Jump to content

Lloyd Kelly


Jack27

Recommended Posts

Just now, OCK said:

 

I think he's become an unofficial official mouthpeice of agents now, being used to drive interest and prices. 

Very likely. If he says it's close or done, it still has more credibility than most though. Think the tap in thing is overdone as well, even now I see him as the first to say something is done before others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, McCormick said:


Calling him a “tap-in merchant” is particularly harsh as it’s basically just saying “he only reports things when they’re actually happening” :lol:. That’s solid journalism isn’t it? Would people prefer speculative sensationalism instead?

We prefer all those who reliably signal a goal from outside the box (or preferably our own half!) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

Everyone seems to hate him, but regardless of whether it's a tap in or an exclusive, Romano still is imo.

 

His credibility (in terms of Newcastle stuff) took a fair whack with the Joao Pedro stuff for me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

His credibility (in terms of Newcastle stuff) took a fair whack with the Joao Pedro stuff for me. 

I think that was a special circumstance. I think we had the deal all done, but then Wilson you injured so we went all in on Isak instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

His credibility (in terms of Newcastle stuff) took a fair whack with the Joao Pedro stuff for me. 

It definitely did, albeit it did sound like it was all but done before we found out Isak was a goer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shame about Pedro, I wanted him and Isak but I guess we were constrained financially.

 

On the subject of medicals. In a case like this where we’re signing a player with a known injury history is there much precedent for the player to arrange medical tests prior to agreements that they send on to the prospective club to evidence they’re not a crock? Meaning that a formal medical like today’s is just a routine thing rather than something which will flag something up we don’t already know?

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, gbandit said:

Shame about Pedro, I wanted him and Isak but I guess we were constrained financially.

 

On the subject of medicals. In a case like this where we’re signing a player with a known injury history is there much precedent for the player to arrange medical tests prior to agreements that they send on to the prospective club to evidence they’re not a crock? Meaning that a formal medical like today’s is just a routine thing rather than something which will flag something up we don’t already know?

 

Having a known injury history is fairly irrelevant if the injuries aren't related.

 

If there was something obvious about his injury history that might have put us off, it would be unlikely to be at the medical phase. I'm sure our scouts and medical team will have checked over his injury record.

 

The doctors are effectively checking to see if he's got any underlying health issues, like a heart erythema or a lung issue etc and the only reason they do that is money. They don't want to be paying millions in fees to find out he can't play because of a heart defect.

 

However, I am interested to know at what point his medical history (the finer details of his injuries) is shared between clubs. You would think there has to be an agreement around that.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PauloGeordio said:

I understand that but we aren’t throwing big money at this deal. He’s a risk but for the price, one the club are happy to take. 

Just a bit concerned of length of contract. 4+1 probably wiser  with his injury record. 3+2 even if he proves his fitness and availability over first 3 seasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gbandit said:

Shame about Pedro, I wanted him and Isak but I guess we were constrained financially.

 

On the subject of medicals. In a case like this where we’re signing a player with a known injury history is there much precedent for the player to arrange medical tests prior to agreements that they send on to the prospective club to evidence they’re not a crock? Meaning that a formal medical like today’s is just a routine thing rather than something which will flag something up we don’t already know?


Players looking for a move do get their own medical done which can expedite the formal medical. Happens a lot in January.

Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, LFEE said:

Just a bit concerned of length of contract. 4+1 probably wiser  with his injury record. 3+2 even if he proves his fitness and availability over first 3 seasons.

Is it possibly to maximise a sell on if they want to move him on in a few years, having more of his contract remaining?

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PauloGeordio said:

Is it possibly to maximise a sell on if they want to move him on in a few years, having more of his contract remaining?

If we can shift him, aye.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tottenham Hotspur had  a £20million offer rejected by Bournemouth for  Kelly in September last year.

They must have thought they could talk him into a new contract. But he was adamant he was going.

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

Can add him to the list of players we’ve had whose firstname and surname could both be firstnames 

Is Nick Pope in this list?

Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

Can add him to the list of players we’ve had whose firstname and surname could both be firstnames 


and surnames 

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
×
×
  • Create New...