TGH joins Brum on season long loan

[Nugget]

Oxford folks saying McGuane played best football under LM 

[Mr Popodopolous]

McGuane is an upgrade is he?

[Shauntaylor85]

Interesting….TGH went down tunnel first after signing session yesterday. Some fans called over to him and said something like got to go. 

3 minutes ago, Johnny Musicworks said:

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. 

Lets hope in typical Birmingham style they are overpaying for him. 

[TammyAB]

How much did Birmingham get for the Jordan James sale?

[Cov 77]

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

FWIW, TGH statistically outperformed McGuane in the League last year (G+A) and is 2 and a bit years younger.

Not the same player tbh , McGuane sitting , TGH more forward orientated 

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, TammyAB said:

How much did Birmingham get for the Jordan James sale?

£4mish was reported.

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

McGuane is an upgrade is he?

We will find out.

[TammyAB]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

£4mish was reported.

Give us half of that and we've made our money on TGH?

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, TammyAB said:

Give us half of that and we've made our money on TGH?

We have, and a small Profit in fact due to Amortisation.

[HengroveReds]

Anyone know if it’s a perm move to brum or loan with a view?

[BobBobBobbin]

13 minutes ago, TammyAB said:

Give us half of that and we've made our money on TGH?

Can't see us getting our money back here. 

Plus the idea that the loan fee (Which wasn't insignificant from memory), the giving away of our captain and the actual fee we paid shouldn't be included in the equation is madness to me. 

From "improve what we have" to selling players 6 months after signing off on them coming. regardless of who the manager/TD/Chairman/CEO is, that situation must ring alarm bells.

[Mr Popodopolous]

£0.7m Loan Fee wasn't it.

Main Fee was either £1.3m or £1m..

3.5 year deal January 2024, so divide by 7.

[cityred2000]

1 hour ago, Charlie BCFC said:

It would make the McGuane move make sense but I also wouldn’t believe a word he says tbf 

Why not? He's been proven to be one of the most reliable about.

[Bristol Rob]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

£0.7m Loan Fee wasn't it.

Main Fee was either £1.3m or £1m..

3.5 year deal January 2024, so divide by 7.

Plus add in the various 'loyalty' payments (formerly known as a signing on fee) and TGH could be sitting in a very tidy position.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, Bristol Rob said:

Plus add in the various 'loyalty' payments (formerly known as a signing on fee) and TGH could be sitting in a very tidy position.

Was thinking more of whether we were likely break even, turn a Profit or make a loss from a Fee perspective tbh. Wages etc paid already are just a sunk cost really.

[Bristol Rob]

12 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Was thinking more of whether we were likely break even, turn a Profit or make a loss from a Fee perspective tbh. Wages etc paid already are just a sunk cost really.

Guess it depends on if the player has asked/pushed for the move and what is being offered elsewhere.

There could be a significant settlement cost to the club.

[TomSutton]

Shame about TGH ultimately was signed to compete at RB when McCrorie was out October-December last year brilliant playing on the half term but ultimately is 4th choice now. Always thought he had a positive attitude but when he knows he’s not wanted it must be hard to maintain that.

For me I don’t see a quality he brings that another midfield option doesn’t 

Bird (ability to play on half turn)

Knight (energy, pressing power)

Williams (aggression, ability to intercept and progress) 

Best of luck to him at L1 wouldn’t be surprised if he flourishes 

[Fuber]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

FWIW, TGH statistically outperformed McGuane in the League last year (G+A) and is 2 and a bit years younger.

Think he's more an anchor/cover for Williams - as he's better defensively iirc?

[Fuber]

38 minutes ago, BobBobBobbin said:

Can't see us getting our money back here. 

Plus the idea that the loan fee (Which wasn't insignificant from memory), the giving away of our captain and the actual fee we paid shouldn't be included in the equation is madness to me. 

From "improve what we have" to selling players 6 months after signing off on them coming. regardless of who the manager/TD/Chairman/CEO is, that situation must ring alarm bells.

Only Caveat bring that Brum are paying more than we did as part of the loan agreement? 

Only thing that would make sense to me personally.

[Scrumpty]

54 minutes ago, BobBobBobbin said:

Can't see us getting our money back here. 

Plus the idea that the loan fee (Which wasn't insignificant from memory), the giving away of our captain and the actual fee we paid shouldn't be included in the equation is madness to me. 

From "improve what we have" to selling players 6 months after signing off on them coming. regardless of who the manager/TD/Chairman/CEO is, that situation must ring alarm bells.

Quite the opposite for me. If LM doesn’t fancy him, then why ‘collect’ players for the sake of it? Best to move him on now, allowing LM to build his own squad.

Seems like reasonable trading, with no cause for alarm.

Birmingham have been splashing the cash, so there’s every chance that we’re not left (significantly) out of pocket.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, Scrumpty said:

Quite the opposite for me. If LM doesn’t fancy him, then why ‘collect’ players for the sake of it? Best to move him on now, allowing LM to build his own squad.

Seems like reasonable trading, with no cause for alarm.

Birmingham have been splashing the cash, so there’s every chance that we’re not left (significantly) out of pocket.

 

Very well  although the more autonomy Manning gets the more expectations should rise.

With freedom comes responsibility etc.

[PHILINFRANCE]

31 minutes ago, TomSutton said:

Shame about TGH ultimately was signed to compete at RB when McCrorie was out October-December last year brilliant playing on the half term but ultimately is 4th choice now. Always thought he had a positive attitude but when he knows he’s not wanted it must be hard to maintain that.

For me I don’t see a quality he brings that another midfield option doesn’t 

Best of luck to him at L1 wouldn’t be surprised if he flourishes 

I suppose it makes sense, what with school starting again in a few weeks .

[Scrumpty]

16 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Very well  although the more autonomy Manning gets the more expectations should rise.

With freedom comes responsibility etc.

Indeed, there’s added responsibility. There’s also increased risk (should LM move on for any reason). But there seems to be a clear strategy (talented young players, yet to peak), building on decent foundations.

[mozo]

I don't currently see a negative here.

It was never clear that TGH fit here and it sounds like a good move for his career.

[Sandhurst Red]

I get the impression the loan to make permanent was determined by a pre-agreed contract clause based on how many games he played during his loan here.

Had that not have been triggered, then we would not have done so this summer.

Sometimes players work out at different clubs. He's done ok, feel we have yet to see his best, but if we feel there is a better option that suits our needs and his, then no issue if we move him on and we recoup a good % of the transfer value. 

[BobBobBobbin]

22 minutes ago, Scrumpty said:

Quite the opposite for me. If LM doesn’t fancy him, then why ‘collect’ players for the sake of it? Best to move him on now, allowing LM to build his own squad.

Seems like reasonable trading, with no cause for alarm.

Birmingham have been splashing the cash, so there’s every chance that we’re not left (significantly) out of pocket.

 

If he doesn't fancy him then why did he sign off on buying him for a not insignificant fee? I really like Manning but is it not concerning that he can change his mind so quickly? Isn't that precisely the thing that got us into severe financial trouble last time?

Also, the very concept of "trading" goes against the theory behind employing Manning in the first place. It wasn't us who listed "improving what we have built" in the reasons for bringing him here. 

Clearly the lack of improvement last season (For which Manning was in charge for the significant majority) spooked our senior leadership to the point where they've had to change tack completely. It's not meant to be Manning's squad, it's meant to be Bristol City's and we are meant to be able to plug a carefully selected "Head coach" into that system seamlessly. That again is the story we were sold. It's an admission of failure on the part of the club that we are going down this road again. 

I'm just expressing some concerns at the flip-flopping. I'm roughly ok with the swap of McGuane for TGH, it's more the patterns that are emerging that are clear and fundamental shifts in policy and ideology that are giving me LJ/MA vibes. What's worse is that Liam Manning is a significantly better coach than LJ who has shown in the past that he is very ambitious and willing to move on regardless of how well/long he's been somewhere... If we build his squad for him and he get's poached by a lower level Prem team in Jan(I don't think that's too far beyond the realms of possibility tbh), what then? McGuane becomes the player Oxford claim he is now? Twine? 

[RedEyez]

3 minutes ago, BobBobBobbin said:

If he doesn't fancy him then why did he sign off on buying him for a not insignificant fee? I really like Manning but is it not concerning that he can change his mind so quickly? Isn't that precisely the thing that got us into severe financial trouble last time?

Also, the very concept of "trading" goes against the theory behind employing Manning in the first place. It wasn't us who listed "improving what we have built" in the reasons for bringing him here. 

Clearly the lack of improvement last season (For which Manning was in charge for the significant majority) spooked our senior leadership to the point where they've had to change tack completely. It's not meant to be Manning's squad, it's meant to be Bristol City's and we are meant to be able to plug a carefully selected "Head coach" into that system seamlessly. That again is the story we were sold. It's an admission of failure on the part of the club that we are going down this road again. 

I'm just expressing some concerns at the flip-flopping. I'm roughly ok with the swap of McGuane for TGH, it's more the patterns that are emerging that are clear and fundamental shifts in policy and ideology that are giving me LJ/MA vibes. What's worse is that Liam Manning is a significantly better coach than LJ who has shown in the past that he is very ambitious and willing to move on regardless of how well/long he's been somewhere... If we build his squad for him and he get's poached by a lower level Prem team in Jan(I don't think that's too far beyond the realms of possibility tbh), what then? McGuane becomes the player Oxford claim he is now? Twine? 

Things change mate, sometimes very quickly. That’s football.

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, mozo said:

I don't currently see a negative here.

It was never clear that TGH fit here and it sounds like a good move for his career.

The only “negative” isn’t really a negative, but a “challenge” - what was the thinking in making the loan permanent in January?

This is clouded by the Weimann loan admittedly and a possible - “we’ll only take Andi if you take Taylor”.

The positive as a City fan is that the manager is being backed.  The strategy for building the squad has changed. In some ways that is uncomfortable, because recent history says a similar approach got us into a mess.  But this is Liam Manning’s to own and execute.

I’m happy to watch it play out…not that my happiness has any bearing.

 

[Redrascal2]

 

What has Manning done to be poached by a Premier league club. Cannot see this happening.

[Merrick's Marvels]

1 hour ago, BobBobBobbin said:

Can't see us getting our money back here. 

Plus the idea that the loan fee (Which wasn't insignificant from memory), the giving away of our captain and the actual fee we paid shouldn't be included in the equation is madness to me. 

From "improve what we have" to selling players 6 months after signing off on them coming. regardless of who the manager/TD/Chairman/CEO is, that situation must ring alarm bells.

It was just a mediocre signing - they happen! 

If this is true, we've moved swiftly to rectify it - good work, I say.

Can't imagine we'd be doing the deal if it was to have a significantly negative impact on our financial position.  So the money side of it isn't a red flag for me. And on the playing side, he's clearly 4th or 5th choice CM and we're replacing him with a player who sounds like he will fit seamlessly into Manning's patterns. 

Edited August 22 by Merrick's Marvels

[BobBobBobbin]

1 minute ago, RedEyez said:

Things change mate, sometimes very quickly. That’s football.

Feels like a massive and expensive cop-out to me; We've gone from "we can give you Daniel Ayala on a free" to tolerating expensive wasting of millions of pounds?

[Johnr1986]

Disappointed to see TGH leave whenever he played though he was decent, young athletic, could play multiple positions centrally and on the right. 

[MythikRobins]

I do have to wonder, which came first? Did Birmingham bid for TGH it was too good to refuse so we decided to move him on and then quickly sign a replacement. Or was it the other way around?

[Hocca]

1 minute ago, Johnr1986 said:

Disappointed to see TGH leave whenever he played though he was decent, young athletic, could play multiple positions centrally and on the right. 

Decent enough technically , absolutely not athletic though and that’s what holds him back.

[BobBobBobbin]

2 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

It was just a mediocre signing - they happen! 

If this is true, we've moved swiftly to rectify it - good work, I say.

Can't imagine we'd be doing the deal if it was to have a significantly negative impact on our financial position.  

I don't think he is mediocre to be honest, I think with the right coaching he could have been a very good asset in multiple positions. 

On the flip side however, McGuane would be the only true DLP/Half Back type here, whether we kept TGH or not. So I'm not opposed to him in theory. 

 

[mozo]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The only “negative” isn’t really a negative, but a “challenge” - what was the thinking in making the loan permanent in January?

This is clouded by the Weimann loan admittedly and a possible - “we’ll only take Andi if you take Taylor”.

The positive as a City fan is that the manager is being backed.  The strategy for building the squad has changed. In some ways that is uncomfortable, because recent history says a similar approach got us into a mess.  But this is Liam Manning’s to own and execute.

I’m happy to watch it play out…not that my happiness has any bearing.

 

When I think about the best and worst outcomes with the decision made in January, it doesn't particularly bother me.

[Northern Red]

5 minutes ago, Redrascal2 said:

 

What has Manning done to be poached by a Premier league club. Cannot see this happening.

Nothing, yet. But then this time last year he hadn't done anything to be poached by a Championship club either.

[Lew-T]

I’m not too disappointed about this, in truth. After seeing TGH against Cov in the Carabao Cup recently, he was so wasteful with the ball. 

I don’t think he’s quite good enough to come in when required, so this move makes sense. It’s closer to home for him too.

[RedRoss]

6 minutes ago, BobBobBobbin said:

If he doesn't fancy him then why did he sign off on buying him for a not insignificant fee? I really like Manning but is it not concerning that he can change his mind so quickly? Isn't that precisely the thing that got us into severe financial trouble last time?

Also, the very concept of "trading" goes against the theory behind employing Manning in the first place. It wasn't us who listed "improving what we have built" in the reasons for bringing him here. 

Clearly the lack of improvement last season (For which Manning was in charge for the significant majority) spooked our senior leadership to the point where they've had to change tack completely. It's not meant to be Manning's squad, it's meant to be Bristol City's and we are meant to be able to plug a carefully selected "Head coach" into that system seamlessly. That again is the story we were sold. It's an admission of failure on the part of the club that we are going down this road again. 

I'm just expressing some concerns at the flip-flopping. I'm roughly ok with the swap of McGuane for TGH, it's more the patterns that are emerging that are clear and fundamental shifts in policy and ideology that are giving me LJ/MA vibes. What's worse is that Liam Manning is a significantly better coach than LJ who has shown in the past that he is very ambitious and willing to move on regardless of how well/long he's been somewhere... If we build his squad for him and he get's poached by a lower level Prem team in Jan(I don't think that's too far beyond the realms of possibility tbh), what then? McGuane becomes the player Oxford claim he is now? Twine? 

Why do we constantly refer back to MA or LJ when referring to Manning? Both haven't been here for ages. It just seems a lazy comparison to make. Your basically saying LM can't change his mind on a player. It's hardly flip flopping. TGH has had plenty of time to show his worth. Let's check out the deal once concluded to see if we've been short changed? If Birmingham are the interested party they've hardly kept the purse strings sealed. I'm sure McGuanes fee will be minimum.

We essentially could have a player leaving who was signed at a time we needed cover at RB. Hasn't done badly but is a back up player. We get our money back or more on that player. Manning gets a player who shined for him previously on a low fee to replace his back up spot. McGuane likely wasn't available for the same fee or at all when we signed TGH plus we needed RB cover. Since then his circumstances have changed and our manager gets a player he wants and money in the bank. Really wants not to like?

[Redrascal2]

1 minute ago, Northern Red said:

Nothing, yet. But then this time last year he hadn't done anything to be poached by a Championship club either.

I thought Oxford were top or near top of League 1 when we poached him.

[RedEyez]

7 minutes ago, BobBobBobbin said:

Feels like a massive and expensive cop-out to me; We've gone from "we can give you Daniel Ayala on a free" to tolerating expensive wasting of millions of pounds?

Bit of a jump to conclusions there, if I’m honest. How do you know we aren’t recouping all of, if not, the majority of what we paid for TGH? 

[Merrick's Marvels]

3 minutes ago, BobBobBobbin said:

I don't think he is mediocre to be honest, I think with the right coaching he could have been a very good asset in multiple positions. 

You see something I don't ! 

I wondered at the time - why are a club like West Brom letting us have this young player if he was that good?

I've seen the answer over the last 6 months. 

[BobBobBobbin]

1 minute ago, RedEyez said:

Bit of a jump to conclusions there, if I’m honest. How do you know we aren’t recouping all of, if not, the majority of what we paid for TGH? 

Why would anyone pay more than what we did for a player who's barely featured for 6 months?

Considering Birmingham got Leonard for £500k? Just because they're flush doesn't mean they're not frugal with it?

Would you pay £2m for TGH right now? 

 

[MythikRobins]

6 minutes ago, BobBobBobbin said:

I don't think he is mediocre to be honest, I think with the right coaching he could have been a very good asset in multiple positions. 

On the flip side however, McGuane would be the only true DLP/Half Back type here, whether we kept TGH or not. So I'm not opposed to him in theory. 

 

You’ll struggle to get better coaching at this level than Carlos Corberan and he also got moved on from there. I think sometimes a player might just need to go down the divisions. 

[BobBobBobbin]

3 minutes ago, RedRoss said:

Why do we constantly refer back to MA or LJ when referring to Manning? Both haven't been here for ages. It just seems a lazy comparison to make. Your basically saying LM can't change his mind on a player. It's hardly flip flopping. TGH has had plenty of time to show his worth. Let's check out the deal once concluded to see if we've been short changed? If Birmingham are the interested party they've hardly kept the purse strings sealed. I'm sure McGuanes fee will be minimum.

We essentially could have a player leaving who was signed at a time we needed cover at RB. Hasn't done badly but is a back up player. We get our money back or more on that player. Manning gets a player who shined for him previously on a low fee to replace his back up spot. McGuane likely wasn't available for the same fee or at all when we signed TGH plus we needed RB cover. Since then his circumstances have changed and our manager gets a player he wants and money in the bank. Really wants not to like?

 

Learning from past experiences is lazy. 

 

New one for me, that. 

[RedEyez]

Just now, BobBobBobbin said:

Why would anyone pay more than what we did for a player who's barely featured for 6 months?

Considering Birmingham got Leonard for £500k? Just because they're flush doesn't mean they're not frugal with it?

Would you pay £2m for TGH right now? 

 

You’re clutching at straws here lad

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, mozo said:

When I think about the best and worst outcomes with the decision made in January, it doesn't particularly bother me.

That can only be because you think there is no financial downside to this.  Which is my assumption too.

Surely a “worst outcome” would bother you?

[Kibs]

48 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Very well  although the more autonomy Manning gets the more expectations should rise.

With freedom comes responsibility etc.

I don’t get all this about expectations and increasing them every time we sign someone. The playing field doesn’t stand still, our competitors don’t stand still. Let’s wait and see where everyone is at when the window shuts.

Expectations need to consider far more than who we sign, in this case, a squad player from Oxford!

[CliftonCliff]

12 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

It was just a mediocre signing - they happen! 

If this is true, we've moved swiftly to rectify it - good work, I say.

Can't imagine we'd be doing the deal if it was to have a significantly negative impact on our financial position.  So the money side of it isn't a red flag for me. And on the playing side, he's clearly 4th or 5th choice CM and we're replacing him with a player who sounds like he will fit seamlessly into Manning's patterns. 

Some short memories on here. I don’t recall too many complaints about mediocrity when he arrived. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Mr Popodopolous]

24 minutes ago, Sandhurst Red said:

I get the impression the loan to make permanent was determined by a pre-agreed contract clause based on how many games he played during his loan here.

Had that not have been triggered, then we would not have done so this summer.

Sometimes players work out at different clubs. He's done ok, feel we have yet to see his best, but if we feel there is a better option that suits our needs and his, then no issue if we move him on and we recoup a good % of the transfer value. 

Anything to back it up that is an obligation based on Appearances I mean.

I wondered pre Twine and Earthy whether TGH could go either next to Knight wirh Bird in front central or in front of Bird and Knight as 4 Assists..he's got something there, some of his underlying stats are not bad and he's 22.

[Merrick's Marvels]

1 minute ago, CliftonCliff said:

Some short memories on here. I don’t recall too many complaints about mediocrity when he arrived. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Not here. And I was giving a personal opinion, not speaking for the forum as a whole, Cliff !

Edited August 22 by Merrick's Marvels

[BobBobBobbin]

Just now, RedEyez said:

You’re clutching at straws here lad

I know as much as you do. 

You assume the best.

I assume the worst. 

But I'm clutching at straws.

And you're right?

Hmmm

[Davefevs]

Just now, MythikRobins said:

You’ll struggle to get better coaching at this level than Carlos Corberan and he also got moved on from there. I think sometimes a player might just need to go down the divisions. 

They had to free up money / Cashflow.  They couldn’t move on high earners like Mowatt, because they’d have had to subsidise their wages, which would defeat the object of letting him go.

It’s a bit like when we had to move on Nagy and Palmer.

So TGH not necessarily moved on due to lack of ability, but more because he could be moved on…and others couldn’t.

[ProfitInMyPocket]

He's one of a few from before that doesn't suit what Manning wants, I expect a few more would be moved on if it wasn't for each player's circumstances.

Shame because I like Gardner-Hickman but if he wants to move and play more games then I wish him the best. 

We will see a few more players moved on next summer and maybe January, one in one out most likely.

I usually have some thoughts about the players incoming but I've got no idea what type of player this McGuane is. Hope it's a decent replacement.

[BobBobBobbin]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

They had to free up money / Cashflow.  They couldn’t move on high earners like Mowatt, because they’d have had to subsidise their wages, which would defeat the object of letting him go.

It’s a bit like when we had to move on Nagy and Palmer.

So TGH not necessarily moved on due to lack of ability, but more because he could be moved on…and others couldn’t.

Or indeed Semenyo. I'm sure if you gave Nige the option of selling everyone in our squad that January, Antoine would have been the player he least wanted to lose. 

He just happened to be our only sellable asset 

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 minutes ago, Lew-T said:

he was so wasteful with the ball. 

Stats only tell part of a story but they don't necessarily bear this out.

[mozo]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

That can only be because you think there is no financial downside to this.  Which is my assumption too.

Surely a “worst outcome” would bother you?

Well on the basis that we were confident that he was a saleable asset and at least worthy of being a squad player.

If he was Bas Savage it would have been terrible decision making!

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, Kibs said:

I don’t get all this about expectations and increasing them every time we sign someone. The playing field doesn’t stand still, our competitors don’t stand still. Let’s wait and see where everyone is at when the window shuts.

Expectations need to consider far more than who we sign, in this case, a squad player from Oxford!

Nobody is saying they have.  But last week’s activity (Earthy and Twine) was significant enough to do so.

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Anything to back it up that is an obligation based on Appearances I mean.

I wondered pre Twine and Earthy whether TGH could go either next to Knight wirh Bird in front central or in front of Bird and Knight as 4 Assists..he's got something there, some of his underlying stats are not bad and he's 22.

I don’t think that was it….purely the Weimann / TGH axis to benefit from.

[ciderwithtommy]

I’m ok with this. Does anyone think TGH should be starting at the moment? If the answer is no, then a scenario where he has knocked on Mannings door and said play me or let me leave so I can play, is plausible, given his move from WBA to us was driven by game time. If so, and we can trade in a way we are all happy then why not? 
 

I think Manning wants players who have clear strengths (Williams, Armstrong, Twine, Mayulu), they may not be fully rounded but they have strong attributes. TGH is a bit of a mid at everything  type, in the nicest possible way. I do think he is a good player, and we needed depth last year, the squad is stronger and I wish him well

 

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Stats only tell part of a story but they don't necessarily bear this out.

That’s not very useful without being able to compare to other players.  Is 80% chipped passes good for example?

[Fuber]

20 minutes ago, Hocca said:

Decent enough technically , absolutely not athletic though and that’s what holds him back.

Think he's fairly athletic. Just not very agile.

Personally too one footed and not consistent enough mentally and generally to start at this level. Positionally he's not very observant or 'aware' when I've seen him.

Cov in cup case in point. Too much ball watching, not proactive enough with or without the ball.

Edited August 22 by Fuber

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, Davefevs said:

That’s not very useful without being able to compare to other players.  Is 80% chipped passes good for example?

Well that's true, I was thinking more of a Solid Pass Completion..I also think he's not that suited to a 2, which Bird, Knight and Williams is a 3 in some ways..TGH, Knight and Wells..differs significantly it's hard to draw conclusions for me, still think TGH a decent player in the right set-up.

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, mozo said:

Well on the basis that we were confident that he was a saleable asset and at least worthy of being a squad player.

If he was Bas Savage it would have been terrible decision making!

Not sure I got my point across.  I’m saying we are all (99% of us) are comfortable with this, Because we are assuming it’s at a fee where we don’t lose money, nor any commitment to pay some of his wages for the next 3 years.

If we are selling him and taking a hit, that’s not a great outcome.

On the flipside, if we move him on and make some money, that’s a great outcome.

Yes?

[Jose]

I’m not upset by this. The player who is replacing him sounds like he gets the ball of the back four and keeps the ball moving. A James type. While not a bad player I’m still not sure what TGH gives us. 

[mozo]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Not sure I got my point across.  I’m saying we are all (99% of us) are comfortable with this, Because we are assuming it’s at a fee where we don’t lose money, nor any commitment to pay some of his wages for the next 3 years.

If we are selling him and taking a hit, that’s not a great outcome.

On the flipside, if we move him on and make some money, that’s a great outcome.

Yes?

Yes

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Well that's true, I was thinking more of a Solid Pass Completion..I also think he's not that suited to a 2, which Bird, Knight and Williams is a 3 in some ways..TGH, Knight and Wells..differs significantly it's hard to draw conclusions for me, still think TGH a decent player in the right set-up.

FWIW, as a simple metric of 2 league games this season, the average passing success rate for a Championship CMer is 85%.

I think he’s a reasonable player too.

[Kibs]

10 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Nobody is saying they have.  But last week’s activity (Earthy and Twine) was significant enough to do so.

Perhaps, but we also lost last season’s Top Scorer so it balances out abit

 

[Northern Red]

28 minutes ago, Redrascal2 said:

I thought Oxford were top or near top of League 1 when we poached him.

They were. But that was in October/November, not after 2 games.

[steviestevieneville]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

McGuane is an upgrade is he?

There’s a lot more to a players ability that stats mr pop . It’s about what he brings / fits into a particular coaches style. FWIW . I never really got what TGH brought to us . Although at the time of signing him we were bringing in what we could at the time . He doesn’t seem like a manning player. I also don’t see Mcrorie being a manning player & wouldn’t have been surprised to see him moved on . Injury has scuppered that though obviously . 

[CliftonCliff]

17 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Not here. And I was giving a personal opinion, not speaking for the forum as a whole, Cliff !

Yep, that's a fair objection. I probably should have posted it as a stand alone comment, not as a quote/direct response, as it wasn't particularly aimed at you. Apologies.

I stand by the point I made, though. Most posters at the time either stated or implied that they thought TGH's arrival improved the squad and that it was a solid signing. And furthermore he's a better player than he's now being given credit for in some quarters (just in my opinion, of course...)

I've lost count of the players who've been written off and dismissed as surplus to requirements/not good enough as the result of temporarily stalled development or a patch of poor form. An obvious example was Vyner, now a mainstay of the team to the point where there is speculation we may at some stage lose him to a higher placed club. There are plenty of others to whom the same applies. The re-writing of history that goes on in these situations irritates me sometimes.