Tommy Conway - Signs for 'Boro- Official

[johnheadbcfc]

If this wasn't a local lad most people on here wouldn't give a crap if he was stuck in the reserves.

[Glen hump]

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

A little over 5 weeks to find a solution  that works for everyone.

Transfer Deadline is 30th August 11pm this year.

Can’t wait until it shuts.

[Glen hump]

1 minute ago, johnheadbcfc said:

If this wasn't a local lad most people on here wouldn't give a crap if he was stuck in the reserves.

I don’t think it’s because he’s local’ it’s because he’s a good player’ if he was crap then nobody’s bothered 

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, Glen hump said:

Can’t wait until it shuts.

The sooner the better if bridges have been burned, but it is a shame really.

Just trying to think of equivalent scenarios where this is done by Championship clubs with hitherto key players of a good age. It seems pretty hard to draw comparables.

Edited July 25 by Mr Popodopolous

[Martin G]

From all I have read Liam Manning expects Tommy to leave in this window so is training with the players who will be here after 1st September. This would seem to make sense. Why practice a system with a player who will most likely not be here. Nothing against Tommy or his attitude, just common sense. Club ensuring Tommy is fit and working on his game in under 21s.

If we get to 1st September and Tommy still with the club there is no reason why he cannot re join first team squad. Tommy is a adult and Liam is an adult. 
It seems to me as fans we make a mountain out of a simple logical approach.

[W-S-M Seagull]

56 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

You would imagine that the Manager made his decision after talks with Tommy.

I respect your opinion but I'm backing the Manager to make choices in the best interests of the football club rather than vindictiveness.

Why are we not allowed to question an inexperienced head coaches decision?

[Major Isewater]

16 minutes ago, johnheadbcfc said:

If this wasn't a local lad most people on here wouldn't give a crap if he was stuck in the reserves.

I don’t agree . It’s our top scorer for last season stuck in the reserves . I doubt that the provenance of the player  has much , if any , bearing on the incomprehension. 
 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, Major Isewater said:

I don’t agree . It’s our top scorer for last season stuck in the reserves . I doubt that the provenance of the player  has much , if any , bearing on the incomprehension. 
 

Top scorer for the last 2 seasons possibly? Not certain though.

[JoeAman08]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Being facetious, what about all the other players win their final year of their contract?  Wells, Bajic, Naismith to name three.

I look forward to hearing Tommy’s side of it…I doubt we will though.

That’s not rocket science though is it? The club are not sure if it is worth keeping those players beyond this year. It is up to then to earn new deals. 
 

Conway earned his and got the offer. He rejected which is fine but also didn’t want to negotiate. Ok then we will focus on building the players who want to be here longer. That’s all it is. 
 

This forum bemoans the club for selling for business reasons. Then bemoan a football decision because it isn’t good for business. This isn’t a petty decision. It is a calculated decision that tells everyone else that we won’t accept passengers. It isn’t as if we don’t have forward options. Bought two new forwards. Bell and Wells still here. Sykes and Mehmeti to play in and around them. 
 

I’m not sure how TC’s side can be spun positively either. And I am sure any story you possibly get from that side wouldn’t be the full truth either. It’ll be he was offered 8k a week but Wells is on 14k and they wanted that. Wells has earned 14k  at his age and ability. Is he worth more than TC? At the time he signed he was. It stinks of TC and his agent thinking far too much of where he is as a player right now imo. Don’t get me wrong, I can see a low ball offer from City.

I just think whatever you hear from both sides will be the extreme in their favour. There is bad blood in the relationship somewhere. Maybe it is the club maybe the player/agent. I just think this is a one off situation and it is being handled just fine. There is no indication that this will become commonplace at this moment. 

[Harry]

56 minutes ago, stortfordred said:

I have been refreshing this thread from time to time. It’s now on Page 63; page 63 is very much like every one of the previous pages since he was banished. It’s soooooo boring. I’m going all Robbored and waiting until I read something on the official website cos basically this somewhat  speculation and Champ Manager style ‘he’s worth x’ ‘no he’s worth y’ repeated over and over is not helping the club, Tommy or anyone else. 

I must admit I’ve probably only read about 10 of the 63 pages, and that would have been early on, so I don’t know how much the last couple of pages mirror the previous 60, but I can’t possibly agree with your final sentence. 
What does a few fans having a bit of speculation and debate on an independent forum have anything to do with how the club and/or Tommy are viewed and that it isn’t helping anyone?? 
 

The only parties that are not “helping themselves” in this saga are Tommy Conway and his agent plus Bristol City’s manager and tech director. 
Nothing the fans will say on these pages has any detriment, impact or effect on anything. 
I find that a bit of an odd take, to be honest, without meaning any disrespect, sir. 
 

[Ska Junkie]

31 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Why are we not allowed to question an inexperienced head coaches decision?

Of course everyone is allowed, I've never said otherwise, but it's pure guesswork and hypothesis. None of us know anything that's been said or intimated apart from 'Tommy has made it clear he wants to leave BCFC'. That's it!

Question Liam all you want, that's the point of a discussion forum but, in this case, given what we actually know, I'll back the Managers decision.

Edited July 25 by Ska Junkie

[RedorDead BCFC]

2 hours ago, Harry said:

If you consider £2m to be plain daft, then we’re talking what you may describe as super daft, with bells on. 

Gold, silver or brass bells? 

[Ska Junkie]

1 minute ago, RedorDead BCFC said:

Gold, silver or brass bells? 

Mickey and Sam?

[Harry]

3 minutes ago, RedorDead BCFC said:

Gold, silver or brass bells? 

Tinker. 
 

As in “neverland” 

[Davefevs]

45 minutes ago, johnheadbcfc said:

If this wasn't a local lad most people on here wouldn't give a crap if he was stuck in the reserves.

Haha, what a ridiculous thing for a Bristol City fan to say about any player worth millions of pounds (more millions until recently).  What’s his locality got to do with it?

[RedorDead BCFC]

10 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

Mickey and Sam?

 

8 minutes ago, Harry said:

Tinker. 
 

As in “neverland” 

Internet so slow here in Cyprus that you two actually replied before it showed my post had posted. 
Or you both may be physic 

Edited July 25 by RedorDead BCFC

[petehinton]

3 hours ago, Harry said:

 

I have to agree with Lrrr here Ska. 
Point 2 is incredibly valid, for me. 
 

I’ve heard some figures on the rumour mill as to the valuation we hold for Tommy.

If we are wanting what I think we’re wanting, then this means we consider Tommy to be a key asset. 
Football is a finance driven world nowadays, whether we like it or not. 
If we have an expensive asset, and we want to maximise the value on that asset, the worst possible course of action is to freeze that asset out of the squad. 
Even if we don’t intend on starting him, he should at least be ‘visible’ in the squad. To the outside world, as soon as they see he’s been frozen out, then his value will drop. 
The club need to at least keep up the pretence that Tommy is still wanted. As soon as we publically stated that he’s not wanted then his valuation will have plummeted. 
and as I say, the ridiculous valuation we put on him already was a nonsense, so now that he’s frozen out, no one is ever gonna come anywhere near that valuation. 
 

The club have taken the worst possible stance on this. Not only freezing out their largest possible asset, but also publically stating the fact, for the whole of the football world to know. 
 

Best course of action would be to keep him in the squad and at least keep up the pretence that he’s a City player and that we still want him to stay. 

Yep. Said to @Davefevs the other day, the situation the club have created, imho means now i’d be extremely surprised (and happy) if we got anything north of £1m.  

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, petehinton said:

Yep. Said to @Davefevs the other day, the situation the club have created, imho means now i’d be extremely surprised (and happy) if we got anything north of £1m.  

I think we will get more than that in fairness

[Supersonic Robin]

1 hour ago, johnheadbcfc said:

If this wasn't a local lad most people on here wouldn't give a crap if he was stuck in the reserves.

FWIW, my frustration with our course of action is nothing to do with how much I do/don't like Tommy Conway and his background at the club.

My frustration is that I'm a Bristol City supporter, and our course of action doesn't appear to be in the best interests of Bristol City Football Club.

Among other things, we may have "achieved" a 7 figure reduction in the fee we can receive for Conway. Look at our transfer business this summer - that's not a neglible amount of money for us to be missing out on.

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, Supersonic Robin said:

FWIW, my frustration with our course of action is nothing to do with how much I do/don't like Tommy Conway and his background at the club.

My frustration is that I'm a Bristol City supporter, and our course of action doesn't appear to be in the best interests of Bristol City Football Club.

Among other things, we may have "achieved" a 7 figure reduction in the fee we can receive for Conway. Look at our transfer business this summer - that's not a neglible amount of money for us to be missing out on.

My view since it broke too SR.

I wonder when the reality will dawn further up the hierarchy?

[johnheadbcfc]

38 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Haha, what a ridiculous thing for a Bristol City fan to say about any player worth millions of pounds (more millions until recently).  What’s his locality got to do with it?

Maybe I don't share your opinion of how good you think he is ?

[Davefevs]

13 minutes ago, johnheadbcfc said:

Maybe I don't share your opinion of how good you think he is ?

Well the club do think he is, and you usually support everything the club says!

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, City Slicker said:

I'm with you, Dave. I was feeling quite positive about the new season, but I'm also very concerned about where our goals will come from. I've watched both the Newport and Aldershot games, and what I've seen worries me (Striker wise). I can only base my opinion on the limited time I've watched, which isn't much, but I'm not convinced that Armstrong and Fally will hit the ground running. That leaves us with Wells and, erm, Cornick.

We didn't score enough last year, and I'm really concerned that we don't have the time to bed these relatively fresh players in. I'm normally a glass-half-full kind of guy, but as it stands and at the time of writing, I'm not convinced. I'm hoping my trip to Cheltenham will change my opinion. I know I sound harsh, but you kind of get a gut feeling about these things, don't you?

I really hope that I'm wrong as we now have a 10-15 goal a season striker in the U21s. 

I wonder if we will get 7 Penalties this year too? That always gives a pretty good chance of scoring but gut feeling says more normal levels.

I tend to agree with your post. (We were 19th for xG for when stripping out penalties for all).

QPR, Millwall, Sheffield Wednesday and Rotherham we outscored if not for penalties. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[Silvio Dante]

18 minutes ago, johnheadbcfc said:

Maybe I don't share your opinion of how good you think he is ?

 

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Well the club do think he is, and you usually support everything the club says!

Indeed. I’m not sure why some find it hard to grasp this as it’s been said multiple times, but it doesn’t matter how good any of us think Conway is. The club, however, think he is that good based on what they’re valuing him at and the manner they’ve gone about things has lessened their chances of getting that value.

Peoples personal opinion of Conways ability or conduct is totally irrelevant here. It is simply a case of whether we will recover a value in line with what the club feel he’s worth due to their actions, and the answer there is absolutely not!

The rest, having made the decision to sell, is noise.

[JoeAman08]

29 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

 

Indeed. I’m not sure why some find it hard to grasp this as it’s been said multiple times, but it doesn’t matter how good any of us think Conway is. The club, however, think he is that good based on what they’re valuing him at and the manner they’ve gone about things has lessened their chances of getting that value.

Peoples personal opinion of Conways ability or conduct is totally irrelevant here. It is simply a case of whether we will recover a value in line with what the club feel he’s worth due to their actions, and the answer there is absolutely not!

The rest, having made the decision to sell, is noise.

The point is the club also valued him as a player which is why he got offered a new deal. He doesn’t value the club by his lack of negotiation. So I think some of us are having a hard time grasping why so many seem to be defensive about the stand the club took. 
 

Yes he is talented but he isn’t in the top 5 best players at the club last season imo.  It seems like he thinks he is the best and not only that but with the value of a Lloyd Kelly, Antoine Semenyo or Alex Scott. The full or correct information that we receive aside, I think most would agree TC has more developing to do. He was afforded opportunity here and would have continued to get the games and faith had he signed a new deal. This has been strung out far too long for whatever reasons and the club said that is enough now. I think good on them for being decisive and setting the standard. 
 

Now the standard should be to develop the players committed to the club. If September arrives and he’s still training with the u21s then I can agree there is an element of petty going on. Who‘S pettiness? We won’t know but until then I think it is fair to focus on others. 

[citywest30]

6 hours ago, Lrrr said:

There’s a difference between not being committed and not signing a new deal, from what everyone’s seen of Tommy do people really believe he’s the type who wouldn’t give it his all? He’s very professional and he knows downing tools would be a poor indictment of him. Essentially all Tommy has said is he doesn’t want to play for City beyond the 24/25 season. 

But in making that decision, he must have known this was a possible outcome.

What disappoints me is he has been at City since 7yrs old. You hear of other players signing new contracts to get their club a decent transfer fee even tho they want to move on. I'd have liked to think he would have done the same.

[Silvio Dante]

10 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

The point is the club also valued him as a player which is why he got offered a new deal. He doesn’t value the club by his lack of negotiation. So I think some of us are having a hard time grasping why so many seem to be defensive about the stand the club took. 
 

Yes he is talented but he isn’t in the top 5 best players at the club last season imo.  It seems like he thinks he is the best and not only that but with the value of a Lloyd Kelly, Antoine Semenyo or Alex Scott. The full or correct information that we receive aside, I think most would agree TC has more developing to do. He was afforded opportunity here and would have continued to get the games and faith had he signed a new deal. This has been strung out far too long for whatever reasons and the club said that is enough now. I think good on them for being decisive and setting the standard. 
 

Now the standard should be to develop the players committed to the club. If September arrives and he’s still training with the u21s then I can agree there is an element of petty going on. Who‘S pettiness? We won’t know but until then I think it is fair to focus on others. 

Slightly not the point really mate - it’s totally irrelevant whether he’s not in the best five players in the club in your opinion (or indeed mine) - it’s relevant having made the decision to sell whether the clubs actions have increased or decreased the chances of getting best value. @Lrrr summed this up nicely earlier. The club have the ability to make whatever stance they want but if they:

- Show a desperation to sell

- Ostracise the player so potential suitors can’t see him play, even for the U21s

Then both of those naturally reduce the price. Thats simple economics of supply/demand etc. Now, if you want to make the argument that the reduced price is an acceptable outcome of resolving the situation that’s fine (I’ve not seen anyone make this argument btw but it’s a lot more coherent then the “well he’s shit/arrogant/delete as applicable” one) but the reduced price is the reality and that has been the consistent point that has been made through this thread.

And with respect, that part shouldn’t be hard to grasp.

[JoeAman08]

6 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Slightly not the point really mate - it’s totally irrelevant whether he’s not in the best five players in the club in your opinion (or indeed mine) - it’s relevant having made the decision to sell whether the clubs actions have increased or decreased the chances of getting best value. @Lrrr summed this up nicely earlier. The club have the ability to make whatever stance they want but if they:

- Show a desperation to sell

- Ostracise the player so potential suitors can’t see him play, even for the U21s

Then both of those naturally reduce the price. Thats simple economics of supply/demand etc. Now, if you want to make the argument that the reduced price is an acceptable outcome of resolving the situation that’s fine (I’ve not seen anyone make this argument btw but it’s a lot more coherent then the “well he’s shit/arrogant/delete as applicable” one) but the reduced price is the reality and that has been the consistent point that has been made through this thread.

And with respect, that part shouldn’t be hard to grasp.

The point about top 5 is he is valuing himself as such. This is where we have stalled.
 

In terms of max value, that shipped sailed in January. No one in their right mind would have supported that in January. This contract thing has been public. Anyone can search Tommy Conway and contract and see he has had an offer for awhile and not signed it. This I am sure goes back to even when NP was here. This is an upper brass issue. His value has already plummeted in any case. Idk what we are asking and with all due respect to people “itk” we’ll never know what the club is asking for and whether it is appropriate. In any case, we won’t be getting what we all thought we could get for him just 12 months ago.
 

So no, I don’t think dropping him into the u21 is doing anything for his value. His value dropped when the season ended. He won’t be costing us much and is probably worth having around in an emergency circumstance on his out of the academy wage for 6-12 months rather than selling now for 750k when we’ll get 3-400k for him anyway in 12 months at worst. 

[PHILINFRANCE]

Should this saga continue to stagnate, there is a (remote) possibility that TC could still be here come January 2025, and, as such,  available to e.g. Rangers for a cut price £300,000.

To put this in to perspective, this is the same price as City paid a few years ago for a certain Matty Taylor. 

Frightening! 

[mozo]

3 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

The point about top 5 is he is valuing himself as such. This is where we have stalled.
 

In terms of max value, that shipped sailed in January. No one in their right mind would have supported that in January. This contract thing has been public. Anyone can search Tommy Conway and contract and see he has had an offer for awhile and not signed it. This I am sure goes back to even when NP was here. This is an upper brass issue. His value has already plummeted in any case. Idk what we are asking and with all due respect to people “itk” we’ll never know what the club is asking for and whether it is appropriate. In any case, we won’t be getting what we all thought we could get for him just 12 months ago.
 

So no, I don’t think dropping him into the u21 is doing anything for his value. His value dropped when the season ended. He won’t be costing us much and is probably worth having around in an emergency circumstance on his out of the academy wage for 6-12 months rather than selling now for 750k when we’ll get 3-400k for him anyway in 12 months at worst. 

I'm inclined to agree with you.

Isn't it normal for a club to be punchy with their valuation at the 18 month stage of the contract?

Ivan Toney was valued at £80m not long ago (rumoured) in November. Let's see what he eventually goes for. Cut price, I'd imagine.

Like you say, Conway stalling on a contract has been public knowledge. I also asked, do we know that his agent wasn't spreading Conway's intention?

For all we (I) know, Conway's value was already doomed. 

Happy for someone to set me straight on this though!!

[Midred]

2 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Why are we not allowed to question an inexperienced head coaches decision?

On the off chance that you have more experience than  Manning what would you ask him?

[Davefevs]

33 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

Yes he is talented but he isn’t in the top 5 best players at the club last season imo.  It seems like he thinks he is the best and not only that but with the value of a Lloyd Kelly, Antoine Semenyo or Alex Scott. The full or correct information that we receive aside, I think most would agree TC has more developing to do. He was afforded opportunity here and would have continued to get the games and faith had he signed a new deal. This has been strung out far too long for whatever reasons and the club said that is enough now. I think good on them for being decisive and setting the standard. 

He’s still 21, of course he’s got developing to do.

Worth listening to FBC pod today (around 50 mins inwards).  If true, that’s why he isn’t negotiating.  It’s a point of principle.  I can see no other reason why best part of a year ago with best part of two years on his contract he stopped negotiating.

25 minutes ago, citywest30 said:

But in making that decision, he must have known this was a possible outcome.

What disappoints me is he has been at City since 7yrs old. You hear of other players signing new contracts to get their club a decent transfer fee even tho they want to move on. I'd have liked to think he would have done the same.

See above.

[Davefevs]

8 minutes ago, mozo said:

I'm inclined to agree with you.

Isn't it normal for a club to be punchy with their valuation at the 18 month stage of the contract?

Ivan Toney was valued at £80m not long ago (rumoured) in November. Let's see what he eventually goes for. Cut price, I'd imagine.

Like you say, Conway stalling on a contract has been public knowledge. I also asked, do we know that his agent wasn't spreading Conway's intention?

For all we (I) know, Conway's value was already doomed. 

Happy for someone to set me straight on this though!!

Absolutely the club’s prerogative to be “punchy”.  But if you don’t get anywhere near that, you starting edging towards an OOC fee.  FWIW I think if Tommy is still here next summer there will be enough interest for it not to be guaranteed that it’s Scottish-compo.  I think an English club would blow the big-2 out of the window (or is it water).  So there’s a very good chance we get English-compo.  The decision for City is what amount they get for him in this window, and how far they are willing to drop to get it done this summer.

Edited July 25 by Davefevs

[johnheadbcfc]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Well the club do think he is, and you usually support everything the club says!

️

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, johnheadbcfc said:

️

Indeed, club rate him higher than I do.

[JoeAman08]

22 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

He’s still 21, of course he’s got developing to do.

Worth listening to FBC pod today (around 50 mins inwards).  If true, that’s why he isn’t negotiating.  It’s a point of principle.  I can see no other reason why best part of a year ago with best part of two years on his contract he stopped negotiating.

See above.

Yes but my point about developing is he is still at BCFC stage of his development. He has been loved and trusted here. Under both NP and LM. Okay, a bit harder perhaps under LM for him but still trusted. Yes he’d be better in a two but how many teams do that? He has to get better at being a lone striker either way. However, the patience for his development might not be as great somewhere else as the patience here. He’s been misguided and I think it is fair the club have taken this stance in that case. He may go to a bigger club but I’m not sure he’d be a regular at this stage of his career at those type of clubs

[marmite]

Just to be clear, honest question.  Who is it at our club that would have decided what was put in the contract? If its  been on the table for a year or so then quite a few people have left the club over that period. Would the contract have been drawn up by someone who is still employed?  Surely its not JL or Tins, and SL now takes a backseat.

May not be relevant of course if Conway wants to leave whatever.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just watching some of the Podcast, the 50 mins on section. Ian raised 2 but the context not so much.

Basso was an example of being banished albeit he played a few games and was surely quite late in his career by then?

Orr was closer in age range but he was back a few weeks later and he did sign a new deal latterly.

It would be uncharted territory of it came to it, for us to sit Conway out for the whole season. The chance of him signing a new deal is surely zero.

[DT The Optimist]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

It would be uncharted territory of it came to it, for us to sit Conway out for the whole season. The chance of him signing a new deal is surely zero.

How long was HNM out of favour with Nige? Half a season? 
Really worked out well for HNM at Burnley. Apart from ££££££ in his bank account pretty crap last year…Game time negligible.  Could have been playing championship football or in the squad. 
pretty similar scenario with Tommy.

suspect end same way

 

[Robbored]

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

lIt would be uncharted territory of it came to it, for us to sit Conway out for the whole season. The chance of him signing a new deal is surely zero.

Manning has continued to develop his own squad without TC by adding two more strikers in Fally and Armstrong and could include Hirakawa who’s likely  to be another goal resource all providing competition for Wells and Cornick. The new guy Bird has a goal him as well

The bottom line is that Manning doesn’t need Conway any longer.

[PHILINFRANCE]

10 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Manning has continued to develop his own squad without TC by adding two more strikers in Fally and Armstrong and could include Hirakawa who’s likely  to be another goal resource all providing competition for Wells and Cornick. The new guy Bird has a goal him as well

The bottom line is that Manning doesn’t need Conway any longer.

Manning’s needs aside (and I’m not sure I even agree with this anyway), what about City’s needs, i.e. a multi million £ transfer as opposed to several thousand £?

In addition, what about TC’s needs?

Is he really the spoilt, ungrateful kid some on here make him out to be, or a young man, committed and loyal to the club from the age of seven, who has received some dubious advice from his agent?

[38MC]

20 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Manning has continued to develop his own squad without TC by adding two more strikers in Fally and Armstrong and could include Hirakawa who’s likely  to be another goal resource all providing competition for Wells and Cornick. The new guy Bird has a goal him as well

The bottom line is that Manning doesn’t need Conway any longer.

Don’t discount that Manning might not be here that much longer so what he wants or needs in respect of saleable assets becomes less important. 

It’s clear the club are reticent to give him a blank cheque book - look at Twine, we absolutely could have, if the executives wanted to, cleared out that deal a long time ago. The board are clearly reticent and I really doubt it’s because of a million here or there to a billionaire. 

The reality is Manning hasn’t really set the world alight, the board aren’t backing him to any large extent and are digging their heels over pocket change to a billionaire for a player that Manning clearly sees as the missing piece in the jigsaw.

The average manager lasts around 10 months in the championship. Given how the summer has gone - a loan player, a young player with room to grow and an obscure punt, Manning better be hoping luck is on his side. 

Given our valuation of Tommy, I call it a coin flop who’s the first out the door. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

39 minutes ago, DT The Optimist said:

How long was HNM out of favour with Nige? Half a season? 
Really worked out well for HNM at Burnley. Apart from ££££££ in his bank account pretty crap last year…Game time negligible.  Could have been playing championship football or in the squad. 
pretty similar scenario with Tommy.

suspect end same way

 

It was mid October and he got his loan move to Auxerre sometime in January. 

Ditto Bentley, the Wolves sale.

Were they expressly banished to the U21s however?

Edited July 25 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, JoeAman08 said:

Yes but my point about developing is he is still at BCFC stage of his development. He has been loved and trusted here. Under both NP and LM. Okay, a bit harder perhaps under LM for him but still trusted. Yes he’d be better in a two but how many teams do that? He has to get better at being a lone striker either way. However, the patience for his development might not be as great somewhere else as the patience here. He’s been misguided and I think it is fair the club have taken this stance in that case. He may go to a bigger club but I’m not sure he’d be a regular at this stage of his career at those type of clubs

It’s not about playing one up top / lone striker, it’s about service, it’s about combinations, pairings, etc.

Just to ask you a question - if you did believe the stories of a reneged contract and a subsequent one for less that you agreed, what would you think of Tommy’s actions, ie won’t negotiate?

1 hour ago, marmite said:

Just to be clear, honest question.  Who is it at our club that would have decided what was put in the contract? If its  been on the table for a year or so then quite a few people have left the club over that period. Would the contract have been drawn up by someone who is still employed?  Surely its not JL or Tins, and SL now takes a backseat.

May not be relevant of course if Conway wants to leave whatever.

@ExiledAjax is probably your man for the actual legalese writing of the various clauses over and the above the standard contract and schedule of payments.  We may even outsource it?

But ultimately the financials would be signed off above Nige or Liam’s level…I doubt either have much day on the numbers other than how much budget it uses up and fit with wage structure.  It would be sensible to have some understanding of the financials when building a squad.  My guess is a combo of Technical Director with assistance of CEO / pseudo CEO putting a case to JL to what should be spent.

Happy to have my guesswork corrected.

[Kibs]

Let’s be honest, it wouldn’t be the first time we’ve tried to move the goalpost when negotiating/completing deals, so it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if it was true.

We never learn do we. 

[JoeAman08]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

It’s not about playing one up top / lone striker, it’s about service, it’s about combinations, pairings, etc.

Just to ask you a question - if you did believe the stories of a reneged contract and a subsequent one for less that you agreed, what would you think of Tommy’s actions, ie won’t negotiate?

@ExiledAjax is probably your man for the actual legalese writing of the various clauses over and the above the standard contract and schedule of payments.  We may even outsource it?

But ultimately the financials would be signed off above Nige or Liam’s level…I doubt either have much day on the numbers other than how much budget it uses up and fit with wage structure.  It would be sensible to have some understanding of the financials when building a squad.  My guess is a combo of Technical Director with assistance of CEO / pseudo CEO putting a case to JL to what should be spent.

Happy to have my guesswork corrected.

But TC is part of the combinations and pairings. How many times did he get a pass into feet in a chance to counter and get ragged and not hold the ball up? How many 1v1s did he get and shoot straight at keeper? You can’t look at TC in a vacuum and just blurt out he had no service. No he didn’t but he also wasted chances and couldn’t help drag the team up the pitch. 
 

TC needs to do what he thinks is best. I imagine if that was the case there would be many factors. So I’d need to know all the details or a reneged contract. I don’t begrudge TC at all for what is going on. I just think it is misguided and he could have committed for another couple of years and still had time to get bigger deals. 

[Cov 77]

43 minutes ago, 38MC said:

Don’t discount that Manning might not be here that much longer so what he wants or needs in respect of saleable assets becomes less important. 

It’s clear the club are reticent to give him a blank cheque book - look at Twine, we absolutely could have, if the executives wanted to, cleared out that deal a long time ago. The board are clearly reticent and I really doubt it’s because of a million here or there to a billionaire. 

The reality is Manning hasn’t really set the world alight, the board aren’t backing him to any large extent and are digging their heels over pocket change to a billionaire for a player that Manning clearly sees as the missing piece in the jigsaw.

The average manager lasts around 10 months in the championship. Given how the summer has gone - a loan player, a young player with room to grow and an obscure punt, Manning better be hoping luck is on his side. 

Given our valuation of Tommy, I call it a coin flop who’s the first out the door. 

The knives on here are so far out for Manning it’s unbelievable, for all the crap on here he did ok last season, not great but no way that bad either , but because of Nige will not be given any leeway by lots on here ( absolutely did not want Nige to go ) give the bloke a chance instead of posting this crap 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Manning maintained the level after some ups and downs.

He deserves a fair crack albeit I'm not sure about the back 3 if we go that way.

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

But TC is part of the combinations and pairings. How many times did he get a pass into feet in a chance to counter and get ragged and not hold the ball up? How many 1v1s did he get and shoot straight at keeper? You can’t look at TC in a vacuum and just blurt out he had no service. No he didn’t but he also wasted chances and couldn’t help drag the team up the pitch. 
 

TC needs to do what he thinks is best. I imagine if that was the case there would be many factors. So I’d need to know all the details or a reneged contract. I don’t begrudge TC at all for what is going on. I just think it is misguided and he could have committed for another couple of years and still had time to get bigger deals. 

I didn’t say “no service”….ive said many times that we go wide and can’t penetrate infield.  There’s not a lot Tommy can do about that is there.  His team play into feet is actually pretty good, pretty clean…he just gets so little of the ball, because we don’t play through the middle.  Tommy scores as the same rate as the difficulty of chances he gets.

Ok, simple scenario, you were told you were getting £x pw and when the contract was put in front of you it had suddenly decreased to say 75% of £x pw.  Might you think this lot are a bunch of tossers and not want to negotiate any more?  

9 minutes ago, Cov 77 said:

The knives on here are so far out for Manning it’s unbelievable, for all the crap on here he did ok last season, not great but no way that bad either , but because of Nige will not be given any leeway by lots on here ( absolutely did not want Nige to go ) give the bloke a chance instead of posting this crap 

I don’t think there are many knives out for Manning at all.  I think most people on TC’s side think the decision was made higher up.  I’ve no idea.

[ExiledAjax]

17 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 

@ExiledAjax is probably your man for the actual legalese writing of the various clauses over and the above the standard contract and schedule of payments.  We may even outsource it?

But ultimately the financials would be signed off above Nige or Liam’s level…I doubt either have much day on the numbers other than how much budget it uses up and fit with wage structure.  It would be sensible to have some understanding of the financials when building a squad.  My guess is a combo of Technical Director with assistance of CEO / pseudo CEO putting a case to JL to what should be spent.

Happy to have my guesswork corrected.

I've seen our negotiations from one side, that of a player. Basically it's the player/agent negotiating with...well it used to be the CEO but I assume it's now Tinnion. The Club Secretary probably actually sends the emails, but she will be passing on what Tinnion says, and in terms of numbers that will be driven by the budget. If I'm guessing/hoping then Marshall will be more involved than Jon.

As you know there's a standard EFL mandated contract that covers the boring basics and isn't negotiable. That's then supplemented by an extra bit that covers the juicy stuff. Wages, bonuses, signing on fees, promotion/relegation increases/decreases, all that good stuff. All in the supplement.

I'll be honest, what I've seen from our club and other EFL clubs is brief. Literally just an email exchange saying "I want £10k", "we can't go above £7.5k", "ok £9k", "Done". It's not rocket science by any stretch.

When we talk about an "offer on the table" I expect that's what it is - an email listing a load of figures. Rejecting that "without  negotiation" is probably just an email response saying "no".

[Swede]

Whilst I understand that transfers in and out can be fraught with problems, what has me concerned is the protracted dealings involving a number of players & the club's inability to get a successful conclusion. Especially as we're perceived as being in a stronger negotiation position with the Scott instalments in our back pocket so we can, if needed do our business earlier rather than waiting for the player domino affect. It strikes me that the lack of leadership experience at the top are very evident.

[bcfc01]

[W-S-M Seagull]

22 minutes ago, Swede said:

Whilst I understand that transfers in and out can be fraught with problems, what has me concerned is the protracted dealings involving a number of players & the club's inability to get a successful conclusion. Especially as we're perceived as being in a stronger negotiation position with the Scott instalments in our back pocket so we can, if needed do our business earlier rather than waiting for the player domino affect. It strikes me that the lack of leadership experience at the top are very evident.

This is where we miss Alexander. I've raised concerns plenty of times that we don't seem to have anyone specific who is experienced in transfer/contract negotiations. 

[JoeAman08]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

I didn’t say “no service”….ive said many times that we go wide and can’t penetrate infield.  There’s not a lot Tommy can do about that is there.  His team play into feet is actually pretty good, pretty clean…he just gets so little of the ball, because we don’t play through the middle.  Tommy scores as the same rate as the difficulty of chances he gets.

Ok, simple scenario, you were told you were getting £x pw and when the contract was put in front of you it had suddenly decreased to say 75% of £x pw.  Might you think this lot are a bunch of tossers and not want to negotiate any more?  

I don’t think there are many knives out for Manning at all.  I think most people on TC’s side think the decision was made higher up.  I’ve no idea.

As far as negotiations sounds like something an agent would say when he miscalculated the market for his player if we are being honest. Off the year he had I wouldn’t offer him the same deal. You showed me you were worth 10k a week after 2022/23 season. We offered you that. After 2023/24 we valued you at 7.5k for a variety of reasons like not being able to create goals as a starting striker and also having a bit of an injury history. Was the risk he took not signing an earlier deal. But all speculation. 
 

and I don’t need numbers to tell me he gets bullied ball to feet. I see it and everyone around sees it. We see it because we want to see city win and things like that stick. I wouldn’t want to go infield to Conway much if I was a midfielder or defender and he loses it time and time again and now I have to chase someone 50 metres towards my own goal. He is not a reliable outlet at all. 

[The Swan and Cemetery]

15 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

As far as negotiations sounds like something an agent would say when he miscalculated the market for his player if we are being honest. Off the year he had I wouldn’t offer him the same deal. You showed me you were worth 10k a week after 2022/23 season. We offered you that. After 2023/24 we valued you at 7.5k for a variety of reasons like not being able to create goals as a starting striker and also having a bit of an injury history. Was the risk he took not signing an earlier deal. But all speculation. 
 

and I don’t need numbers to tell me he gets bullied ball to feet. I see it and everyone around sees it. We see it because we want to see city win and things like that stick. I wouldn’t want to go infield to Conway much if I was a midfielder or defender and he loses it time and time again and now I have to chase someone 50 metres towards my own goal. He is not a reliable outlet at all. 

If we have, or will, replace him with someone as good for a similar outlay, I’ll happily be flabbergasted. 
 

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 minutes ago, The Swan and Cemetery said:

If we have, or will, replace him with someone as good for a similar outlay, I’ll happily be flabbergasted. 
 

I agree.

For the criticisms of Conway and the legitimate critique that he is by no means the end product, how much short of a lucky loan or free- or brilliantly under the radar bit of recruitment, he would cost more to replace IMO.

(Disclaimer someone like at QPR for possibly €2m, £2.5m whatever might)..not sure Sinclair or Fally will just yet. The one at QPR is 25 though so much more developed etc.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, JoeAman08 said:

As far as negotiations sounds like something an agent would say when he miscalculated the market for his player if we are being honest. Off the year he had I wouldn’t offer him the same deal. You showed me you were worth 10k a week after 2022/23 season. We offered you that. After 2023/24 we valued you at 7.5k for a variety of reasons like not being able to create goals as a starting striker and also having a bit of an injury history. Was the risk he took not signing an earlier deal. But all speculation. 

No, I’m talking about contract offer in the same period (not a year apart), ie offered summer 22/23, lowered when paperwork received.  I’m not talking months later. So now you know, what you saying based on my scenario.

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 hour ago, JoeAman08 said:

As far as negotiations sounds like something an agent would say when he miscalculated the market for his player if we are being honest. Off the year he had I wouldn’t offer him the same deal. You showed me you were worth 10k a week after 2022/23 season. We offered you that. After 2023/24 we valued you at 7.5k for a variety of reasons like not being able to create goals as a starting striker and also having a bit of an injury history. Was the risk he took not signing an earlier deal. But all speculation. 
 

and I don’t need numbers to tell me he gets bullied ball to feet. I see it and everyone around sees it. We see it because we want to see city win and things like that stick. I wouldn’t want to go infield to Conway much if I was a midfielder or defender and he loses it time and time again and now I have to chase someone 50 metres towards my own goal. He is not a reliable outlet at all. 

Tommy Conway didn't score less goals last season because he performed badly. He scored less because we created the square root of f all for him. I'm pretty sure the data shows that. Tommy did well with what he was given. 

If we are valuing Tommy at let's say 10 million, then you have to pay a 10 million pound striker the going rate and that is certainly not 7.5k a week. 

We could have signed him to a 4 year or a 3+1 contract but didn't. 

Conway and his agent will be fully aware of what the interested clubs will be willing to offer him so he will be fully aware of the type of money on offer and what he is able to get. 

You wouldn't sign a contract on 7.5k a week if another employer was offering you 25k a week would you? 

[Redhed123]

Doesn't help signing new players on higher wages than conway

[38MC]

10 hours ago, Cov 77 said:

The knives on here are so far out for Manning it’s unbelievable, for all the crap on here he did ok last season, not great but no way that bad either , but because of Nige will not be given any leeway by lots on here ( absolutely did not want Nige to go ) give the bloke a chance instead of posting this crap 

I’m not sure how you managed to read it that way. Perhaps the only negative about Manning in that post was ‘didn’t set the world alight’ - akin to ‘he did ok’ as you put it and hardly that damning. 

It was more a commentary on the board - which is forever flip flopping on strategy - and the average tenure of a championship manager. 

[headhunter]

Summer move to Strasbourg a possibility? 

Known by Cisse and probably viewed as decent by new manager Liam Rosenior.

A snip at £300k and Ligue 1 a good standard faced with no (?) apparent interest from the big two north of the border

[Henry]

If we start the season badly, the new strikers are firing and Conway is still here, Manning and Tinnions position is going to come under immense pressure.

[Silvio Dante]

13 hours ago, mozo said:

I'm inclined to agree with you.

Isn't it normal for a club to be punchy with their valuation at the 18 month stage of the contract?

Ivan Toney was valued at £80m not long ago (rumoured) in November. Let's see what he eventually goes for. Cut price, I'd imagine.

Like you say, Conway stalling on a contract has been public knowledge. I also asked, do we know that his agent wasn't spreading Conway's intention?

For all we (I) know, Conway's value was already doomed. 

Happy for someone to set me straight on this though!!

Mate.

It’s irrelevant if Coles was publicising Tommys situation. The whole point about value is that it’s driven by his worth to the buying and the selling club. 
 

So, let’s agree he wasn’t going to sign (take whatever view you like on contract shenanigans) next summer, and let’s set fans opinion of TCs ability to one side. The following are the basic scenarios.

Scenario A: Club (City) have an asset which based on their own value is worth more than any other player in that position and therefore can be classed currently as “best” striker. Club know he won’t renew contract but the relative value they get from keeping him as an option means they have leverage - essentially (as with Ivan Toney) they know they’re not getting full fee but the players ability and impact of scoring goals (in the clubs own opinion) provides some offset. This means that any clubs that want to buy have to not only meet the “compensation” value but also recompense the amount of “value” City feel they will lose from not having the player for a season (and as by the clubs own value he’s their best player, that would be significant)

Scenario B: As above but the club have no intent of playing the player, and banish him. Buying club have no reason to pay any “recompense” to City for losing Tommys goals for a season, and hence the fee is lower.

It’s purely supply and demand. You can agree with the clubs decision but the impact has to be acknowledged or it lessens your case for saying “they’ve done the right thing”

In Toneys case, it’s even more extreme as there is no end of contract fee. However Brentford will keep playing him because his goals are the difference between success and failure (possibly even relegation) and the income that generates is akin to the possible fee. It’s a similar scenario (higher ability/level) to here, but by Brentford keeping Toney engaged it means that anyone who wants to take him has to pay for the impact of Brentford losing him. We’ve removed that card - hence our fee has to be lower.

Edited July 26 by Silvio Dante

[MarcusX]

16 hours ago, Harry said:

I must admit I’ve probably only read about 10 of the 63 pages, and that would have been early on, so I don’t know how much the last couple of pages mirror the previous 60, but I can’t possibly agree with your final sentence. 
What does a few fans having a bit of speculation and debate on an independent forum have anything to do with how the club and/or Tommy are viewed and that it isn’t helping anyone?? 
 

The only parties that are not “helping themselves” in this saga are Tommy Conway and his agent plus Bristol City’s manager and tech director. 
Nothing the fans will say on these pages has any detriment, impact or effect on anything. 
I find that a bit of an odd take, to be honest, without meaning any disrespect, sir. 
 

If nothing the fans say on this thread has any impact or effect, then surely you agree with the original statement that it also isn't helping? 

[Kibs]

14 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Mate.

It’s irrelevant if Coles was publicising Tommys situation. The whole point about value is that it’s driven by his worth to the buying and the selling club. 
 

So, let’s agree he wasn’t going to sign (take whatever view you like on contract shenanigans) next summer, and let’s set fans opinion of TCs ability to one side. The following are the basic scenarios.

Scenario A: Club (City) have an asset which based on their own value is worth more than any other player in that position and therefore can be classed currently as “best” striker. Club know he won’t renew contract but the relative value they get from keeping him as an option means they have leverage - essentially (as with Ivan Toney) they know they’re not getting full fee but the players ability and impact of scoring goals (in the clubs own opinion) provides some offset. This means that any clubs that want to buy have to not only meet the “compensation” value but also recompense the amount of “value” City feel they will lose from not having the player for a season (and as by the clubs own value he’s their best player, that would be significant)

Scenario B: As above but the club have no intent of playing the player, and banish him. Buying club have no reason to pay any “recompense” to City for losing Tommys goals for a season, and hence the fee is lower.

It’s purely supply and demand. You can agree with the clubs decision but the impact has to be acknowledged or it lessens your case for saying “they’ve done the right thing”

In Toneys case, it’s even more extreme as there is no end of contract fee. However Brentford will keep playing him because his goals are the difference between success and failure (possibly even relegation) and the income that generates is akin to the possible fee. It’s a similar scenario (higher ability/level) to here, but by Brentford keeping Toney engaged it means that anyone who wants to take him has to pay for the impact of Brentford losing him. We’ve removed that card - hence our fee has to be lower.

I think most people “get” the value point, but do you not think that the club will have realised this too? 

You also have to factor in that the club have already signed his replacement (Mayulu / Armstrong), so the Toney situation is very different.

We’re not going to continue using Conway when we’ve shelled out for his replacement +1 are we? Whether he is in the u21s or not, our position as per your point (that he’s surplus, therefore reducing the value) would become obvious when the season starts and he’s an unused substitute for the first few games wouldn’t it?

I think the question is, why have they still taken the action they have taken? Of which there could be many reasons.

Is it purely petulance, stubbornness and they’re simply punishing him?

Do they think he has a gentleman’s agreement to sign for Celtic in Jan (apparently he was close to a move there last summer), therefore we’re trying to force him to move now?

Is it a message to the agent, who has a number of our players? 

Would they have taken this position had they not been able to get Mayulu and Armstrong?

There could be many reasons, likely or unlikely, of which you, I and even those who proclaim to be ITK, are not aware of. 

Some will assume the worst of the club due to what’s gone on this last year, some will give them the benefit of doubt, but I don’t think anyone is changing anyone else’s mind. 
 

 

 

[Silvio Dante]

12 minutes ago, Kibs said:

I think most people “get” the value point, but do you not think that the club will have realised this too? 

You also have to factor in that the club have already signed his replacement (Mayulu / Armstrong), so the Toney situation is very different.

We’re not going to continue using Conway when we’ve shelled out for his replacement +1 are we? Whether he is in the u21s or not, our position as per your point (that he’s surplus, therefore reducing the value) would become obvious when the season starts and he’s an unused substitute for the first few games wouldn’t it?

I think the question is, why have they still taken the action they have taken? Of which there could be many reasons.

Is it purely petulance, stubbornness and they’re simply punishing him?

Do they think he has a gentleman’s agreement to sign for Celtic in Jan (apparently he was close to a move there last summer), therefore we’re trying to force him to move now?

Is it a message to the agent, who has a number of our players? 

Would they have taken this position had they not been able to get Mayulu and Armstrong?

There could be many reasons, likely or unlikely, of which you, I and even those who proclaim to be ITK, are not aware of. 

Some will assume the worst of the club due to what’s gone on this last year, some will give them the benefit of doubt, but I don’t think anyone is changing anyone else’s mind. 
 

 

 

True, and all of those are moving parts - and in my work parlance, mitigants to the potential risk of losing the player for below market value. In view of the “sub” point the problem there is that would only become evident (fully) once the window closed and if we’d gone down that route there could be any number of reasons for an August benching (Euros involvement, minor knock etc). We’ve shown our hand though and it is what it is.

Ultimately I think whatever side people stand on this debate as to right/wrong thing the following should probably be acknowledged as truths on every side:

- The action leads to a lower fee in this window because we’ve publicised our intent

- The signing of the additional striker (Armstrong) represents a decent bit of forward planning (debate/discuss whether upgrade or downgrade)

- The player will want to be playing. Hes just broke through internationally and won’t want to stall

- And therefore the biggest truth of all - it’s now incumbent on the club to accept a fee that is reflective of the players current value, noting that may not be reflective of what they think he’s worth

I think that number 4 there is ultimately going to be our sticking block.

[TDarwall]

My view is that if you're paying a player & he's good enough, you should be playing him too. 2 exceptionss;

1) if they're about to be sold for a MEGA fee, you don't want them crocked; or

2) they're not trying / being disruptive 

I feel the same way here as I did with HNM (& I realise he was punished for a stinking at Brum, but he wasn't alone).

Would be amazed if TC is here past deadline day, but if he is & we either have an injury crisis up front or we can't score for toffee, do we just ignore our star striker in the reserves or play him??

Makes little sense to me. Players have a contract, as long as they honour that contract they shouldn't be punished just because they don't want another one.  

If TC has been turning down big bucks from City for a long while (even if it was reduced from initial offer), I do think that's a bit daft, we are literally the archetypal selling club & we're always going to sell a player once their is Premier LG interest.

[Numero Uno]

1 hour ago, Henry said:

If we start the season badly, the new strikers are firing and Conway is still here, Manning and Tinnions position is going to come under immense pressure.

.....and If we start the season on fire and one or both of the new strikers is/are hitting the back of the onion bag for fun then everyone, bar one or two that absolutely sodding worship the bloke more than their mother or father, says "**** Tommy Conway".

My statement is as pointless as yours...................

[Numero Uno]

30 minutes ago, TDarwall said:

My view is that if you're paying a player & he's good enough, you should be playing him too. 2 exceptionss;

1) if they're about to be sold for a MEGA fee, you don't want them crocked; or

2) they're not trying / being disruptive 

I feel the same way here as I did with HNM (& I realise he was punished for a stinking at Brum, but he wasn't alone).

Would be amazed if TC is here past deadline day, but if he is & we either have an injury crisis up front or we can't score for toffee, do we just ignore our star striker in the reserves or play him??

Makes little sense to me. Players have a contract, as long as they honour that contract they shouldn't be punished just because they don't want another one.  

If TC has been turning down big bucks from City for a long while (even if it was reduced from initial offer), I do think that's a bit daft, we are literally the archetypal selling club & we're always going to sell a player once their is Premier LG interest.

If I'm honest it does seem like a decision that was based on emotion and certainly one that Liam Manning was prepared to convey and endorse on behalf of the person that actually made it without too much fuss. For me, it's been made and we can bleat all we like, the person(s) who made it have now got to prove their worth by selling the kid without our pants being pulled down now. That's on them and fans will make that judgement.

This forum is getting like Talkshite in that we are inventing scenario's, always negative ones, spreading doom and there also seems to be a really weird vibe on this thread where a small number are head over heels on Tommy Conway, as if he is the next Lionel Messi or something rather than a good young Championship Centre Forward who still has aspects of his game to work hard on. You would think we have lost 35 CAST IRON GUARANTEED goals next season judging by a few. Perhaps a Tommy Conway Season Ticket would ease the pain, I don't know?

[BCFC31]

Surely we're not still debating all of  this