January 2022 Transfer Thread

[nicholaldo]

Is it not close?

I don't understand how your knowledge of a younger Josh Sheehan could be good enough to confidently make that claim.

For what it's worth - and, of course, it only a matter of opinion - just before the season before last got curtailed, I thought Darcy had really begun to demonstrate he could contribute at third tier level. He clearly had areas in need of significant development but he was always willing to make himself available, looked to play with urgency, had good positional sense and a good range of passing. Even now, I don't think any member of our squad has a better first touch or close control.

He likely won't make it with us and his deficiences might mean he never makes it as a professional but to suggest there's a yawning chasm between him and Sheehan at similar ages is, I think, probably wide of the mark.

No, it's not close. Before Sheehan's knee injury Swansea (then a Premier League side) had him down as a future first teamer and he was constantly in touch with the national team set up. He injured his knee on loan at Newport, where he scored 7 in 25 from midfield before doing his ACL. Contract talks with Swansea were ended and he was later released.

For the record, I like Darcy. I would like to have seen him get game time in League Two. I'd also not mind him staying as I think we need the depth. I do think Evatt needs to get more advanced lads in ahead of him, though.

Both were developed at Category 1 academies. Darcy might've owed his opportunity to the financial catastrophe swirling around our club but he showed he could offer something at this level as a teenager. For all the high hopes surrounding Sheehan, he was still sent on loan to the fourth tier as a 21-year-old, which is hardly suggestive of him being a player about to break into a Premier League starting eleven.

But it doesn't really matter.

[GhostoftheBok]

Darcy's competition in midfield is currently....er.....yeah. We have no midfield.

The questions then are. Does the manager simply not think he's League standard? Does the manager want him to play regularly on loan with a view to improving him? Does the manager think he could play a role as a squad player here and that that would benefit him?

If Evatt would rather move Dapo or someone inside than play Darcy then the kid needs to go on loan. If Evatt would play him in certain games that suited him, or if we had injuries, then keep him around as we are well short on bodies now.

Even if we sign 2 midfielders we are still short one, given Tutte's issues. No point him rotting in the reserves we don't really have, though.

[GhostoftheBok]

But it doesn't really matter.

No. The only opinion that matters right now is Evatt's. We'll see how it plays out.

[officer_dibble]

Same with politic. Evatts decided they aren’t his players so he won’t play em. Nathan Delfonso has started the last two games in midfield!

[GhostoftheBok]

Same with politic. Evatts decided they aren’t his players so he won’t play em. Nathan Delfonso has started the last two games in midfield!

What do you mean by "they aren't his players"? He's played Brocky and Senior, both of whom are fellow academy products. He's also signed off on offering all those players new terms at one stage or another. Do you mean they don't suit his style of play?

[nicholaldo]

Darcy's competition in midfield is currently....er.....yeah. We have no midfield.

The questions then are. Does the manager simply not think he's League standard? Does the manager want him to play regularly on loan with a view to improving him? Does the manager think he could play a role as a squad player here and that that would benefit him?

If Evatt would rather move Dapo or someone inside than play Darcy then the kid needs to go on loan. If Evatt would play him in certain games that suited him, or if we had injuries, then keep him around as we are well short on bodies now.

Even if we sign 2 midfielders we are still short one, given Tutte's issues. No point him rotting in the reserves we don't really have, though.

I'm not convinced Evatt rates Darcy but he did offer him a contract at an age where he counts towards the squad limit so he must think he's capable of being a member of the squad.

I expect Evatt, being the dreamer he is, still has his sights set on the play-offs and thinks he can sign a better than midfielder than Darcy. I expect he also thinks Darcy needs to be playing regular football, whether that's here or elsewhere.

[officer_dibble]

Yeah they don’t fit his style, or he doesn’t think they will work hard enough. Find it odd especially for Darcy he would be getting told nows his chance for me, not I’ll find you a loan to the non league!

[GhostoftheBok]

As a serious question and not a leading one, can we play Darcy even once without him being tied in red tape so he can only be loaned to non-league? His Norway games and a game for us and he hits the two club limit, doesn't he?

Or does the Norwegians having a summer season change that?

[nicholaldo]

As a serious question and not a leading one, can we play Darcy even once without him being tied in red tape so he can only be loaned to non-league? His Norway games and a game for us and he hits the two club limit, doesn't he?

Or does the Norwegians having a summer season change that?

An interesting question. As far as I understand it, the two club rule is a FIFA directive and so I presume covers all national associations.

I don't know if it's per season or per calendar year, though.

[Prufrock]

As a serious question and not a leading one, can we play Darcy even once without him being tied in red tape so he can only be loaned to non-league? His Norway games and a game for us and he hits the two club limit, doesn't he?

Or does the Norwegians having a summer season change that?

It's a good question! He'd be fine for the mooted "top National League sides" but not sure about League Two.

Shame about the red tape as I think he should be in the team as it currently stands and at the very least would've got time of the bench. I've only seen bits but I think there's a player in there, and he seems the type who should thrive under Evatt.

That said I think we'll sign two CMs in the window and that puts him at best 6th choice of the fitt-ish players (ie not Sheehan or Tutte).

Loan playing regularly is vital, but he won't go out until we've signed what we're signing.

[officer_dibble]

I had forgotten about that stupid play for two clubs rule tbf.

[nicholaldo]

There seems to be a precedent onvolvong our ex-player Gareth Farrelly which should mean Darcy can play for us and another League club:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_Two

[Prufrock]

He's a solicitor now, Gaz Faz. I bet that came up in his interview! "What sparked your interest in law, Gareth?"

[GhostoftheBok]

Nat Phillips and Rob Holding have both been linked with moves. Do we have any clauses related to those two that would benefit us?

[KeyserSoze]

Nat Phillips and Rob Holding have both been linked with moves. Do we have any clauses related to those two that would benefit us?

Apparently for holding, dunno for Philips. Latter maybe already settled via tribunal or did we actually sell him? From what I can see he just...left, was going to the US and then hopped on the boat for trial with Liverpool in Germany in pre-season

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/1 ... t-arsenal/

[The_Gun]

Nat Phillips and Rob Holding have both been linked with moves. Do we have any clauses related to those two that would benefit us?

Apparently for holding, dunno for Philips. Latter maybe already settled via tribunal or did we actually sell him? From what I can see he just...left, was going to the US and then hopped on the boat for trial with Liverpool in Germany in pre-season

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/1 ... t-arsenal/

Yeah almost certainly nothing due for Phillips. For Holding there was talk of us still retaining a ‘sizeable’ sell on clause, although he’s unfortunately far less likely to move than Nat.

[Gudnib]

I doubt there'd be anything for Rob Holding. I understand that KA did agree a sell-on clause but later negotiated an additional fee from Arsenal in lieu. A case of 'needs must' at the time.

[The_Gun]

I doubt there'd be anything for Rob Holding. I understand that KA did agree a sell-on clause but later negotiated an additional fee from Arsenal in lieu. A case of 'needs must' at the time.

So you're saying that the information in that BN article is incorrect then?

[Gudnib]

I doubt there'd be anything for Rob Holding. I understand that KA did agree a sell-on clause but later negotiated an additional fee from Arsenal in lieu. A case of 'needs must' at the time.

So you're saying that the information in that BN article is incorrect then?

Sorry I hadn't read that article. I must confess that I've read and heard so much twaddle from Iles that I don't always read what he writes any longer.

[The_Gun]

I doubt there'd be anything for Rob Holding. I understand that KA did agree a sell-on clause but later negotiated an additional fee from Arsenal in lieu. A case of 'needs must' at the time.

So you're saying that the information in that BN article is incorrect then?

Sorry I hadn't read that article. I must confess that I've read and heard so much twaddle from Iles that I don't always read what he writes any longer.

Ken stated that they had cashed in the appearances fee but retained a significant sell on clause. Maybe he wasn't telling the truth, or maybe this changed at a later date, but if that is correct as of today, then Arsenal selling Holding could be quite a big deal for us.