TGH joins Brum on season long loan

[Silvio Dante]

As has been said, the bottom line questions here are really:

- Why we made it permanent in January

- Whether, over the course of the loan deal, Weimann deal, permanent deal and this transaction we’ve lost financially.

I’m in the same boat as most in that I’ve not seen enough from TGH to be markedly upset at the departure, but I also think that’s because the coach isn’t a massive fan/hasnt played him in a way that gets the best of him. And you’re then back to why we made it permanent in Jan.

Of course, it could be as simple as we think McGuane is a better player, has become available, and we now need to make room - and I remember George Elek waxing lyrical about McGuane when we appointed Manning so I’m not unnameable to that signing.

The biggest question it keeps coming back to is why sign TGH permanently in Jan if we weren’t going to really play him/didn’t fancy him, as I can’t think the fee then would have been so small that we were willing to pay as a Weimann makeweight. At that stage, there would clearly be no guarantees we’d turn a profit (if we have) or McGuane would become available.

Summary: Not massively concerned about the departure, encouraged by the incoming - but it’s all a bit odd isn’t it?

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

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 . 

Course I get that, style and balance of the squad can vary by Manager. I think in the right set-up TGH could add a bit more than we have seen, if McGuane frees up Bird and Knight a bit in their respective positions..some players, coaches and setups can just click but we shall see..could be useful relatively affordable depth perhaps.

[Merrick's Marvels]

4 minutes ago, CliftonCliff said:

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...)

No problem.

[IAmNick]

I quite like TGH and think he's actually a decent player, but if he's not what Manning wants or this isn't what he wants then it's sensible to try and move him on. I don't want us to fall into a sunk cost fallacy, where we keep players kicking around, off on loan etc. and then eventually lose them for nothing at the end of their contract - or randomly extend it again as we have in the past.

I'll be a little sad to see him go as I'd have like to see him improve here, but seems sensible to me on the whole even if we do take a slight financial hit.

The question over why he was brought here only to leave 6 months later is a different one imo, and should have no bearing on this. My guess would be that it was probably agreed ahead of time and the club were pleased with it, and Manning didn't have much choice apart from to rubber stamp it (if that), but who knows. If that is the case, and now he's been able to push back and reshape the squad that's a good thing I think - after this window in general he's clearly got some pretty serious sway/power around the transfer department now.

[Davefevs]

22 minutes ago, Kibs said:

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

 

That was baked in to our expectations during June that Conway wouldn’t be here. 

[2015]

Nice lad is TGH and can be a tidy footballer. I think there is a lack of physicality from him currently and going down to a top end League 1 club would be a good move for his career.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

That was baked in to our expectations during June that Conway wouldn’t be here. 

Plus many are claiming we have better strikers and or depth up front now, so if anything we've upgraded.

[MythikRobins]

8 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

As has been said, the bottom line questions here are really:

- Why we made it permanent in January

- Whether, over the course of the loan deal, Weimann deal, permanent deal and this transaction we’ve lost financially.

I’m in the same boat as most in that I’ve not seen enough from TGH to be markedly upset at the departure, but I also think that’s because the coach isn’t a massive fan/hasnt played him in a way that gets the best of him. And you’re then back to why we made it permanent in Jan.

Of course, it could be as simple as we think McGuane is a better player, has become available, and we now need to make room - and I remember George Elek waxing lyrical about McGuane when we appointed Manning so I’m not unnameable to that signing.

The biggest question it keeps coming back to is why sign TGH permanently in Jan if we weren’t going to really play him/didn’t fancy him, as I can’t think the fee then would have been so small that we were willing to pay as a Weimann makeweight. At that stage, there would clearly be no guarantees we’d turn a profit (if we have) or McGuane would become available.

Summary: Not massively concerned about the departure, encouraged by the incoming - but it’s all a bit odd isn’t it?

I'm not sure which thread I mentioned it in now, but it could be Birm in for TGH first, we were happy with what they offered, and then worked quickly on a replacement? I'd be interesting in knowing which way round it was. If it's as simple as we needed to move someone on for a "better" player to come in then I expect there will be more deals similar incoming.

[RedEyez]

47 minutes ago, BobBobBobbin said:

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

My mother always taught me not to argue with an idiot , so I’ll take that advice on board now.

[MythikRobins]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Plus many are claiming we have better strikers and or depth up front now, so if anything we've upgraded.

My expectations started high, because I thought our striking options were better we had a few discussions about this that I remember  

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, MythikRobins said:

My expectations started high, because I thought our striking options were better we had a few discussions about this that I remember  

Maybe you are right, I remember these.. both ok paper looked good additions but the sort of Players who would take time to adjust. Their start has been really encouraging.

[Silvio Dante]

3 minutes ago, MythikRobins said:

I'm not sure which thread I mentioned it in now, but it could be Birm in for TGH first, we were happy with what they offered, and then worked quickly on a replacement? I'd be interesting in knowing which way round it was. If it's as simple as we needed to move someone on for a "better" player to come in then I expect there will be more deals similar incoming.

Might well be. The aspect here is more you sign a player in Jan and move him on in August - I think on the McGuane thread (it’s like the old days of Twine and Conway pollinating each others threads) it was pointed out that at what point you do too many deals (and that’s in the context of as I said, being relatively ok with this deal in isolation).

One thing is for sure - the whole question of evolution vs revolution from last October has definitely been answered and we are in a total rebuild from the number of incomings. And it’s one that needs to probably work quicker than others in view of the lack of need for major surgery 10 months ago.

[bexhill reds]

10 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

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 . 

This is a fair comment, I think that TGH has regressed under Manning, he looked a half tidy player under the previous management, but has mostly looked out of place whenever he's been been on the pitch in a Manning team.

Perhaps he just can't do what he's being asked to do (in the same way as this fella from Oxford has allegedly struggled under his new manager) and the best thing for his career is to move on.

He'll have a good career just not with us.

I reckon you could be right with McCrorie too, not quite sure how he fits in other than RB cover now

[MythikRobins]

6 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Might well be. The aspect here is more you sign a player in Jan and move him on in August - I think on the McGuane thread (it’s like the old days of Twine and Conway pollinating each others threads) it was pointed out that at what point you do too many deals (and that’s in the context of as I said, being relatively ok with this deal in isolation).

One thing is for sure - the whole question of evolution vs revolution from last October has definitely been answered and we are in a total rebuild from the number of incomings. And it’s one that needs to probably work quicker than others in view of the lack of need for major surgery 10 months ago.

Think most of us knew that it was a very low chance of evolution. No matter what BS the board put out. But, even still atm the majority of the 11 is the same as it was against QPR away (8/11 players at this point still start for us). With Yu to come in that'll probably drop to 7/11. So I'm not sure I'd call it a total rebuild.

[mozo]

29 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

As has been said, the bottom line questions here are really:

- Why we made it permanent in January

- Whether, over the course of the loan deal, Weimann deal, permanent deal and this transaction we’ve lost financially.

I’m in the same boat as most in that I’ve not seen enough from TGH to be markedly upset at the departure, but I also think that’s because the coach isn’t a massive fan/hasnt played him in a way that gets the best of him. And you’re then back to why we made it permanent in Jan.

Of course, it could be as simple as we think McGuane is a better player, has become available, and we now need to make room - and I remember George Elek waxing lyrical about McGuane when we appointed Manning so I’m not unnameable to that signing.

The biggest question it keeps coming back to is why sign TGH permanently in Jan if we weren’t going to really play him/didn’t fancy him, as I can’t think the fee then would have been so small that we were willing to pay as a Weimann makeweight. At that stage, there would clearly be no guarantees we’d turn a profit (if we have) or McGuane would become available.

Summary: Not massively concerned about the departure, encouraged by the incoming - but it’s all a bit odd isn’t it?

It was always going to be difficult for TGH to compete first with Knight, Williams and James  and now with Bird on the scene. Maybe he was getting a bit disheartened?

[Robbored]

19 minutes ago, RedEyez said:

My mother always taught me not to argue with an idiot , so I’ll take that advice on board now.

My mother always told me ‘never discuss politics or religion as people have fixed views’ ……how right she was!

[mozo]

3 minutes ago, MythikRobins said:

Think most of us knew that it was a very low chance of evolution. No matter what BS the board put out. But, even still atm the majority of the 11 is the same as it was against QPR away (8/11 players at this point still start for us). With Yu to come in that'll probably drop to 7/11. So I'm not sure I'd call it a total rebuild.

I think we identified that the final third was a real problem and decided to take the bull by the horns.

[Davefevs]

37 minutes ago, Lappy1 said:

Carlos Corboran came out and said he needed to leave as he wasn’t going to get game time. Whether that was true or not who knows.

Wasn’t gonna get game time, because he couldn’t move on players he wanted to move on to ease their financial issues.

[Swede]

I think the option to make it permanent last Jan was much more to do with West Brom's financial predicament and their need to get some attacking players in, hence using Andi Weimann as a make weight. I think the club have been cute in offsetting the fees for TGH.

That said, he is technically a very good footballer who can play in a number of positions. I am sad to see him leave [if that transpires] but he was never going to play every game and the further emergence of George Tanner has taken that right back spot further away.

He is probably as much a victim of the rapid squad evolution here that we're currently going through as is Stokes, who incidentally didn't look particularly happy in a Cambridge United training top when interviewed.

Expect more of this type of evolution if we want to challenge the top six.

[Silvio Dante]

20 minutes ago, MythikRobins said:

Think most of us knew that it was a very low chance of evolution. No matter what BS the board put out. But, even still atm the majority of the 11 is the same as it was against QPR away (8/11 players at this point still start for us). With Yu to come in that'll probably drop to 7/11. So I'm not sure I'd call it a total rebuild.

Acknowledged. We’ll call it a front half rebuild as that’s more accurate (although, as seen, that can pressure the back line).

Its definitely a different type of squad moving forward so we are, as has been said, in Manningball V3.0

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Acknowledged. We’ll call it a front half rebuild as that’s more accurate (although, as seen, that can pressure the back line).

Its definitely a different type of squad moving forward so we are, as has been said, in Manningball V3.0

Manningball V1.0 is hard to pin down in a way because e.g.

The Middlesbrough Home, Hull Home and especially Watford Away games diverged vastly in intent from to take 3, Norwich Home, Blackburn Away and Millwall Home. All in just 6 weeks or so!

(Some I think were between the 2 ie Sunderland Home and Birmingham Away).

[Johnny Musicworks]

Keeping fringe players happy is one of the hardest parts of management when things are going well TGH, Cornick and Naismith would probably all fall into that category. Trading  players like this and freshening up the squad is likely to happen again in January if things do go well. It’s quite possible our trading this summer is ahead of schedule so even the likes of Wells, Bell (if fit) and Roberts could be moved on. Roberts in particular I feel would not be happy to wait for long unless a good offer comes in for Pring.

[Baldyman]

1 hour ago, Jose said:

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. 

Agreed . TGH needs to establish a “ Unique  selling point “ eg Williams = aggression, Twine = goal scoring & passing , Knight = fitness and work rate , Sykes = pace & Bird = football intelligence . TGH needs to have an identity at this level if he is to remain or become anything more than a L1 player . 

Edited August 22 by Baldyman

[Davefevs]

8 minutes ago, Johnny Musicworks said:

Keeping fringe players happy is one of the hardest parts of management when things are going well TGH, Cornick and Naismith would probably all fall into that category. Trading  players like this and freshening up the squad is likely to happen again in January if things do go well. It’s quite possible our trading this summer is ahead of schedule so even the likes of Wells, Bell (if fit) and Roberts could be moved on. Roberts in particular I feel would not be happy to wait for long unless a good offer comes in for Pring.

I often think it easier when you’re winning, because those not playing have no argument.  When you’re losing and not playing, it’s much easier for a player to moan and say they should be in the team.

On a side point about trading…do this efficiently (financial-wise) is the hard bit.

FWIW, buying young will mean in a lot of ways that we are paying less than average wages.  It possibly makes them easier to move on.

Someone like Cornick, whatever your view of him, won’t be easy to move on.

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, Baldyman said:

Agreed . TGH needs to establish a “ Unique  selling point “ eg Williams = aggression, Twine = goal scoring & passing , Knight = fitness and work rate , Sykes = pace & Bird = football intelligence . TGH needs to have an identity at this level if he is to remain or become anything more than a L1 player . 

 

3 minutes ago, Lappy1 said:

Which comes back to the same issue which he has here, he can’t get in the team.

I'd argue a victim of versatility to some degree, he isn't inherently suited to a pure CM 2 either IMO.

[W-S-M Seagull]

2 hours 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. 

 

If only we had a head coach that was lauded for his ability to coach..

[Hxj]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Yes?

No!

You can't really combine the transactions into one, they were all separate.  

Was signing TGH on loan with an option to purchase a good decision at the time? Probably yes

Was making it permanent and loaning out Andi a good decision at the time.  My understanding is that WBA were generous as they needed some income and also wanted some cover up front.  Probably yes

Is moving TGH on now, given that he clearly isn't near first choice, and has three years of his contract remaining? Probably yes 

[Bristol Rob]

Just out of interest, is this a done deal or just an Internet rumour at this point?

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, Hxj said:

No!

You can't really combine the transactions into one, they were all separate.  

Was signing TGH on loan with an option to purchase a good decision at the time? Probably yes

Was making it permanent and loaning out Andi a good decision at the time.  My understanding is that WBA were generous as they needed some income and also wanted some cover up front.  Probably yes

Is moving TGH on now, given that he clearly isn't near first choice, and has three years of his contract remaining? Probably yes 

That wasn’t the context of my post.  Your final para, however, was.

We all appear to be generally happy to move him on because we think 1) the playing side of it makes sense, but also 2) we aren’t gonna lose anything financially on it.

[sglosbcfc]

1 hour ago, 2015 said:

Nice lad is TGH and can be a tidy footballer. I think there is a lack of physicality from him currently and going down to a top end League 1 club would be a good move for his career.

He is almost certainly joining the 24-25 League One Champions. He'll be back in the Championship in a year with a decent sized football club. It could be one of those deals which is win-win-win.

[Numero Uno]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

Acknowledged. We’ll call it a front half rebuild as that’s more accurate (although, as seen, that can pressure the back line).

Its definitely a different type of squad moving forward so we are, as has been said, in Manningball V3.0

I would suggest version 3.0 as you call it is his preferred option all along and we’ve had to bring in a few to start doing it.

[BobBobBobbin]

10 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

I would suggest version 3.0 as you call it is his preferred option all along and we’ve had to bring in a few to start doing it.

Perhaps in possession. I do however think he instilled what he thought was the best out of possession ideology pretty quickly and learnt on the job that what worked in League 1 with an unfancied team wasn't going to translate to the Championship. 

It's still the same idea; Ie. Mid-block trigger press, but the starting position/line of engagement and the relative aggression in how we respond to the triggers has fundamentally changed from v1.0 through to now. On that front I give LM a significant amount of credit because he's adjusted from where he thought we should be to where we needed to be within his own "principles". That level of flexibility without becoming overly pragmatic is great to see and gives me confidence that he's not just an ideologue like say, Russell Martin. 

[Scrumpty]

3 hours 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? 

LM didn’t ‘sign off’ the deal - the loan with obligation to buy deal was struck before his tenure. 

He may have signed off bringing it forward, but my hunch is that this was an accounting decision, linked to the Weimann deal.

I’d understand your flip flopping concerns if it became a pattern, but there’s no evidence to suggest this.

[Silvio Dante]

16 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

I would suggest version 3.0 as you call it is his preferred option all along and we’ve had to bring in a few to start doing it.

I probably don’t disagree overall.

The question there is that if he didn’t have the players to play V3 (and we accept/agree that V1/2/3 are different), why did he play a V1 that was unsuitable to the players he had at that time?

If he’d have tried to impose V3 from the start, that’d have been understandable but the imposing a style that both wasn’t  his preferred one and didn’t fit the squad he had was a bit odd. It’s possible he misread the squad initially, thinking he had to come in and firefight/get solid defensively (which we already were)

All said in the spirit both that the early signs of V3 are good, and that it is too early to judge it. But as I think I said the other day, there’s a lot more latitude if you don’t get results but try to entertain - which V1 certainly wasn’t.

Still, this is a TGH thread and there’s plenty of other places to discuss this!

[BobBobBobbin]

7 minutes ago, Scrumpty said:

LM didn’t ‘sign off’ the deal - the loan with obligation to buy deal was struck before his tenure. 

He may have signed off bringing it forward, but my hunch is that this was an accounting decision, linked to the Weimann deal.

I’d understand your flip flopping concerns if it became a pattern, but there’s no evidence to suggest this.

it was an option to buy, not an obligation. Tinnion himself said this.

[Mr Popodopolous]

There is a lot of revisionism and misinformation around these days, it's odd.

Definitely was an Option which we exercised.

[Numero Uno]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

There is a lot of revisionism and misinformation around these days, it's odd.

Definitely was an Option which we exercised.

The truth, I would guess, is that in hindsight the club (whether that's Manning, Tinnion or whoever) have realised that signing TGH on a permanent was a mistake, particularly when you look at what has been brought in since, and have received a suitable offer that enables them to rectify it. Slightly fortunate and not something you would want repeated on a regular basis. It's not that TGH is rubbish but he just appears uncomfortable with the style of football that we seem to be looking to play. It would appear it's the same scenario with McGuane at Oxford.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

The truth, I would guess, is that in hindsight the club (whether that's Manning, Tinnion or whoever) have realised that signing TGH on a permanent was a mistake, particularly when you look at what has been brought in since, and have received a suitable offer that enables them to rectify it. Slightly fortunate and not something you would want repeated on a regular basis. It's not that TGH is rubbish but he just appears uncomfortable with the style of football that we seem to be looking to play. It would appear it's the same scenario with McGuane at Oxford.

We'll never know for sure but I can see TGH in the right set-up in a more Possession based side. Some of his metrics are good, some others aren't.

[Silvio Dante]

Just now, Numero Uno said:

The truth, I would guess, is that in hindsight the club (whether that's Manning, Tinnion or whoever) have realised that signing TGH on a permanent was a mistake, particularly when you look at what has been brought in since, and have received a suitable offer that enables them to rectify it. Slightly fortunate and not something you would want repeated on a regular basis. It's not that TGH is rubbish but he just appears uncomfortable with the style of football that we seem to be looking to play. It would appear it's the same scenario with McGuane at Oxford.

Slightly different. Whether rubber stamped or not, Liam signed TGH (having seen him at close quarters and assessed) so would have known he was unsuitable for the style he wanted to play.

McGuane was at Oxford when Buckingham took over, and he doesn’t fit Buckinghams style so is surplus. It’s more of a Conway scenario in that respect in that Liams style didn’t suit him, and Des Buckinghams style doesn’t suit MM. 
 

Doesnt make any party a bad player, but there is a definite difference between signing a player (particularly after a loan) who isn’t suitable, and disposing of an inherited player who isn’t suitable.

[slartibartfast]

Hasn't anyone sussed the real reason he's off ? We can't afford his name on the back of the shirts !

[Red-Robbo]

2 hours ago, Robbored said:

My mother always told me ‘never discuss politics or religion as people have fixed views’ you don't what the **** you're on about ……how right she was!

 

Corrected that for you, mate! 

[Ashtongreight]

4 hours ago, Redrascal2 said:

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

You’ve answered your own question there.

[Numero Uno]

18 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Slightly different. Whether rubber stamped or not, Liam signed TGH (having seen him at close quarters and assessed) so would have known he was unsuitable for the style he wanted to play.

McGuane was at Oxford when Buckingham took over, and he doesn’t fit Buckinghams style so is surplus. It’s more of a Conway scenario in that respect in that Liams style didn’t suit him, and Des Buckinghams style doesn’t suit MM. 
 

Doesnt make any party a bad player, but there is a definite difference between signing a player (particularly after a loan) who isn’t suitable, and disposing of an inherited player who isn’t suitable.

Yeah, I didn't mean EXACTLY the same scenario which is why I said we are probably correcting a "mistake" and we have been slightly fortunate by the sounds of it (i.e. acceptable offer received). Shouldn't have happened but these things still do happen and at least we appear to have had the gumption to realise it and do something about it. As you say Oxford aren't correcting a mistake, they have just changed their style of play due to a change of Manager and it doesn't suit the player we are after.

[Numero Uno]

29 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

We'll never know for sure but I can see TGH in the right set-up in a more Possession based side. Some of his metrics are good, some others aren't.

Liam will want certain things from his midfield players and, whatever the metrics say, I'm guessing TGH isn't providing enough or showing that he is close to providing enough. I would rather a mistake, if that's what the club think it was, is recognised and dealt with. If he's not for Liam and he can be moved on then do it. Yes, I understand the question "well why did Liam sign him permanently in the first place"? That's one for him!!

The other thing, and I'm not casting negative aspersions at all, is that it might not be a 100% footballing decision. Things do happen at the club or even outside of football with individual players which moves the goalposts. Ryan Fredericks for example................albeit that was a more negative situation. It's not always as black and white as the forum wants it to be at times!!

Edited August 22 by Numero Uno

[westonred]

He's a very poshly spoken lad so i doubt they'll understand him at Brum

[GrahamC]

Although I’m concerned we are engaging in a never ending transfer policy I’m not bothered by this one.

I accept the point made here that many rated him early on, but I was never convinced.

He looked ponderous to me, as @Harry often pointed out was slow in moving the ball on & lost his man a fair bit.

Provided we have at least got our money back & haven’t overpaid on the Oxford player (who looks like a squad option to me) I’m cool with it.

[Harry]

33 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Although I’m concerned we are engaging in a never ending transfer policy I’m not bothered by this one.

I accept the point made here that many rated him early on, but I was never convinced.

He looked ponderous to me, as @Harry often pointed out was slow in moving the ball on & lost his man a fair bit.

Provided we have at least got our money back & haven’t overpaid on the Oxford player (who looks like a squad option to me) I’m cool with it.

Yep. Triple T I called him. 
Taylor Ten Touch 

[Ashton Fete]

44 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Although I’m concerned we are engaging in a never ending transfer policy I’m not bothered by this one.

I accept the point made here that many rated him early on, but I was never convinced.

He looked ponderous to me, as @Harry often pointed out was slow in moving the ball on & lost his man a fair bit.

Provided we have at least got our money back & haven’t overpaid on the Oxford player (who looks like a squad option to me) I’m cool with it.

Agreed. Hope for TGH’s sake he signs for another team with a set position and plays the bulk of games this season, there’s definitely a quality player there but this would be two championship clubs in a row that don’t seem to feel he has one strong position/role in a team

[mozo]

30 minutes ago, Ashton Fete said:

Agreed. Hope for TGH’s sake he signs for another team with a set position and plays the bulk of games this season, there’s definitely a quality player there but this would be two championship clubs in a row that don’t seem to feel he has one strong position/role in a team

He's in a great position to have a very good pro career. He just needs to find a home where he starts most games and can develop.

[Corsham Alf]

TGH definitely on his way to Birmingham. Trying to get it done for Saturday. He has now officially left. It will be announced tomorrow. 
 

Apparently LM also wants to move on Cornick in order to sign another winger.
 

Plus he’s after another centre half!

[fly in the air]

how much are we getting for him. 

[Boston Red]

We paid a million for TGH, didn't we?

Are Birmingham really going to match that?

[Henry]

3 hours ago, Harry said:

Yep. Triple T I called him. 
Taylor Ten Touch 

Why play a 40 yard pass when you jog towards your team mate and play a 10 yard ball?

I’d much rather we kept James and didn’t sign TGH.

[Harry]

7 minutes ago, Henry said:

Why play a 40 yard pass when you jog towards your team mate and play a 10 yard ball?

I’d much rather we kept James and didn’t sign TGH.

It’s not even that. I don’t mind if he plays 40 yards or 10 yards. It’s the fact he takes 5 minutes to make up his mind about it. 

[Shauntaylor85]

1 hour ago, Corsham Alf said:

TGH definitely on his way to Birmingham. Trying to get it done for Saturday. He has now officially left. It will be announced tomorrow. 
 

Apparently LM also wants to move on Cornick in order to sign another winger.
 

Plus he’s after another centre half!

Good job his name isn’t Nige, he would get offered Mickey Bell as a first team cover! All joking aside I thought Manning came across well the other day and our recruitment has been good, but I do feel we shouldn’t forget that he can do this BECAUSE Nige rebuild the foundations and developed Antoine and Scott into £40M of sales. 

[RollsRoyce]

2 hours ago, Boston Red said:

We paid a million for TGH, didn't we?

Are Birmingham really going to match that?

Its a cut price deal, we lost money. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

For TGH.

£1-1.3m in Fee.

£0.7m in Loan Fee.

Divide by contract length, as one bit for Loan Fee and £1-1.3m/7 give or take for the latter.. each half season is 1/7.

For Amortisation forget the Loan Fee, for Profit or Loss on Disposal.

[Port Said Red]

11 hours ago, Harry said:

It’s not even that. I don’t mind if he plays 40 yards or 10 yards. It’s the fact he takes 5 minutes to make up his mind about it. 

I have definitely noticed that he slows the game down. I certainly couldn't see him replacing Bird in that 1-2 with Fally. 

I still think there may be more of a personal reason for his move, his family are from Stourbridge I believe. 

[RobArnold10]

Confirmed per Brum twitter

 

[bcfc01]

He'll do well at Brum, easily good enough for L1.

Probably back in the Championship next season.

Best of luck to him.

[westonred]

Season long loan with option to buy

 

[SnozRobin]

Perm would’ve been better

[And Its Smith]

Seems bizarre that we signed him. Never looked good enough for the first team. Decent back up option at best 

[slartibartfast]

1 minute ago, SnozRobin said:

Perm would’ve been better

Yes, bit odd ,that !

[Sleepy1968]

Just now, SnozRobin said:

Perm would’ve been better

Loan with option. Yeah, perhaps we wanted too much. Perhaps that was what they wanted, who knows?

[Big C]

Bristol City can confirm Taylor Gardner-Hickman has joined Birmingham City on a season-long loan, with an option to buy.

Gardner-Hickman joined the Robins in August 2023 and has made 40 appearances for the club, scoring four goals, including a memorable strike against Middlesbrough at Ashton Gate.

The Club wishes Taylor all the very best in Birmingham, and thanks him for his contribution in a City shirt.

 

 

Did I miss 3 of his goals?

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Seems bizarre that we signed him. Never looked good enough for the first team. Decent back up option at best 

Clearly he isn't a defender but can't fully agree. Besides which this disregards the context in which he was signed.

The numbers don't lie albeit don't tell the whole story either.

The Twine assists will have been mostly Hull btw.

Edited August 23 by Mr Popodopolous

[And Its Smith]

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

Clearly he isn't a defender but can't fully agree. Besides which this disregards the context in which he was signed.

The numbers don't lie albeit don't tell the whole story either.

Why sign someone and then look to sell him 6 months later?  There are two answers I can think of:

1.  The player ability was misjudged

2. The price was so good that a quick profit could be turned

For me, it’s clearly the first one.  

[JBFC II]

1 minute ago, And Its Smith said:

Why sign someone and then look to sell him 6 months later?  There are two answers I can think of:

1.  The player ability was misjudged

2. The price was so good that a quick profit could be turned

For me, it’s clearly the first one.  

Or maybe he's not a player that fits into the way Manning wants to play the game, the signing came from those above Manning and now he's looking to move him on.

Which makes more sense if McGuane is his replacement, who is evidently a player who fits into a 'Liam Manning team'

[GrahamC]

Amazed it is with an “option” to buy.

Hope it’s a chunky loan fee & all of his wages.