The thing about mcgree is that we know he can play well at the top end of the championship. Our attempts to replace the left side role with Silvera and Greenwood has not worked. I would sooner keep mcgree as lose the others, then add someone as competitionHappy Jones has signed a new contract, still think he's our best attacking option by far, shame he's so inconsistent but if he wasn't he wouldn't be playing in the Championship.
I might be in the minority here, but i'm honestly not bothered if McGree leaves. We've barely seen anything from him this season and if the rumours of him still having a sulk on about not being allowed to move last summer are true, I don't want him at our club. Been re-watching our 96/97 season review and wantaway players like Emerson are bad for the team.
Pointless keeping him if he's not motivated though. We just need to recruit better. Silvera was always a bit of a punt and Greenwood is exactly as was described to us by Leeds fans.The thing about mcgree is that we know he can play well at the top end of the championship. Our attempts to replace the left side role with Silvera and Greenwood has not worked. I would sooner keep mcgree as lose the others, then add someone as competition
Not sure where this comes from regarding McGree being unhappy / not motivated, beyond internet message board tittle tattle. His demeanour on the pitch has always been the same since he joined us.Pointless keeping him if he's not motivated though.
I might be completely wrong and you never know what the club might do. But if they want to have a good go at promotion next season, selling two of our best players will hugely handicap us. Unless they want to use some of the sale proceeds to seriously invest in the squad - but then a huge rebuild can lead to a slow start.I don't know whether McGree is or isn't motivated to stay at Boro but obviously the club will know. It was more of a comment that IF he isn't motivated then it would be pointless keeping him. We'd be better getting whatever fee we could and recruiting a replacement. I'd look to replace him anyway due to his fitness record and the fact he's in the last year of his contract. I think McGree is a good player at this level but he just hasn't played enough this season and given the nature of the injury that has been reported, there's no guarentees over fitness moving forward.
I've heard from very good source that there's still plenty of interest in Hackney. The nature of his injuries this season aren't really a concern for clubs. I don't think he'll be with us next season. I would love it if he was but I just don't think he will be.
Totally agree, and it's not just money either. If Hackney has aspirations to get in the England set up he needs to be playing PL football as a minimum. Obviously he will back himself to make the step up.If a crazy offer comes in for Hackney then fair enough. On the plus side, it would seem Hackney is happy to stay but we all know money talks in these scenarios.
It's a strange one that he never plays on the left under Carrick especially as he likes Forrs on the right. I remember his debut was on the left opening game at Fulham a few seasons ago and he was a game changer and also remember him playing left wing back away at Coventry where he did well. Also said on Tees a couple of months ago that Carrick thinks Forss best position is coming from the left although I'm not sure that they got that right (left).
Could be wrong but think Scott has said Hackney has indicated he's happy to stay. As you say money talks and there'll definitely be interest, but his injury hit season might lower what teams are willing to bid for him right now. Hopefully not enough to tempt us.I might be completely wrong and you never know what the club might do. But if they want to have a good go at promotion next season, selling two of our best players will hugely handicap us. Unless they want to use some of the sale proceeds to seriously invest in the squad - but then a huge rebuild can lead to a slow start.
McGree is different as his contract length does determine our actions. If he’s not extended his contract by August, I think that’ll be the biggest indicator of what’s likely to happen.
If a crazy offer comes in for Hackney then fair enough. On the plus side, it would seem Hackney is happy to stay but we all know money talks in these scenarios.
Losing both would be a huge headache as replacing them won’t be easy and will mean we will have to bring more in - and the last thing we need is a huge rebuild.
This is all off topic, but.........I was watching that amusing Sunderland 'til I die the other day on netflix, and the checkatrade trophy final was Pompey vs Sunderland.....and then I spotted him, Matt Clarke, with hair! Anyway he was involved in both the pompey goals bringing the ball out well from the back for the first one. He's a very decent champo defender. Can defend properly and can create overloads by pushing forward. He will always give it away and get caught up field occasionally, but generally it's a good thing to have a defender take that responsibility. No wonder Wilder was so eager to sign him.For a championship defender I would say Clarke is right up there in being able to play out from the back.
He's big and bald and great at the traditional defender stuff but I think that blinds some people as to how comfortable he is on the ball.
exactly, now Forss could play inverted winger. He's got a powerful and accurate shot, and is clever enough to run off the back of defenders and strong enough to run across the front of them. He should be very useful as an inverted winger, coming in on his right foot.I don’t think he has the attributes to play as a “cutting inside” winger… he isn’t a great crosser of the ball from deep, doesn’t really shoot much and can’t really pick a through ball / clever pass.
His attributes are much better suited to playing as a traditional old school winger… using his pace to beat the full back on the outside, get to the byline for a pull back / low cross
I do think we’re getting to the stage now where we’ve been slowly moving pieces into place for a big push.Could be wrong but think Scott has said Hackney has indicated he's happy to stay. As you say money talks and there'll definitely be interest, but his injury hit season might lower what teams are willing to bid for him right now. Hopefully not enough to tempt us.
I've seen a couple of posters claiming to be ITK state McGree is open to a new contract too. But obviously its easy to make things up (also goes for rumours about him wanting out).
The hope is Rogers counts as the summer's big sale and we're now under no pressure to sell anyone unless silly money is offered. Again think Scott might have hinted at something along those lines, without explicitly saying so.
Hackney (and Rav), we have got to keep. If we sell them we have the money for 5 or more first team players, but we would also have to ship a bunch of players out because of squad limits, it would be a massive upheaval, it might leave us in a good place for teh future, but not for the now. The aim should be to keep the progression year to year, and have a core of 8 or 9 first teamers moving into the next season, so we have limited upheaval and incremental improvements. Plan B; If we don't go up next year, sure we may have to sell Hackney for 20m and buy 3 high quality 5-6m players, the following year, we sell Rav for 20m and again replace with 3 high quality players. But we keep a core from season to season. This is what Brighton and Brentford did, even Ipswich this year. Broadhead, Burgess, Burns, Chaplin, Clarke, Davis, Hirst, Hladky, Luongo, Morsy, Woolfenden are the only Ipswich players to play 20+ games this season, and every single player was in the squad last year. Continuity, familiarity with the tactics, unit cohesion, all important if you want to punch above the weight of your finances.I would hope we tie McGree down, manage to keep Hackney and look to add some more quality in the summer, particularly a longer term replacement for Howson who likely agree a new one year deal. Then look at bolstering our attacking options to add more quality and depth.
Totally agree.Hackney (and Rav), we have got to keep. If we sell them we have the money for 5 or more first team players, but we would also have to ship a bunch of players out because of squad limits, it would be a massive upheaval, it might leave us in a good place for teh future, but not for the now. The aim should be to keep the progression year to year, and have a core of 8 or 9 first teamers moving into the next season, so we have limited upheaval and incremental improvements. Plan B; If we don't go up next year, sure we may have to sell Hackney for 20m and buy 3 high quality 5-6m players, the following year, we sell Rav for 20m and again replace with 3 high quality players. But we keep a core from season to season. This is what Brighton and Brentford did, even Ipswich this year. Broadhead, Burgess, Burns, Chaplin, Clarke, Davis, Hirst, Hladky, Luongo, Morsy, Woolfenden are the only Ipswich players to play 20+ games this season, and every single player was in the squad last year. Continuity, familiarity with the tactics, unit cohesion, all important if you want to punch above the weight of your finances.
To be fair I don't think either were meant to be first XI players, or replacements for McGree. they both ended up playing a hell of a lot more games than we envisaged.The thing about mcgree is that we know he can play well at the top end of the championship. Our attempts to replace the left side role with Silvera and Greenwood has not worked. I would sooner keep mcgree as lose the others, then add someone as competition
I think the way we treated Tavernier gives us credit in the bank when trying to persuade players for one more year. We stuck to our word and sold him on as we agreed.I also think any players looking at other options, can potentially be persuaded by giving promotion a real crack next season. If it doesn’t pan out, the there’ll be an agreement that they can be sold the following season.
Luckily we are now in the financial position of not needing to sell cheap. We've got most of our key assets under longer contracts, our debt has been largely removed, and our income:wage ratio is reduced and manageable.Obviously, we’re always going to be open to a crazy offer for one of our better players but you would hope it’s got to be silly money, provided of course, there’s no financial pressure to sell.
What if Hackney gave us one more year last summer?I think the way we treated Tavernier gives us credit in the bank when trying to persuade players for one more year. We stuck to our word and sold him on as we agreed.