Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

Lewis Hall

Paully

by Paully
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

The College Dropout

The College Dropout

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

Yeah, agreed. Think there was a bit of a Freudian slip in there when he said something to the effect of "not every transfer will be a success, there'll be mistakes... I'm not taking about Lewis." Well the question was about Lewis, Eddie. :lol:

 

I suspect that we're going to be stuck with him whether we like it or not so thankfully he's got an eternity ahead of him to get better. I've honestly found it to be the most tedious talking point all season. Clearly he's not good enough to be in the team but clearly he's 19. It's a problem that is only going to be solved one way or another in the future.  

I don't think he meant that. He was trying to say "yes every transfer has to be right because of FFP.. but it's also not possible". But he didn't commit on the obligation but said earlier Hall was getting closer to activating it. 

 

 

Regardless of what he says, Eddie doesn't think he's ready at a minimum.

 

 

25:25

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
janpawel

janpawel

Posted
Posted

It kind of fucks up our left back situation, IF he doesn't come good / get used next season 

 

As of right now we've got £30m already committed to him for summers budget, if he again isn't fancied, or loaned etc. Then we're still with Burn starting, Targett back up 

 

It would seem madness to buy another LB with us having 3 and having spent £30m already in the window.... So are we at risk do Burn starting LB next season? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
TRon

TRon

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, SteV said:

Yeah, there was some ITK Chelsea Twitter account claiming we just had to stay up to make it permanent.

 

That would be the most pointless clause ever considering we were a CL club at the time of signing him. Can't believe that for a second.

 

Personally I think if the deal was a foregone conclusion we'd be using him a lot more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The College Dropout

The College Dropout

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

That would be the most pointless clause ever considering we were a CL club at the time of signing him. Can't believe that for a second.

 

Personally I think if the deal was a foregone conclusion we'd be using him a lot more.

At the time the loan was viewed as only a FFP hack.

 

 

Edited by The College Dropout

Link to post
Share on other sites
TRon

TRon

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

At the time the loan was viewed as only a FFP hack.

 

 

 

 

Whatever. if Howe doesn't rate him I'd rather just take the loan fee hit and use the remaining money to sign someone we'll actually use.

Link to post
Share on other sites
timeEd32

timeEd32

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, janpawel said:

It kind of fucks up our left back situation, IF he doesn't come good / get used next season 

 

As of right now we've got £30m already committed to him for summers budget, if he again isn't fancied, or loaned etc. Then we're still with Burn starting, Targett back up 

 

It would seem madness to buy another LB with us having 3 and having spent £30m already in the window.... So are we at risk do Burn starting LB next season? 

 

The answer is we have to do everything we can to sell Targett (assuming he's not our starting LB). His wages are crazy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The College Dropout

The College Dropout

Posted
Posted
Just now, SUPERTOON said:

And has barely been seen since.

 

 

 

Aye he's clearly fallen out of favour. He was hooked at HT in that game iirc. Might have started the next game too and also got hooked at HT.

 

Do you know how bad you have to be to be subbed at HT by Howe? Twice?

 

Since then he's only got proper minutes once we've proper been battered and the game is gone. Rarely comes on when a game is tightly contested. Zero trust.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SteV

SteV

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

That would be the most pointless clause ever considering we were a CL club at the time of signing him. Can't believe that for a second.

 

Personally I think if the deal was a foregone conclusion we'd be using him a lot more.

I think the whole point was just to to shift the payment to next year for FFP. 
 

There was never really any consideration on our part that we wanted a ‘safety net’ or ‘get out’ from the deal being made permanent IMO

Link to post
Share on other sites
TRon

TRon

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

If it's a minimal criteria obligation - we won't have a choice.... which seemed to be the initial purpose.

 

If that was the case I'm pretty sure we'd have used him more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TRon

TRon

Posted
Posted
Just now, SteV said:

I think the whole point was just to to shift the payment to next year for FFP. 
 

There was never really any consideration on our part that we wanted a ‘safety net’ or ‘get out’ from the deal being made permanent IMO

 

Same as above. If we were planning on keeping him, I just think we'd have used him a lot more. There's no way he is so bad that it makes more sense to run players to a standstill rather than bring him on to freshen things up during a phase when we are ravaged by injuries to begin with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SUPERTOON

SUPERTOON

Posted
Posted (edited)

I’m basing the fact he has had so few opportunities on him being more an Ashworth signing than Howe. Probably a load of rubbish on my part, just think if Howe had really wanted him he would have played more.

 

 

Edited by SUPERTOON

Link to post
Share on other sites
SteV

SteV

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

Same as above. If we were planning on keeping him, I just think we'd have used him a lot more. There's no way he is so bad that it makes more sense to run players to a standstill rather than bring him on to freshen things up during a phase when we are ravaged by injuries to begin with.

If we genuinely didn’t want him based on what’s been seen in training (or whatever) then I think Howe would have sent him back or not given him any minutes at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
timeEd32

timeEd32

Posted
Posted

Isn't there some new language in the rules that means you can't use a loan to buy method to push out the transfer fee if the clause is too easy to achieve? Basically you can't take the piss with something like "becomes permanent upon one appearance."

 

A clause based solely on a team that finished 4th the previous season not getting relegated seems like it'd be taking the piss.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SteV

SteV

Posted
Posted
Just now, timeEd32 said:

Isn't there some new language in the rules that means you can't use a loan to buy method to push out the transfer fee if the clause is too easy to achieve? Basically you can't take the piss with something like "becomes permanent upon one appearance."

 

A clause based solely on a team that finished 4th the previous season not getting relegated seems like it'd be taking the piss.

There is, but where that line is….

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Menace

Menace

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, JonBez comesock said:

I saw enough in the Manchester a United game to think he will be a very good player 

 

Wether that’s here or somewhere else 

 

Hope it’s here , as i really rate him 

This is how I feel - he's actually not been bad at all for us when he has played. Weird situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...