JohnnyPimp Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 IIRC correctly we had a deal for that Roque lad where we paid his wages when he didn’t play, the Scousers paid him when he did. I remember the game at Crewe towards the end of the 2006-7 season, where we lost (2-0?) and Roque got injured but Shez wouldn't let him leave the field, despite him limping around like a lame duck! I know that it would have put us down to 10 men at the time but I like the idea that he had to stay on the pitch so that we didn't have to pay for him! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losesome Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 I remember the game at Crewe towards the end of the 2006-7 season, where we lost (2-0?) and Roque got injured but Shez wouldn't let him leave the field, despite him limping around like a lame duck! I know that it would have put us down to 10 men at the time but I like the idea that he had to stay on the pitch so that we didn't have to pay for him! When these premier clubs loan a player out they only do so on the proviso that they play. The problem with that is what if he has an attitude problem and once the deal goes thru you are stuck with him taking the position of somebody who may be playing better. He has hardly made any appearances with Stoke so you have to ask why ?? but there may be a good reason why. Can understand Shez being hesitant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 When these premier clubs loan a player out they only do so on the proviso that they play. The problem with that is what if he has an attitude problem and once the deal goes thru you are stuck with him taking the position of somebody who may be playing better. He has hardly made any appearances with Stoke so you have to ask why ?? but there may be a good reason why. Can understand Shez being hesitant. Where did this come from about an attitude problem? Perhaps he just didn't get the opportunityh for a place in a team that was in the process of getting promoted to the Championship. The fact that Stoke would insist on him playing shows that thye see him as an asset, they would just get rid otherwise. Perhaps the concern is the attitude of some others in the squad if Phillips is seen as coming in with a guaranteed start despite the rest all having to fight for a place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 When these premier clubs loan a player out they only do so on the proviso that they play. The problem with that is what if he has an attitude problem and once the deal goes thru you are stuck with him taking the position of somebody who may be playing better. He has hardly made any appearances with Stoke so you have to ask why ?? but there may be a good reason why. Can understand Shez being hesitant. Well, if he has to play if he is fit, but doesn't perform, perhaps we could do a "Escape to Victory" arm break. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slystallone Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 (edited) Perhaps the concern is the attitude of some others in the squad if Phillips is seen as coming in with a guaranteed start despite the rest all having to fight for a place? That may be a corncern - what if form dips / a formation change is needed etc and Demar is on a garenteed starting place? I don't think it will be an outright stipulation that he has to play in every game - but more likely the agreement will be he has to feature in x number of games by the end of the season. Remember Tomaz Cywka (spl!) from the plastic latics?? we brought him in and then preceeded not to play him, which in turn put Jewells nose right out of joint and he recalled him, having made 1 start & 2 sub appearances while here i think? Think Stoke are just wanting to cover themselves in asking for him to get games with us; not just subs bench / sqaud - and we (shez) are being controlled & calm in weighing up whether Demar Philips is the right answer on the Left afterall. I for one prefer this approach to the panic last minute loan deals we've seen in the past (Malongo anyone??) Edited July 29, 2008 by slystallone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 Well, if he has to play if he is fit, but doesn't perform, perhaps we could do a "Escape to Victory" arm break. Or a "John Hallworth," one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 (edited) Ooops Double post Edited July 29, 2008 by Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_bro Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 When these premier clubs loan a player out they only do so on the proviso that they play. The problem with that is what if he has an attitude problem and once the deal goes thru you are stuck with him taking the position of somebody who may be playing better. He has hardly made any appearances with Stoke so you have to ask why ?? but there may be a good reason why. Can understand Shez being hesitant. Surely Shez can't possibly agree to him playing every game if fit. That's as bad as the chairman telling him who can and can't play. If this is agreed then it removes Phillips motivation, if he needs it, and that's no good to us or Stoke. He may also need a rest now and then, or as has been stated before, Shez may need to change things tactically for certain games. Having said all that, Taylor played nearly every game last season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc1955 Posted July 31, 2008 Author Share Posted July 31, 2008 Surely Shez can't possibly agree to him playing every game if fit. That's as bad as the chairman telling him who can and can't play. If this is agreed then it removes Phillips motivation, if he needs it, and that's no good to us or Stoke. He may also need a rest now and then, or as has been stated before, Shez may need to change things tactically for certain games. Having said all that, Taylor played nearly every game last season. No one can guarantee playing week in week out no matter how good you are......it will mean he will be in the match day 16 and not simply in the squad. We need a player like him as he is exciting to watch and even when not in the eleven can come on and change a game if we're struggling. I say sign him up!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 (edited) according to mr corney if we sign him we have to play him!!! Just thinking about this. I had assumed this suggested there was some kind of stipulation from Stoke that barring injury he must feature in a certain proportion of first team matches (not unheard of in loan deals). However, depending what Simon actually said, it could equally be that TTA have told Shez he can only sign him if he's confident Phillips will feature in his first team plans ... i.e. he adds something to our best eleven. One thing I think we learned against Hull is that the lad hasn't often been asked to play at left back! Edited July 31, 2008 by garcon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laticio Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 May have been mentioned before - but does this chap need to play a certain number of games to maintain his work permit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 May have been mentioned before - but does this chap need to play a certain number of games to maintain his work permit? that will be a huge factor .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.