Jump to content

Transfer Rumours


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 7.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It’ll piss me off royally if Rowe ends up leaving without even being given a full season. We’ve had kids from premier league teams, and over the hill championship strikers by the dozen. Most of them haven’t cut it, and the few success stories such as Surridge were hit and miss with injuries and went back after half a season. 
 

Going after prolific non-league strikers is something fans have been shouting about for years, after seeing clubs like Peterborough thrive on that sort of recruitment. It doesn’t always work out but there’s potential in Rowe a guy that bagged 70 in 140 odd appearances in the Conference to be prolific in League Two and we should be looking at him to be our main striker in the coming season given that pedigree. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem with Rowe is that he's not a striker or leader of the line in the conventional sense, more deep lying second forward and the trend seems to be for lone strikers or men coming in onto their strong foot off the wing.

Having said that I think everyone deserves at least a full season to succeed or fail and he certainly showed enough to me last season to persevere with if not to start then to come off the bench when needed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, PlayItLivo said:

It’ll piss me off royally if Rowe ends up leaving without even being given a full season. We’ve had kids from premier league teams, and over the hill championship strikers by the dozen. Most of them haven’t cut it, and the few success stories such as Surridge were hit and miss with injuries and went back after half a season. 
 

Going after prolific non-league strikers is something fans have been shouting about for years, after seeing clubs like Peterborough thrive on that sort of recruitment. It doesn’t always work out but there’s potential in Rowe a guy that bagged 70 in 140 odd appearances in the Conference to be prolific in League Two and we should be looking at him to be our main striker in the coming season given that pedigree. 
 

 


Yes but he’s meant to have upset the Fuckwit Brothers 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Behind Closed Doors said:

If true,...and I doubt it ...that would be 2 forwards in a week.....a striker on his way out?

 

Not sure. Having seen the last two games, i have to confess i'm not 100% on the formation. Is it really 4-3-3-? looks like 4-2-3-1 or a 4-5-1. 

 

It could be that this lad is joining purely for a bit of experience/motivation. He's only 17. Spending time in Oldham will make sure that he works his bollocks off when he returns to London. Then again, he is from Norway. It would be like living in the Med. 

 

He could be back-up to Rowe. Grant or Dunn on the left. Dearnly or McAleny behind and Blackwood or Fage on the right. Quite nice, potentially. Need two more in midfield (one with experience/quality), keep Wheater and one more defender. Jobs a good 'un...if only i could really believe. I need Dorothy's red shoes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bigfatjoe1 said:

 

Not sure. Having seen the last two games, i have to confess i'm not 100% on the formation. Is it really 4-3-3-? looks like 4-2-3-1 or a 4-5-1. 

 

It could be that this lad is joining purely for a bit of experience/motivation. He's only 17. Spending time in Oldham will make sure that he works his bollocks off when he returns to London. Then again, he is from Norway. It would be like living in the Med. 

 

He could be back-up to Rowe. Grant or Dunn on the left. Dearnly or McAleny behind and Blackwood or Fage on the right. Quite nice, potentially. Need two more in midfield (one with experience/quality), keep Wheater and one more defender. Jobs a good 'un...if only i could really believe. I need Dorothy's red shoes.

 

If we're going to have too many of anything I'd choose forwards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PlayItLivo said:

It’ll piss me off royally if Rowe ends up leaving without even being given a full season. We’ve had kids from premier league teams, and over the hill championship strikers by the dozen. Most of them haven’t cut it, and the few success stories such as Surridge were hit and miss with injuries and went back after half a season. 
 

Going after prolific non-league strikers is something fans have been shouting about for years, after seeing clubs like Peterborough thrive on that sort of recruitment. It doesn’t always work out but there’s potential in Rowe a guy that bagged 70 in 140 odd appearances in the Conference to be prolific in League Two and we should be looking at him to be our main striker in the coming season given that pedigree. 
 

 

Maybe we are looking at salaries ...not sure on what Rowe is on a week but like Wheater I'm sure he's a relatively big earner in what are tough times.... 

I'd like him to stay as I think in the right system he would score plenty at this level but Kewell maybe has his own ideas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take on this sort of thing is as follows.

 

 

(1) A 17 year (unless he's the next Messi) is unlikely to take even this league apart

 

(2) If it happens, the only club that can possibly benefit is Chelsea. They are sending him out into the real world to obtain experience of what life is like.

 

(3) He will be of limited use to us, unless our owners have been switched on enough to say " yes, we'll educate your young kid, but it will cost you, and we don't mean just his salary ".

 

Leave him at Chelsea and give Rowe the season to prove himself.  There is a maxim that all private and public companies run their companies by. You don't have to like every member of staff you employ  -  they just have to perform to the best of their ability to be appreciated.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, parigby said:

My take on this sort of thing is as follows.

 

 

(1) A 17 year (unless he's the next Messi) is unlikely to take even this league apart

 

(2) If it happens, the only club that can possibly benefit is Chelsea. They are sending him out into the real world to obtain experience of what life is like.

 

(3) He will be of limited use to us, unless our owners have been switched on enough to say " yes, we'll educate your young kid, but it will cost you, and we don't mean just his salary ".

 

Leave him at Chelsea and give Rowe the season to prove himself.  There is a maxim that all private and public companies run their companies by. You don't have to like every member of staff you employ  -  they just have to perform to the best of their ability to be appreciated.

 

If he tears the league apart we won't benefit? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, parigby said:

My take on this sort of thing is as follows.

 

 

(1) A 17 year (unless he's the next Messi) is unlikely to take even this league apart

 

(2) If it happens, the only club that can possibly benefit is Chelsea. They are sending him out into the real world to obtain experience of what life is like.

Do you really think we are going to be paying big (if any) wages to a 17yr old from Chelsea? TBH if they are sending him out for life experience then from here on in the only way is up!

Didn't they do the same thing with Ryan Bertrand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

If he tears the league apart we won't benefit? 

 

As l suggested, l don't for one minute think that a 17 year Chelsea youngster ( unless he's another Messi ) will. If he was potentially that good, Chelsea wouldn't let us even close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, whittles left foot said:

Do you really think we are going to be paying big (if any) wages to a 17yr old from Chelsea? TBH if they are sending him out for life experience then from here on in the only way is up!

Didn't they do the same thing with Ryan Bertrand?

A common arrangement  is that the parent club pay the wages when the loanee plays  but the host club has to contribute when the loanee doesn’t 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, whittles left foot said:

Do you really think we are going to be paying big (if any) wages to a 17yr old from Chelsea? TBH if they are sending him out for life experience then from here on in the only way is up!

Didn't they do the same thing with Ryan Bertrand?

 

Again, please read the post. If a large money bags club want's little old Oldham to help in the education of their youngsters, then in my view they should be prepared to pay for that education, over and above his wages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Behind Closed Doors said:

A common arrangement  is that the parent club pay the wages when the loanee plays  but the host club has to contribute when the loanee doesn’t 

 

Then it's a difficult one really. Another player a prem club sends out to a league two side (at that point) can't possibly be deemed to be one of their better ones. If they were, the prem club would be looking higher. So if you're right about wages, and I've no reason to believe you're wrong, would we stick him in the side?. Who knows, if this player turns up he just maybe the raw real deal. Bertrand came in the higher league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think it’s more likely we enquired rather than Chelsea foisted him on us. Maybe not for him specifically, but along the lines of, “Do you have any decent young players who would benefit from exposure to competitive games?” I imagine a young PL loanee is a cheap reserve for us with more promise than paying excessively for a Kokos or Adams like last year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, parigby said:

 

Again, please read the post. If a large money bags club want's little old Oldham to help in the education of their youngsters, then in my view they should be prepared to pay for that education, over and above his wages.

That doesn’t make sense. 
 

Why would Chelsea pay for a far inferior education? The only thing we offer that Chelsea don’t is first team football.

 

So, in effect - you want Chelsea to pay us to play him? 
 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Lags said:

 

Then it's a difficult one really. Another player a prem club sends out to a league two side (at that point) can't possibly be deemed to be one of their better ones. If they were, the prem club would be looking higher. So if you're right about wages, and I've no reason to believe you're wrong, would we stick him in the side?. Who knows, if this player turns up he just maybe the raw real deal. Bertrand came in the higher league.

Harry Kane played as a 17 year old at Leyton Orient including a game against us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chaddyexile84 said:


That is absolute bollocks 

It really isn't. Palace wrote to all lower league clubs suggesting that would be the basis of any loans. It's far closer to back door B teams than the EFL trophy or whatever it's called. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...