Jump to content
IGNORED

TGH joins Brum on season long loan


Malago

Recommended Posts

To me it seemed a good deal to start with, if we have knocked something off of the deal by bringing forward AW departure that is brilliant business. 
Weimann has been a great servant, but he's played a bit part role and would leave in the summer while TGH is at a good age to progress. Good work IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

To me it seemed a good deal to start with, if we have knocked something off of the deal by bringing forward AW departure that is brilliant business. 
Weimann has been a great servant, but he's played a bit part role and would leave in the summer while TGH is at a good age to progress. Good work IMO.

The ITKer from West Brom suggests we shaved a bit off, but he also said Weimann was perm.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The ITKer from West Brom suggests we shaved a bit off, but he also said Weimann was perm.

My thoughts are that I'm delighted we've signed him. 

But I'm wondering why we choose to do it now? I get that there may have been a cost saving element to it but he could get himself injured and be out for the next 12 months in the next game. 

Keeping him on loan would have potentially given us that bit of safety net. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

My thoughts are that I'm delighted we've signed him. 

But I'm wondering why we choose to do it now? I get that there may have been a cost saving element to it but he could get himself injured and be out for the next 12 months in the next game. 

Keeping him on loan would have potentially given us that bit of safety net. 

Yep, that’s a risk.  Shit happens.  But an opportunity to save money on Weimann too.

Swings and roundabouts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

My thoughts are that I'm delighted we've signed him. 

But I'm wondering why we choose to do it now? I get that there may have been a cost saving element to it but he could get himself injured and be out for the next 12 months in the next game. 

Keeping him on loan would have potentially given us that bit of safety net. 

Because WBA wanted Weimann. So believe we managed to shave £300k off during negotiations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

My thoughts are that I'm delighted we've signed him. 

But I'm wondering why we choose to do it now? I get that there may have been a cost saving element to it but he could get himself injured and be out for the next 12 months in the next game. 

Keeping him on loan would have potentially given us that bit of safety net. 

It's clearly wrapped up with the Weimann deal isn't it?   We were happy to get the price for TGH nudged down a little whilst AW's wages were off the books.  They get someone experienced, reliable and clearly a good egg and get a fee now.   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, DaveInSA said:

I’m always a bit meh about loans becoming permanent deals.

fingers burnt so many times. The player you think you’re buying turns out to be a duffer.

lets hope he grows into a magician.

I can only really think of Tony Dinning and Lee Tomlin as bad loan-into-permanent deals - are there more?

That said, can anyone think of any successful loan-into-permanent deals we’ve had?! There’s probably some obvious ones…

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always on the cards after he moved down here so quickly after the loan was announced. Glad it has happened all the same though, didn't want to hear the news he had gone elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, DaveInSA said:

I’m always a bit meh about loans becoming permanent deals.

fingers burnt so many times. The player you think you’re buying turns out to be a duffer.

lets hope he grows into a magician.

TGH is still learning the game. For him the move is about building a solid career for himself by playing regular first team football. I wouldn't allow the likes of Dinning and Tomlin who both had a very different agenda to cloud your judgement!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BigTone said:

Weimann only on loan it seems

I tend to believe what @Davefevs said 

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

The ITKer from West Brom suggests we shaved a bit off, but he also said Weimann was perm

After all, he's OOC in the summer so the loan would see that deal end and they can give him another year or whatever. I guess it amounts to the same thing .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, The Journalist said:

I can only really think of Tony Dinning and Lee Tomlin as bad loan-into-permanent deals - are there more?

That said, can anyone think of any successful loan-into-permanent deals we’ve had?! There’s probably some obvious ones…

Palmer? Does Dasilva count!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, The Journalist said:

I can only really think of Tony Dinning and Lee Tomlin as bad loan-into-permanent deals - are there more?

That said, can anyone think of any successful loan-into-permanent deals we’ve had?! There’s probably some obvious ones…

Andy Cole

  • Like 6
  • Flames 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, The Journalist said:

I can only really think of Tony Dinning and Lee Tomlin as bad loan-into-permanent deals - are there more?

That said, can anyone think of any successful loan-into-permanent deals we’ve had?! There’s probably some obvious ones…

Personally I'd say that both Palmer and Tomlin were, on the whole, bad loan - perms. 

Kalas was a successful one no?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, The Journalist said:

I can only really think of Tony Dinning and Lee Tomlin as bad loan-into-permanent deals - are there more?

That said, can anyone think of any successful loan-into-permanent deals we’ve had?! There’s probably some obvious ones…

Liam Fontaine, Wade Elliott.

Outstanding signings.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ZiderMeUp said:

Palmer? Does Dasilva count!

Dasilva is a good shout!

Palmer! Of course - mind-boggling. Bang average on loan, well stocked in his position and cost a fortune… and we still signed him. Arguably even worse than Tomlin and Dinning for that reason!

Edited by The Journalist
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Journalist said:

I think you’d say Kalas was successful, albeit the way it worked out at £8m probably not value for money!

Yeh I just looked actually and he ended up playing only 106 times in the four years he was permanently with us, all whilst being out record signing and (probably) highest paid player (ever?). I guess if that's correct then maybe he wasn't a great conversion from loanee to permanent.

Like DaSilva I actually think that is one that could be spun either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Tomlin was great on loan then put in decent to good numbers for about 3 months after joining permanently- free kick vs Aston Villa was a sublime strike but his attitude was suspect?

I remember he turned and started screaming all sorts at LJ after that goal...weird bloke that's for sure, imagine that talent but in a different guy

Edited by The Nest Egg
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Nest Egg said:

I remember he turned and started screaming all sorts at LJ after that goal...weird bloke that's for sure, imagine that talent but in a different guy

Technical ability Premier League.

Attitude, application, pulling in the same direction..Parks League?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is, as said previously, is good business.

I hope that this becomes the rule rather than the exception. With the way that football is run financially today, shrewd work in the transfer market (coupled with a successful academy) is probably the only way for clubs like ours to progress. 

Credit to those involved in both deals today.

Edited by Red_Alligator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

Like I said , amounts to the same thing as he's OOC in the summer , so he's Permanently out of here :yes:

Likeky I agree but not given

Edited by BigTone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Journalist said:

I can only really think of Tony Dinning and Lee Tomlin as bad loan-into-permanent deals - are there more?

That said, can anyone think of any successful loan-into-permanent deals we’ve had?! There’s probably some obvious ones…

Adam Matthew was another year loan….that was bad.  Cost us Ayling too!

3 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

I tend to believe what @Davefevs said 

After all, he's OOC in the summer so the loan would see that deal end and they can give him another year or whatever. I guess it amounts to the same thing .

I was only quoting Dood on Twitter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, GrahamC said:

We never signed him permanently, 2 loan spells.

My memory is shocking , I really thought it was made permanent after the initial loan.

 

Just looked on Wiki. 21 games , thought he played much more than that too. 

Edited by 1960maaan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

My memory is shocking , I really thought it was made permanent after the initial loan.

 

Just looked on Wiki. 21 games , thought he played much more than that too. 

Always remember driving down Regent St in Clifton & he was crossing the road.

Severely tempted to knock him down, second spell he was absolutely useless.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, The Journalist said:

I can only really think of Tony Dinning and Lee Tomlin as bad loan-into-permanent deals - are there more?

That said, can anyone think of any successful loan-into-permanent deals we’ve had?! There’s probably some obvious ones…

Nathan Baker......  kind of.  I would say successful if accepted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Lydered said:

SSN have this down as a free. Not suggesting it's true for a second, just highlighting it

20240115_191035.jpg

Well it technically is but the fee for TGH went down accordingly. 

 

We could have sold Weimann for £9 million and bought TGH for £10 million.

The difference between the 2 fees is what matters to the clubs 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a shame that he's going but if we can get our money back on him then happy days if he doesn't want to be here, or Manning doesn't want him here.

Not sure on McGuane myself but he might not get many minutes anyway

Edited by TammyAB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a surprise after we'd converted his loan to a permanent deal (and there goes my prediction of him being the first City player to get a Red card this season) but changes happen. I know nothing about McGuane if he is the replacement (and even wonder why we need to replace him) but it's, another Oxford link. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TGH was clearly going to be a bit-part player for us and unlikely to get regular game time. A move to Birmingham would give him regular games. He looked a decent fit in an average side when he arrived but Twine and Earthy arriving have quickly made him surplus to requirements now. Good move all round. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...