

Hilly just needs to stop ballooning in interviews if he actually can?

If the rumours about us being restricted to offering no more than £2,000 per week are true I don't see how it's possible he's been asked to cut the wage bill.

Although I suppose he might've been asked to change transfer strategy.

1 minute ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

If the rumours about us being restricted to offering no more than £2,000 per week are true I don't see how it's possible he's been asked to cut the wage bill.

Although I suppose he might've been asked to change transfer strategy.

Precisely, and if he has then we really would be in a financial mess.

Can't see it.

10 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

If the rumours about us being restricted to offering no more than £2,000 per week are true I don't see how it's possible he's been asked to cut the wage bill.

Although I suppose he might've been asked to change transfer strategy.

It was me who mentioned a 2K maximum wage, sure I read it somewhere that it was part of the embargo and not a restriction from the club owners. Can anyone confirm the 2K max wage. 

Edited January 12, 20206 yr by Mounts Kipper

1 hour ago, Mounts Kipper said:

It was me who mentioned a 2K maximum wage, sure I read it somewhere that it was part of the embargo and not a restriction from the club owners. Can anyone confirm the 2K max wage. 

Yes I thought it was part & parcel of entering administration and the after effects 

Just now, radcliffewhite1 said:

Yes I thought it was part & parcel of entering administration and the after effects 

Thought so. Under those circumstances it’s no surprise we’re getting beat by clubs who we really shouldn’t. 

Part of the embargo is that we cant pay fees for players to come on loan and can’t pay transfer fees have a restricted squad and wage cap so cutting the wage bill any further isn’t really possible it’s got to be at bare bones 

One thing for certain. Good defences are settled defences.

Earl gone to Ipswich till the end of the season, I don't have a clue what's going on with why his loan didn't get extended & we let Chicksen go also? 

16 minutes ago, Okocha10 said:

Earl gone to Ipswich till the end of the season, I don't have a clue what's going on with why his loan didn't get extended & we let Chicksen go also? 

Three weeks of the transfer window remaining, that's what's going on.

21 minutes ago, Leyther_Matt said:

Three weeks of the transfer window remaining, that's what's going on.

Swapping centre halves with Ipswich is an odd one though.

Left backs are like gold dust. So letting Chicksen go seems a big risk to me.

Bunney needs to play a couple of reserve fixtures before he's fit for first team action.

Why Chicksen has been allowed to go is baffling unless he wanted much more than he was on already I can't see why we wouldn't re-sign him.

We needed enough player in this window as it was without getting rid of a decent left back as well.

1 hour ago, Okocha10 said:

Earl gone to Ipswich till the end of the season, I don't have a clue what's going on with why his loan didn't get extended & we let Chicksen go also? 

Earl might have wanted to go to Ipswich?

12 minutes ago, Mannyroader said:

Earl might have wanted to go to Ipswich?

Earl said himself he wanted to stay with us, here's the link with him saying "he would love to stay at Bolton":

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/18126263.preston-loanee-josh-earl-love-stay-bolton-wanderers/

 Keith decided he didn't want Earl after the Burton game

Bloody Parky looks like he's robbing Bridcutt from us

17 minutes ago, Okocha10 said:

Bloody Parky looks like he's robbing Bridcutt from us

May as well keep their physios busy as ours.