Tommy Conway - Signs for 'Boro- Official

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, JoeAman08 said:

Manning wasn’t here last summer. Then you suggest him sell one of his two striking options in January after he has been here two months? That would go down well. We can rely on 33 year old wells on his own for the rest of the season. That would have went down well. Don’t be daft. No one expected him to regress. Let’s not pretend he was firing them in under Pearson for those first 20 games. 

Okay and others got better. It happens. You expect manning to change all his philosophies for one player? Whatever you think of manning’s style he should not sacrifice his beliefs so tommy Conway can score 16 instead of 11. 

Twisting your words Joe, deliberately too to make my point, rather than having a dig at you.

If he’s so unsuitable to Manning’s philosophy, at the point where Tommy was at his most valuable - January - why did the club calculate that they’d be better off fending off “interest” for him then and try to convince him to extend his contract to negate an issue arising in the summer?

At that time Manning was singing his praises, that’s why, and they thought they’d get him to extend. He didn’t..  Then we had his blunt end of season comments about him.  Bit of a jilted-bride reaction to it dawning on the club he might not sign.  Some of our fans have showed similar behaviours.

Even as recent as June, the club were still stating that they were trying to convince him to sign a new contract (even with those end of season comments!).  It is only this week we’ve heard that negotiations stopped some time back.

It’s a series of contradictions and back tracking, based on the reality that they’ve failed to get him to extend.

It reminds me a bit of Mark Ashton and Liam Walsh - “I’ve looked into Walshy’s eyes and I know he’ll sign the contract”.  He didn’t either!

This one will cost us millions though.  The future sale of Tommy Conway for a big fee has been lost, and will have a knock-on to future squad investment.  That’s why I care.

+++++

It doesn’t really matter how good or bad the player is, that’s just our opinions.  What does matter is that the club think he’s worth a significant amount of money, and they won’t be getting it.  To reiterate, That has been my main angle on this since I heard he’d been banished to the u21s.  Secondary is my view on its pettiness!

The club has worked very hard to reduce the costs, generate transfer income from young players brought through since Covid, and now we threaten that hardwork with a series of decisions that will piss several million up the wall.

+++++

Re the comment “Let’s not pretend he was firing them in under Pearson for those first 20 games”,  Tommy was available for just 7 of Pearson’s 14 league games and neither of the two League Cup games due to injury.  In the 265 minutes he played whilst being re-introduced slowly he scored two goals.

[Davefevs]

36 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

Sorry for quoting myself , but I forgot to add . And as said previously I have no idea really but could it be , the call up last season to the jock u21’s which came out of the blue to many & the late call to the euros has inflated his ego ? He always seemed level headed but perhaps his aspirations has overtaken his ability . Time will tell . 
 

what I do know is . It will be a massive shame if he leaves on bad terms (fanbase) wise considering he’s been with so long & his journey leaving home into digs etc 

From what Pete Hinton heard, maybe he’s principled too?

[Mr Popodopolous]

The 20 Games claim is bewildering on so many levels tbh without having a dig.

SofaScore is only useful up to a Point but I'm happy to wager than Manning didn't improve the Big Chances for Conway weighted for appearances over the 2 seasons, in fact probably less.

Edited July 20 by Mr Popodopolous

[JoeAman08]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Mehemti and.. who?

Somewhat wasted Sykes at wingback and in and out of the team.

Knight as a 10 was an interesting experiment.

The Conway point I wonder if data backs this up.

Hang on Conway was injured for 2 months give or take. Scored 2 in 4 or 5 games under NP?

Didn’t Roberts have a good run of games? Knight Vyner and Dickie all maintained. I’d say Pring picked up a little. 
 

Not really the point I was making though. Form comes and goes at this level I think. Managers can change it. I remember Conway just not looking as lively all season, injured or not. 

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Twisting your words Joe, deliberately too to make my point, rather than having a dig at you.

If he’s so unsuitable to Manning’s philosophy, at the point where Tommy was at his most valuable - January - why did the club calculate that they’d be better off fending off “interest” for him then and try to convince him to extend his contract to negate an issue arising in the summer?

At that time Manning was singing his praises, that’s why, and they thought they’d get him to extend. He didn’t..  Then we had his blunt end of season comments about him.  Bit of a jilted-bride reaction to it dawning on the club he might not sign.  Some of our fans have showed similar behaviours.

Even as recent as June, the club were still stating that they were trying to convince him to sign a new contract (even with those end of season comments!).  It is only this week we’ve heard that negotiations stopped some time back.

It’s a series of contradictions and back tracking, based on the reality that they’ve failed to get him to extend.

It reminds me a bit of Mark Ashton and Liam Walsh - “I’ve looked into Walshy’s eyes and I know he’ll sign the contract”.  He didn’t either!

This one will cost us millions though.  The future sale of Tommy Conway for a big fee has been lost, and will have a knock-on to future squad investment.  That’s why I care.

+++++

It doesn’t really matter how good or bad the player is, that’s just our opinions.  What does matter is that the club think he’s worth a significant amount of money, and they won’t be getting it.  To reiterate, That has been my main angle on this since I heard he’d been banished to the u21s.  Secondary is my view on its pettiness!

The club has worked very hard to reduce the costs, generate transfer income from young players brought through since Covid, and now we threaten that hardwork with a series of decisions that will piss several million up the wall.

+++++

Re the comment “Let’s not pretend he was firing them in under Pearson for those first 20 games”,  Tommy was available for just 7 of Pearson’s 14 league games and neither of the two League Cup games due to injury.  In the 265 minutes he played whilst being re-introduced slowly he scored two goals.

No I get it. He is someone we should have tried to keep for sure. I don’t think singing his praises changes things though. I think regardless of how he suits the style, you hold optimism he would eventually. At that age I mean.
 

I just think it hasn’t worked out from the club’s perspective. That’s ok. Sure we miss out on a fee, but do we think we’ll need it soon? Is SL going to be pushing to the FFP limits anymore? There are still good assets in the side too, so I don’t think anyone views this as more than a one off where we couldn’t get the fee we wanted or get TC to sign. 

[slartibartfast]

10 hours ago, REDOXO said:

Agh I originally read that as the ironic No Honest. 
 

I don’t know where the Nor honest  comment comes from? Do you have something to add to the last page or do you think you know me? 

Don't be so touchy, IMHO can mean Humble or Honest, you said never humble, so I naturally said ..or honest, do keep up , I wasn't impugning your honesty .

[mozo]

8 hours ago, Davefevs said:

If he’s so unsuitable to Manning’s philosophy, at the point where Tommy was at his most valuable - January - why did the club calculate that they’d be better off fending off “interest” for him then and try to convince him to extend his contract to negate an issue arising in the summer?

 ....

This one will cost us millions though.  The future sale of Tommy Conway for a big fee has been lost, and will have a knock-on to future squad investment.  That’s why I care.

+++++

 

Dave, just riffing off these two points and you probably have better insight than me, but...

Why didn't we cash in in January? It's hard to know when we don't know what the vibes were in the negotiations. If Coles was telling the club that Tommy is edging towards signing, then you could understand them trying to protect their asset and get him on a contract. More recently, if Ian Gay (Tinnion) thought a signature was imminent, it must have been close, no?

Re this costing us millions... that's hypothetical based on assumed interest. We're certainly in a weaker position IF a decent offer was incoming before the window closes. 

 

[Randy Marsh II]

11 hours ago, Henry said:

The way Manning set up the team and coached Conway devalued him IMO.

I said this within 5 games of his tenure, was obvious we wouldn't play to his strengths in a dead season and it's now cost us millions. 

[GrahamC]

10 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Why did we not offer him a 4 year deal in 2022..or 3 years with a club option.

Hindsight etc but it was just the 3 Year deal in Summer 2022.

Absolutely is hindsight.

Should we have offered Benarous the same? He was in the first team before Tommy.

Vyner, Bell, Pring & O’Leary have all extended their contracts over the last year, there is a good reason why Conway hasn’t.

He saw his mate get a great deal & wants to leave.

[Robbored]

20 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Absolutely is hindsight.

Should we have offered Benarous the same? He was in the first team before Tommy.

Vyner, Bell, Pring & O’Leary have all extended their contracts over the last year, there is a good reason why Conway hasn’t.

He saw his mate get a great deal & wants to leave.

Of course - however the difference between Scott and Conway is that AS was attracting lots of interested clubs and it looks as if that there’s been little or no interest in Conway.

That said - I saw a recent article that Rangers might be looking at him given his contractual status. Conway would probably do well in Scotland.

[redsontour]

The conjecture as fact brigade are full tilt on this thread…

Always amazes me when ‘Dave from IT’ & ‘Matt from accounts’ have enough inside knowledge on the runnings of Bristol City to suggest what is or isn’t happening.

All I’ve seen is on the pitch & in interviews. He’s a nice lad, with potential in the early stages of a short career, doing what he believes is the best for him.

And a club, who have to plan a season without him, so are doing just that.

If I quit, they’ll put me on gardening leave, that’s all the move to the U21’s is..it’s not petty, it’s sensible. 

[Davefevs]

5 hours ago, JoeAman08 said:

Didn’t Roberts have a good run of games? Knight Vyner and Dickie all maintained. I’d say Pring picked up a little. 
 

Not really the point I was making though. Form comes and goes at this level I think. Managers can change it. I remember Conway just not looking as lively all season, injured or not. 

No I get it. He is someone we should have tried to keep for sure. I don’t think singing his praises changes things though. I think regardless of how he suits the style, you hold optimism he would eventually. At that age I mean.
 

I just think it hasn’t worked out from the club’s perspective. That’s ok. Sure we miss out on a fee, but do we think we’ll need it soon? Is SL going to be pushing to the FFP limits anymore? There are still good assets in the side too, so I don’t think anyone views this as more than a one off where we couldn’t get the fee we wanted or get TC to sign. 

Re FFP, I don’t think that’s the issue, it’s more the “what football makes it can spend”.  Where’s our next decent fee coming from?  SL is now only absorbing some of the losses, Scott and Semenyo have subsidised it for 2022/3 and 2023/4, and no doubt this season too, so you’re right, the need isn’t imminent.  But beyond?

42 minutes ago, mozo said:

Dave, just riffing off these two points and you probably have better insight than me, but...

Why didn't we cash in in January? It's hard to know when we don't know what the vibes were in the negotiations. If Coles was telling the club that Tommy is edging towards signing, then you could understand them trying to protect their asset and get him on a contract. More recently, if Ian Gay (Tinnion) thought a signature was imminent, it must have been close, no?

Re this costing us millions... that's hypothetical based on assumed interest. We're certainly in a weaker position IF a decent offer was incoming before the window closes. 

 

For all the reasons @JoeAman08 mentioned in his earlier post.

Re the more recently bit, probably because Tinnion is bullish about everything City related.  He probably thinks he’ll sign now!

I like his enthusiasm for the club, but he needs to know when to be and about what!

5 minutes ago, redsontour said:

The conjecture as fact brigade are full tilt on this thread…

Always amazes me when ‘Dave from IT’ & ‘Matt from accounts’ have enough inside knowledge on the runnings of Bristol City to suggest what is or isn’t happening.

All I’ve seen is on the pitch & in interviews. He’s a nice lad, with potential in the early stages of a short career, doing what he believes is the best for him.

And a club, who have to plan a season without him, so are doing just that.

If I quit, they’ll put me on gardening leave, that’s all the move to the U21’s is..it’s not petty, it’s sensible. 

“Dave from IT” has some inside knowledge of a couple of clubs City have been dealing with.

In many respects, planning the season without him is fine, I agree.

But the way we’ve gone about it will cost the club millions in lost transfer revenue.  That’s not a good plan imho.

[Glen hump]

24 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Of course - however the difference between Scott and Conway is that AS was attracting lots of interested clubs and it looks as if that there’s been little or no interest in Conway.

That said - I saw a recent article that Rangers might be looking at him given his contractual status. Conway would probably do well in Scotland.

Was that on the official site’ if not I wouldn’t believe it.

[Silvio Dante]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Re FFP, I don’t think that’s the issue, it’s more the “what football makes it can spend”.  Where’s our next decent fee coming from?  SL is now only absorbing some of the losses, Scott and Semenyo have subsidised it for 2022/3 and 2023/4, and no doubt this season too, so you’re right, the need isn’t imminent.  But beyond?

For all the reasons @JoeAman08 mentioned in his earlier post.

Re the more recently bit, probably because Tinnion is bullish about everything City related.  He probably thinks he’ll sign now!

I like his enthusiasm for the club, but he needs to know when to be and about what!

“Dave from IT” has some inside knowledge of a couple of clubs City have been dealing with.

In many respects, planning the season without him is fine, I agree.

But the way we’ve gone about it will cost the club millions in lost transfer revenue.  That’s not a good plan imho.

Tbf Fevs, I think “Dave from IT” was intended as a generic term as opposed to referring to you!!!

 

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Tbf Fevs, I think “Dave from IT” was intended as a generic term as opposed to referring to you!!!

 

Oh, I know, but it kinda fitted nicely.

[Silvio Dante]

1 minute ago, Glen hump said:

Was that on the official site’ if not I wouldn’t believe it.

More to the point on “attracting no interest” (and one more time for the people at the back) - the club have deemed Tommy to be a highly desirable asset and priced him accordingly. That price is, once more, likely to have fed into TCs feeling of his worth and meant that the contract offered is below par. However, it seems that at the price we want there is no interest (and that’s not saying there wouldn’t be at a lower price).

So, we’ve almost got a perfect circle of incompetence here:

- Players market value per club dictates in part wage demands

- However, players market value is not in line with market

- This means that we both can’t get the fee we want, but by asking for a fee more than the market swallows have meant the player won’t accept a wage more in line with his true value 

Fun!

[hertsexile]

The alternative is termite contact by mutual consent Tommy then gets the freedom to pursue path as a free agent. 
City get the compensation payment due from whoever he signs for ?

This option also gives Tommy the option to push the self destruct button on his career if no offer materialises his choice. 
Okay we may get nothing but if he doesn’t want to be at the club then why waste the time 

[George Rs]

Don’t think there’s no interest, just think he’s not any prem clubs first target, which is understandable. 

Not on the same level as Alex but remember how late he went in the window, even with all the interest. 

Need 1 club to bite and then more will follow I think! 

[lenred]

8 minutes ago, George Rs said:

Don’t think there’s no interest, just think he’s not any prem clubs first target, which is understandable. 

Not on the same level as Alex but remember how late he went in the window, even with all the interest. 

Need 1 club to bite and then more will follow I think! 

I think all this upheaval will mean that any clubs that were interested will now just let the dust settle and leave it later into the window to play their hand - which won’t need to be anywhere near the amount it would’ve been had we been sensible about this. . One of the main reasons why this is such a crazy thing to have done.  

[Silvio Dante]

16 minutes ago, hertsexile said:

The alternative is termite contact by mutual consent Tommy then gets the freedom to pursue path as a free agent. 
City get the compensation payment due from whoever he signs for ?

This option also gives Tommy the option to push the self destruct button on his career if no offer materialises his choice. 
Okay we may get nothing but if he doesn’t want to be at the club then why waste the time 

I think that’d be a bit of a pest.

[George Rs]

Just now, lenred said:

I think all this upheaval will mean that any clubs that were interested will now just let the dust settle and leave it later into the window to play their hand - which won’t need to be anywhere near the amount it would’ve been had we been sensible about this. . One of the main reasons why this is such a crazy thing to have done.  

Oh yeah totally agree, we haven’t played this well financially imo, will probs be looking at 3-5 instead of 5+ I would assume and that’s being generous. 

 

[JoeAman08]

2 minutes ago, lenred said:

I think all this upheaval will mean that any clubs that were interested will now just let the dust settle and leave it later into the window to play their hand - which won’t need to be anywhere near the amount it would’ve been had we been sensible about this. . One of the main reasons why this is such a crazy thing to have done.  

I honestly don’t think it’ll make much difference. The fact is he has a year remaining. The fee was probably always going to be in the 2-4m range and this won’t change that imo. 
 

You don’t have to look further than Sinclair Armstrong. Last year of deal. Hope of resigning him pretty much gone and the fee was 1.5-2.5 rising to 2.5-3.5 range. 
 

Can teams try to play hard ball? Sure. Why pay 2.5m now when you can pay compensation in a year? Because just that reason there. You have to wait a year. If there are real suitors for TC, I don’t think we’ll be underselling too much for the scenario. Perhaps a bit less up front but I am sure we’d add sensible add ons and such. As a club, we have a track record of getting good fees and deals for our players over the last decade with differing people in charge. 

[steviestevieneville]

11 hours ago, Davefevs said:

From what Pete Hinton heard, maybe he’s principled too?

Principled in what way Dave ? I like Tommy & think he’s a very good finisher. Principled in we don’t play to his strengths under manning ? Did he turn down a contract when nige was with us ? At this point I really don’t think he’s good enough for the prem , & I can’t see any prem teams coming in for him . If his aspirations are for one of the Glasgow clubs then fine they’re big clubs in a Scottish goldfish bowl & if he’s nailing his colours to the mast of being a regular in a tartan shirt then good luck to him . There’s better ways of going about this though from both sides imo 

[bcfc01]

22 minutes ago, George Rs said:

Oh yeah totally agree, we haven’t played this well financially imo, will probs be looking at 3-5 instead of 5+ I would assume and that’s being generous. 

 

Very generous.

[Davefevs]

45 minutes ago, hertsexile said:

The alternative is termite contact by mutual consent Tommy then gets the freedom to pursue path as a free agent. 
City get the compensation payment due from whoever he signs for ?

This option also gives Tommy the option to push the self destruct button on his career if no offer materialises his choice. 
Okay we may get nothing but if he doesn’t want to be at the club then why waste the time 

If we cancel by mutual agreement…he’s a proper free agent, he wouldn’t be eligible for Compo.  This won’t happen!

21 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

I honestly don’t think it’ll make much difference. The fact is he has a year remaining. The fee was probably always going to be in the 2-4m range and this won’t change that imo. 
 

You don’t have to look further than Sinclair Armstrong. Last year of deal. Hope of resigning him pretty much gone and the fee was 1.5-2.5 rising to 2.5-3.5 range. 
 

Can teams try to play hard ball? Sure. Why pay 2.5m now when you can pay compensation in a year? Because just that reason there. You have to wait a year. If there are real suitors for TC, I don’t think we’ll be underselling too much for the scenario. Perhaps a bit less up front but I am sure we’d add sensible add ons and such. As a club, we have a track record of getting good fees and deals for our players over the last decade with differing people in charge. 

If that was always gonna be the fee why are we positioning him to those interested clubs at a significantly higher amount, and not prepared to budge.  There’s setting a high valuation and there’s setting a stupid valuation.  There’s being tough negotiators and there’s being stupid that means you don’t result in a sale.

5 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

Principled in what way Dave ? I like Tommy & think he’s a very good finisher. Principled in we don’t play to his strengths under manning ? Did he turn down a contract when nige was with us ? At this point I really don’t think he’s good enough for the prem , & I can’t see any prem teams coming in for him . If his aspirations are for one of the Glasgow clubs then fine they’re big clubs in a Scottish goldfish bowl & if he’s nailing his colours to the mast of being a regular in a tartan shirt then good luck to him . There’s better ways of going about this though from both sides imo 

Principled as in you offered me £x, then reneged and offered me the lower value of £y, ie the club are untrustworthy.

[redsontour]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Re FFP, I don’t think that’s the issue, it’s more the “what football makes it can spend”.  Where’s our next decent fee coming from?  SL is now only absorbing some of the losses, Scott and Semenyo have subsidised it for 2022/3 and 2023/4, and no doubt this season too, so you’re right, the need isn’t imminent.  But beyond?

For all the reasons @JoeAman08 mentioned in his earlier post.

Re the more recently bit, probably because Tinnion is bullish about everything City related.  He probably thinks he’ll sign now!

I like his enthusiasm for the club, but he needs to know when to be and about what!

“Dave from IT” has some inside knowledge of a couple of clubs City have been dealing with.

In many respects, planning the season without him is fine, I agree.

But the way we’ve gone about it will cost the club millions in lost transfer revenue.  That’s not a good plan imho.

In your opinion. 

Oh, and ‘Dave from IT’ was a fictional character and not supposed to represent persons living or dead…

[steviestevieneville]

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

If we cancel by mutual agreement…he’s a proper free agent, he wouldn’t be eligible for Compo.  This won’t happen!

If that was always gonna be the fee why are we positioning him to those interested clubs at a significantly higher amount, and not prepared to budge.  There’s setting a high valuation and there’s setting a stupid valuation.  There’s being tough negotiators and there’s being stupid that means you don’t result in a sale.

Principled as in you offered me £x, then reneged and offered me the lower value of £y, ie the club are untrustworthy.

Ah ok . I didn’t realise that had happened . Up to their old tricks again . It’s sad that I’m really happy I haven’t renewed my season ticket because of the clowns running the show , and I won’t until they’re gone . 

[NcnsBcfc]

I think anyone who listened to that Tinnion radio interview back in Jan over what they are looking for in a new number 9 "6ft 2inch, quick, strong" (ie Fally) knows that we were already looking at him not being him past this summer.

I've probably heard the same things as @petehinton 9 months ago, about the shenanigans of the summer last year and the impact it had on Conway at the start of last season.

The relationship between TC and City started to deteriorate 13-14 months ago and has never improved.

Can't help feeling that the way we've managed it though, is akin to this summer dealings (amateurish) at times. Verbal agreements, multiple bids going in for the same player. I think we've probably ended up with choices 2 and 4 in number 9 spot.

I do wonder if Conway would have signed if Pearson was still here, but the malaise started under Nigel's reign, so probably not.

 

Edited July 21 by NcnsBcfc

[PHILINFRANCE]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

I think that’d be a bit of a pest.

Indeed, I ant thought of that solution.

[Sir Geoff]

With Tommy banished to the U21's any club that wants him must be rubbing their hands in glee. Why pay a fee ?

Take him on a 12 month loan with obligation to sign him permanently in 12 months time.

Offer us £500k in lieu of the £300k compo in 12 months time.

[Davefevs]

59 minutes ago, redsontour said:

In your opinion. 

Oh, and ‘Dave from IT’ was a fictional character and not supposed to represent persons living or dead…

Yep, totally my opinion.  Happy to eat my hat (made of rice paper!!!) if we get within £3m of the valuation they’ve put out.

Yeah, I know, it made me chuckle though.

15 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

With Tommy banished to the U21's any club that wants him must be rubbing their hands in glee. Why pay a fee ?

Take him on a 12 month loan with obligation to sign him permanently in 12 months time.

Offer us £500k in lieu of the £300k compo in 12 months time.

I do wonder if a loan might end up being a feasible option.  The problem with options and obligations is gonna be that nuisance of a fee though.

[Sir Geoff]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Yep, totally my opinion.  Happy to eat my hat (made of rice paper!!!) if we get within £3m of the valuation they’ve put out.

Yeah, I know, it made me chuckle though.

I do wonder if a loan might end up being a feasible option.  The problem with options and obligations is gonna be that nuisance of a fee though.

The obligation in this scenario would be to Tommy and not us imo.  We get £500 k loan fee in lieu of £300k compo in 12 months time. This has turned into a totally unnecessary mess where there will only be one loser financially.

Unless there is competition for his signature or a club is desperate to sign him (neither seem likely) then we aren't getting any substantial fee this summer.

This has deadline day move( for undisclosed fee) plastered all over it imo.

[citywest30]

15 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yep, totally my opinion.  Happy to eat my hat (made of rice paper!!!) if we get within £3m of the valuation they’ve put out.

Yeah, I know, it made me chuckle though.

I do wonder if a loan might end up being a feasible option.  The problem with options and obligations is gonna be that nuisance of a fee though.

I'm guessing at a valuation in the 8m to 10m range. To be fair, I think that is a reasonable starting point even if we were to lower our demands.

[Davefevs]

8 minutes ago, citywest30 said:

I'm guessing at a valuation in the 8m to 10m range. To be fair, I think that is a reasonable starting point even if we were to lower our demands.

If that was our range….how much lower do you think we’d go?

The range of OTIB opinion is £2-3m.

[downendcity]

On 20/07/2024 at 10:58, HengroveReds said:

Chuck Conway in a deal to keep the QPR conveyor belt moving, Conway plus 4 million for Ilias chair

We can only dream

Is he Tommy's American cousin?

[Rob k]

3 hours ago, Robbored said:

Of course - however the difference between Scott and Conway is that AS was attracting lots of interested clubs and it looks as if that there’s been little or no interest in Conway.

That said - I saw a recent article that Rangers might be looking at him given his contractual status. Conway would probably do well in Scotland.

The difference between Conway and Scott is around 20m quid 

[downendcity]

3 hours ago, Robbored said:

Of course - however the difference between Scott and Conway is that AS was attracting lots of interested clubs and it looks as if that there’s been little or no interest in Conway.

That said - I saw a recent article that Rangers might be looking at him given his contractual status. Conway would probably do well in Scotland.

It obviously helps that he's now Scottish. 

[Robbored]

54 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

With Tommy banished to the U21's any club that wants him must be rubbing their hands in glee. Why pay a fee ?

Take him on a 12 month loan with obligation to sign him permanently in 12 months time.

Offer us £500k in lieu of the £300k compo in 12 months time.

That’s about  the best City could get out of the Conway scenario

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 hours ago, JoeAman08 said:

Didn’t Roberts have a good run of games? Knight Vyner and Dickie all maintained. I’d say Pring picked up a little. 
 

Not really the point I was making though. Form comes and goes at this level I think. Managers can change it. I remember Conway just not looking as lively all season, injured or not. 

No I get it. He is someone we should have tried to keep for sure. I don’t think singing his praises changes things though. I think regardless of how he suits the style, you hold optimism he would eventually. At that age I mean.
 

I just think it hasn’t worked out from the club’s perspective. That’s ok. Sure we miss out on a fee, but do we think we’ll need it soon? Is SL going to be pushing to the FFP limits anymore? There are still good assets in the side too, so I don’t think anyone views this as more than a one off where we couldn’t get the fee we wanted or get TC to sign. 

Roberts good point, yeah impressed by him towards the back end.

There are positives to take, problems lie higher up the chain tbh.

[redsontour]

36 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yep, totally my opinion.  Happy to eat my hat (made of rice paper!!!) if we get within £3m of the valuation they’ve put out.

What do you value him at and what value have they put out?

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, redsontour said:

What do you value him at and what value have they put out?

In this window under the current circumstances I “value” him at £3m, ie I think that’s what amount we’d get now.  That might go down by Aug 31st.

Not my place to put out the amount.  That would get the person who told me into trouble.  Sorry.

[cheddarwedlocker]

Just now, Davefevs said:

In this window under the current circumstances I “value” him at £3m, ie I think that’s what amount we’d get now.  That might go down by Aug 31st.

Not my place to put out the amount.  That would get the person who told me into trouble.  Sorry.

We also value him at 3m fevs. 

Burnley value him at 4.

Thats the problem 

[Sir Geoff]

34 minutes ago, cheddarwedlocker said:

We also value him at 3m fevs. 

Burnley value him at 4.

Thats the problem 

Why would Burnley value Conway at £1 million more than us ?

[Silvio Dante]

Just now, Sir Geoff said:

Why would Burnley value Conway at £1 million more than us ?

I think @cheddarwedlocker is confused and is talking about Twine. We seem to have a lot on crossed threads at the moment and I’m about to add to it - as I just posted on the Stansfield thread if this is true, it’s a real indication that we’ve massively priced Conway out of the market:

 

[cheddarwedlocker]

1 minute ago, Silvio Dante said:

I think @cheddarwedlocker is confused and is talking about Twine. We seem to have a lot on crossed threads at the moment and I’m about to add to it - as I just posted on the Stansfield thread if this is true, it’s a real indication that we’ve massively priced Conway out of the market:

 

Sorry SD, didnt realise this was the Conway thread

[JoeAman08]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

If we cancel by mutual agreement…he’s a proper free agent, he wouldn’t be eligible for Compo.  This won’t happen!

If that was always gonna be the fee why are we positioning him to those interested clubs at a significantly higher amount, and not prepared to budge.  There’s setting a high valuation and there’s setting a stupid valuation.  There’s being tough negotiators and there’s being stupid that means you don’t result in a sale.

Principled as in you offered me £x, then reneged and offered me the lower value of £y, ie the club are untrustworthy.

Idk not a question for me. We overvalued him I guess. We’ve misread the market? We based it off other sales in the past? Like I said, we have been pretty good at getting good fees. We got this one wrong. Ok but I don’t think we should over react to it. If it becomes a pattern, sure we should be critical. 
 

I think before last season started, we’d have valued him here at 10m plus. Perhaps as high as 15. Maybe we are asking 8m with that in mind? Not unreasonable. I’ve been critical of selling too soon before. So I can’t be critical of not selling TC coming off a more impressive season(imo).
 

This however is the risk you take keeping a player for an extra season. We can say all we want about giving him a new contract in the summer then. Just too many factors go into that to beat the club up over that. I think it has just gone worst case over the last year. It isn’t a regular occurrence so I’m not going to be critical. It’s been a good summer and not letting decisions from 12-18 months ago cloud that. It just hasn’t worked out. If it happens again, then maybe we have a problem. 

[bcfc01]

U21s have a friendly at WSM tuesday night while 1st team squad are in Aldershot.

Wonder if Tommy will be playing at WSM ?

 

[Redshorts]

1 minute ago, bcfc01 said:

U21s have a friendly at WSM tuesday night while 1st team squad are in Aldershot.

Wonder if Tommy will be playing at WSM ?

 

Isn't there 2 games on Tuesday? I would imagine some of the u21 including Conway would be involved in Aldershot or Newport game. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, Redshorts said:

Isn't there 2 games on Tuesday? I would imagine some of the u21 including Conway would be involved in Aldershot or Newport game. 

Given the Aldershot game is first team and Conway seemingly demoted, not a chance he is involved at Aldershot surely?

[bcfc01]

3 minutes ago, Redshorts said:

Isn't there 2 games on Tuesday? I would imagine some of the u21 including Conway would be involved in Aldershot or Newport game. 

That was the question really, badly framed.

Will Tommy be part of the Newport afternoon game, Aldershot evening game, or the U21s evening game ?

I'm guessing the U21s.

 

[GrahamC]

57 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

I think @cheddarwedlocker is confused and is talking about Twine. We seem to have a lot on crossed threads at the moment and I’m about to add to it - as I just posted on the Stansfield thread if this is true, it’s a real indication that we’ve massively priced Conway out of the market:

 

If he’s still getting fed this stuff by Tinnion I have to say this is madness.

In different circumstances (like Conway with 2 or 3 years left on his deal) l rate him highly, then for me he’s worth a minimum of £5m, but that isn’t where we are.

A 21 year old who scored around the same number of goals in the Championship as TC last season is worth at least the same amount for a club under no pressure to sell.

That’s before we get to how we would accommodate him, one of Mayulu & Armstrong, plus whoever we are playing up front.

Hmm..

[Lrrr]

2 hours ago, cheddarwedlocker said:

We also value him at 3m fevs. 

Burnley value him at 4.

Thats the problem 

You’d think we would have actually bid £3m if we rated him at that then…..

[cheddarwedlocker]

5 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

You’d think we would have actually bid £3m if we rated him at that then…..

I think we probably have, mate

[citywest30]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

If that was our range….how much lower do you think we’d go?

The range of OTIB opinion is £2-3m.

I'd be disappointed if we went lower than 4m and think we should be getting 5m if we paid nearly 2m for Sinclair.

[Glen hump]

1 hour ago, bcfc01 said:

U21s have a friendly at WSM tuesday night while 1st team squad are in Aldershot.

Wonder if Tommy will be playing at WSM ?

 

I’d say no chance.

[bcfc01]

13 minutes ago, Glen hump said:

I’d say no chance.

You think part of the first team squads for Newport & Aldershot ?

Or not playing full stop ?

[Glen hump]

8 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

You think part of the first team squads for Newport & Aldershot ?

Or not playing full stop ?

Not playing full stop

[petehinton]

23 minutes ago, citywest30 said:

I'd be disappointed if we went lower than 4m and think we should be getting 5m if we paid nearly 2m for Sinclair.

I’d prepare to be disappointed then…

The majority of clubs have seen that we’ve really shown our hand already. We effectively dont want him. Why pay through the nose for someone, when you’re doing the selling club a favour, and can also sign him in 6 months for peanuts?

[mozo]

8 minutes ago, petehinton said:

I’d prepare to be disappointed then…

The majority of clubs have seen that we’ve really shown our hand already. We effectively dont want him. Why pay through the nose for someone, when you’re doing the selling club a favour, and can also sign him in 6 months for peanuts?

The only thing that could drive the price up is multiple cash rich clubs competing to get him in the here and now.

I'm not aware of that scenario existing though, so my prediction of a season long loan, potentially with a commitment to buy still remains.

[Robbored]

22 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

You think part of the first team squads for Newport & Aldershot ?

Or not playing full stop ?

It’s clear that by not signing a new contract that Conway won’t be in Mannings long term plans - hence TC being excluded from the first team.  it’s common practice for pretty much all managers that if they have a player who’s turning down a new deal that said player is excluded from the first team.

Absolutely no chance that TC will be in any preseason matches. Manning will want to look at the players who are contracted to City.

The poor advice he’s received has all backfired for him.

As for Conways value - it’s whatever the buyer is prepared to pay or simply wait until he’s OOC.

Edited July 21 by Robbored

[Mr Popodopolous]

I definitely think he has received poor advice and had a poor agent.

However I wonder what SL must think, from the nest egg, perhaps the chance of clawing back something even through e.g. loan repayments or small ones- millions potentially just potentially down the drain.

Technically he is the owner so must have signed off on it but it seems a rather petulant, emotionally driven move too.

[cotswoldred2]

20 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I definitely think he has received poor advice and had a poor agent.

However I wonder what SL must think, from the nest egg, perhaps the chance of clawing back something even through e.g. loan repayments or small ones- millions potentially just potentially down the drain.

Technically he is the owner so must have signed off on it but it seems a rather petulant, emotionally driven move too.

Agree with the bad advice seems like too soon for any move, but can 'we' drop the nest egg derogatory comments? 

Cheers.

[Mr Popodopolous]

13 minutes ago, cotswoldred2 said:

Agree with the bad advice seems like too soon for any move, but can 'we' drop the nest egg derogatory comments? 

Cheers.

I don't see where you are coming from. I don't think he is dipping into the fees or anything, I'm just saying theoretically he could legally to repay bits of debt.

SL stated the nest egg last summer, has the dial moved notably?

I'm just saying why would he sign off on Conway to the U21? I don't see it enhancing value on or off the pitch.

Edited July 21 by Mr Popodopolous

[Sir Geoff]

9 minutes ago, cotswoldred2 said:

Agree with the bad advice seems like too soon for any move, but can 'we' drop the nest egg derogatory comments? 

Cheers.

Not derogatory. They are Lansdowns actual words.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Sir Geoff said:

Not derogatory. They are Lansdowns actual words.

Exactly.

Where I may have sown confusion was the bit about he might secure a bit of any fee to repay a bit of debt..however I don't truly believe it and there is nothing unlawful even if he ever did.

[petehinton]

11 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I don't see where you are coming from. I don't think he is dipping into the fees or anything, I'm just saying theoretically he could legally to repay bits of debt.

SL our wise leader stated the nest egg last summer, has the dial moved notably?

I'm just saying why would he sign off on Conway to the U21? I don't see it enhancing value on or off the pitch.

I personally think he’s the driving force behind it. 
 

“I’ve made you, and this is how you repay me?” Type vibes. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, petehinton said:

I personally think he’s the driving force behind it. 
 

“I’ve made you, and this is how you repay me?” Type vibes. 

That would be intriguing, I didn't have him down as so petty though.

Jon and or Brian moreso.

Edited July 21 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

It’s clear that by not signing a new contract that Conway won’t be in Mannings long term plans - hence TC being excluded from the first team.  it’s common practice for pretty much all managers that if they have a player who’s turning down a new deal that said player is excluded from the first team.

Absolutely no chance that TC will be in any preseason matches. Manning will want to look at the players who are contracted to City.

The poor advice he’s received has all backfired for him.

As for Conways value - it’s whatever the buyer is prepared to pay or simply wait until he’s OOC.

Is it?

It’s such common practice we rarely hear it, so when it does happen it’s a bit of a shock.  So not common place at all.

[Mr Popodopolous]

What sort of compensation do we get it it comes down to that- or is it literally a bit of a coin toss?

Ian has stated £2.5m the other day plus add-ons.

Edited July 21 by Mr Popodopolous

[NcnsBcfc]

3 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

I think @cheddarwedlocker is confused and is talking about Twine. We seem to have a lot on crossed threads at the moment and I’m about to add to it - as I just posted on the Stansfield thread if this is true, it’s a real indication that we’ve massively priced Conway out of the market:

 

What's you Twitter name @Silvio Dante?

As you can see I'm not letting Mr Gay off this time

[Lrrr]

2 hours ago, cheddarwedlocker said:

I think we probably have, mate

I think we probably haven't, mate