Transfer Talk, Rumours and Speculation

[Chris p]

I'd be disappointed to lose both Kamau and Fitzgerald, especially when you know they'll be replaced by someone equally mediocre 

[NewConvert]

3 hours ago, Chris p said:

I'd be disappointed to lose both Kamau and Fitzgerald, especially when you know they'll be replaced by someone equally mediocre 

I think Arzani has overtaken both. Hence one would be surplus but having said that Kamau and maybe Fitzy would benefit with a different kind of coach. Then there is the proverbial question as to whether Arzani would stick around or whether he would head north as well.

[jw1739]

3 hours ago, Chris p said:

I'd be disappointed to lose both Kamau and Fitzgerald, especially when you know they'll be replaced by someone equally mediocre 

Not necessarily. I think we may see a couple of the youngsters elevated to the senior squad.

[citymad]

1 hour ago, jw1739 said:

Not necessarily. I think we may see a couple of the youngsters elevated to the senior squad.

 This will definitely be the case. City will use the extra cap to get some high quality players that Wj picks himself. There are some youth players who are on the cusp and word is that city want to unleash them next season. Of course you can't have more 4 or so in there but that would allow depth when we are stretched if we secure an ACL spot. Plus they want to tie up the best on contracts before expansion when new clubs will be looking for cheap players with solid training under their belts. They almost lost Arzani because he was not played. I think they have learnt the lesson. Also if vidmar gets a a league coaching position he will try and lure them also. So city have to play them. I think fitzy is a confidence player. I agree that if he scored a good goal he would get some mojo back. 

[LB]

5 hours ago, Tangerine said:

Will be disappointed if Fitzy goes. Definitely a poor season, but his work rate has always been high. Could come back stronger next year. One of the few players to have been here more than 1 season and if he leaves it will add to my sense that City just churn through players without forming a squad fans can identify with.

This 100%. Looks like we’re going to have a significant turnover again this year, it does affect your connection to the club & also deminishes the reputation of the club IMO. 

 

[Embee]

Some serious overreactions here as far as I'm concerned.

Fitzy is a squaddie, pure and simple. He's had about 6-8 months of 'good' football in his A-League career and at this point it's beginning to look more and more like that is an outlier rather than his true level. He seems like a good lad and I'd be fine with keeping a guy like him for wing depth but I'm not going to be shattered if he leaves and he definitely shouldn't be one of our starting wingers if we're to aim higher than also-rans every season in my opinion.

If our squad turnover this off-season is limited to guys like Fitzy, Kamau and Tongyik who are squaddies/fringe players then I am perfectly fine with that. I'm more concerned with the club keeping the spine of the squad together, I'd be disappointed to lose just about any of our current starting 11 (with Malik taking the place of Bozanic) but any player outside of that is very replaceable.

[NewConvert]

8 hours ago, Embee said:

Some serious overreactions here as far as I'm concerned.

Fitzy is a squaddie, pure and simple. He's had about 6-8 months of 'good' football in his A-League career and at this point it's beginning to look more and more like that is an outlier rather than his true level. He seems like a good lad and I'd be fine with keeping a guy like him for wing depth but I'm not going to be shattered if he leaves and he definitely shouldn't be one of our starting wingers if we're to aim higher than also-rans every season in my opinion.

If our squad turnover this off-season is limited to guys like Fitzy, Kamau and Tongyik who are squaddies/fringe players then I am perfectly fine with that. I'm more concerned with the club keeping the spine of the squad together, I'd be disappointed to lose just about any of our current starting 11 (with Malik taking the place of Bozanic) but any player outside of that is very replaceable.

Some thoughts to ponder:

1. If Fitzy was able to have those 10 months of good football, why can't the coaching staff bring it out consistently? This is just more than the concern for Fitzy, it also reflects on the coaching staff.

2. If they leave, who will they be replaced with? This is another concern with our recruiting department. If you replace a squaddie with another squaddie, the question becomes why? Manny Muscat gets a lot of stick here and when his signing was announced, there was a genuine why on this forum.

3. Once the facilities were built at Bundoora, there was a lot of talk as to how the club would attract upcoming talent because of the facilities and CFG connections. Kamau's and Fotzy's departure would simply signal to young talent that although those two criteria are still there, football wise you are not going to progress in this club. The coaching is simply not up to it.

So yes Fitzy may leave and that would not be unusual as we turn over 50% of the squad every season anyway. But some the concern expressed is really a reflection of the club.

 

[HEARTinator]

1 minute ago, NewConvert said:

Some thoughts to ponder:

1. If Fitzy was able to have those 10 months of good football, why can't the coaching staff bring it out consistently? This is just more than the concern for Fitzy, it also reflects on the coaching staff.

 

 

I don't see it that way. What I reckon we've seen this season is 'peak Fitzy.' The guy is hard working with enough talent and drive to be an A-league player but not at a level to be considered in the upper bracket of players. Why can't he produce form consistently? Some players just can't. The game is played physically and between the ears. Some things can't be rectified by the coaching staff such as a player's belief in themselves (e.g. long standing doubt that I'm actually capable at this level) and the ability to self motivate and dig deep, etc. Much of this is learnt during childhood and can't be easily altered. If he is moving on I hope he does well but I'm not going to lose sleep if he leaves.

[moops]

11 hours ago, jw1739 said:

Not necessarily. I think we may see a couple of the youngsters elevated to the senior squad.

Najjarine

[Embee]

4 hours ago, NewConvert said:

Some thoughts to ponder:

1. If Fitzy was able to have those 10 months of good football, why can't the coaching staff bring it out consistently? This is just more than the concern for Fitzy, it also reflects on the coaching staff.

2. If they leave, who will they be replaced with? This is another concern with our recruiting department. If you replace a squaddie with another squaddie, the question becomes why? Manny Muscat gets a lot of stick here and when his signing was announced, there was a genuine why on this forum.

3. Once the facilities were built at Bundoora, there was a lot of talk as to how the club would attract upcoming talent because of the facilities and CFG connections. Kamau's and Fotzy's departure would simply signal to young talent that although those two criteria are still there, football wise you are not going to progress in this club. The coaching is simply not up to it.

So yes Fitzy may leave and that would not be unusual as we turn over 50% of the squad every season anyway. But some the concern expressed is really a reflection of the club.

 

1. Because his true level is the form outside of those 10 months perhaps? As HEARTinator mentioned, players have purple patches and play above themselves from time to time, the better players can maintain consistently high levels of form, hanging that purely on the City coaching staff is ridiculous IMO. Fitzy has played for 3 A-League clubs now (and under Ange and Arnie it should be noted), do we blame all their coaching staff for his inconsistency too? What about the fact that Malik and Brattan are playing the best football they have at this club under the current coaching staff? What about the excellent form of Atkinson and Arzani? 

2. I don't know, I'm the not the head of the recruiting team, but there's no shortage of players in this league/the world, whether they be starting quality or squaddies, perhaps a better first 11 player comes in and forces a current starter to the bench to fill Fitzy's role?. Who knows the exact reason why players move, it could be any number of reasons, perhaps Nick feels he's better than a bench player or that if he's going to remain one he'd rather return to his home state. Squad's require squad players, this is nothing new and it's natural to explore other options if the current ones you have aren't contributing enough or want to move elsewhere for whatever reason, I'm not sure how that concept would be difficult to grasp.

3. Fitzy is 26, Kamau is 23, using them as a benchmark for the treatment of 'young talent' is ridiculous. If you want to look at how this club treats young talent why not talk about Arzani and Atkinson? Two teenagers who were playing Youth League at the start of the season and are now 2 of the most important players in the team, one of which has a very good chance of heading to the World Cup with Australia this year. If you're a young player looking for pathways at A-League clubs you'd sooner look at those two than two players in their early/mid twenties who played for at least one A-League club before coming to City. Not to mention that Kamau and Fitzy have been given plentiful opportunities but have been unable to grasp them fully.

I will concede that I too am not happy with the 50% turnover (at least) that we see every season, but as I said in my original post, if our turnover this off-season is limited to squad players like Fitzy and Kamau then it's no great loss.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Embee

[neio]

I'm not that disappointed if fitzy leaves, 0 goals for the season and 4 assists hardly leaves much of a hole to fill.

Is a reasonable bench option and to start some games, but there would be better available, especially if we can use a visa spot on a winger next season and have Arzani-Fornaroli-VISA

[Jovan]

26 minutes ago, neio said:

I'm not that disappointed if fitzy leaves, 0 goals for the season and 4 assists hardly leaves much of a hole to fill.

Is a reasonable bench option and to start some games, but there would be better available, especially if we can use a visa spot on a winger next season and have Arzani-Fornaroli-VISA

 

Only thing I wouldn't hold my breath on using a visa spot on a winger. We had a pretty good one and for whatever reason sent him back.

Imagine having Fernando still available coming into finals. I still can't get my head around releasing him and not replacing. He seems to be fully recovered playing consistently for the last 8 games the last 4 full 90 minutes.

Hindsight is a very dangerous thing sometimes. 

[Embee]

1 minute ago, Jovan said:

 

Only thing I wouldn't hold my breath on using a visa spot on a winger. We had a pretty good one and for whatever reason sent him back.

Imagine having Fernando still available coming into finals. I still can't get my head around releasing him and not replacing. He seems to be fully recovered playing consistently for the last 8 games the last 4 full 90 minutes.

Hindsight is a very dangerous thing sometimes. 

[belaguttman]

43 minutes ago, Embee said:

I will concede that I too am not happy with the 50% turnover (at least) that we see every season, but as I said in my original post, if our turnover this off-season is limited to squad players like Fitzy and Kamau then it's no great loss.

 

This is the most concerning aspect and a constant in our history as Heart or City. This is one of the key factors that contribute to our ongoing mediocrity.

[bt50]

13 minutes ago, Jovan said:

 

Only thing I wouldn't hold my breath on using a visa spot on a winger. We had a pretty good one and for whatever reason sent him back.

Imagine having Fernando still available coming into finals. I still can't get my head around releasing him and not replacing. He seems to be fully recovered playing consistently for the last 8 games the last 4 full 90 minutes.

Hindsight is a very dangerous thing sometimes. 

IMO it was pretty obvious that reason was to make room for Ross, which ultimately backfired and left us with nothing. Ultimately i think it was the right move, but the club stuffed up by not having an adequate backup plan in the event Ross fell through.

[jw1739]

51 minutes ago, Embee said:

3. Fitzy is 26, Kamau is 23, using them as a benchmark for the treatment of 'young talent' is ridiculous. If you want to look at how this club treats young talent why not talk about Arzani and Atkinson? Two teenagers who were playing Youth League at the start of the season and are now 2 of the most important players in the team, one of which has a very good chance of heading to the World Cup with Australia this year. If you're a young player looking for pathways at A-League clubs you'd sooner look at those two than two players in their early/mid twenties who played for at least one A-League club before coming to City. Not to mention that Kamau and Fitzy have been given plentiful opportunities but have been unable to grasp them fully.

I will concede that I too am not happy with the 50% turnover (at least) that we see every season, but as I said in my original post, if our turnover this off-season is limited to squad players like Fitzy and Kamau then it's no great loss.

I support @Embee all the way on his thoughts above. Even before CFG took over Heart and latterly before Joyce came on the scene our young players have been given every opportunity, but with Joyce at the helm we've really seen success in this regard with Arzani and Atkinson.

I'd say players such as Craig Goodwin and Connor Chapman, even Curtis Good, show that our club's young players have every chance of progressing their careers with us.

[Jovan]

46 minutes ago, bt50 said:

IMO it was pretty obvious that reason was to make room for Ross, which ultimately backfired and left us with nothing. Ultimately i think it was the right move, but the club stuffed up by not having an adequate backup plan in the event Ross fell through.

I'm not sure it is that obvious. You make a few assumptions based on the end result. 

I've got no idea why Fernando was shipped out, maybe it was his choice. But to say it was create cap/visa space for a deal involving McCormack being obvious is a long bow. Also to say it was the right move, even now is just plain wrong IMO. We lost both players, both game changing players.

To me it was a mistake, a big mistake and although it was probably done with the best intentions it is still a major error and should be noted and avoided at all costs in the future. 

[Embee]

4 minutes ago, Jovan said:

I'm not sure it is that obvious. You make a few assumptions based on the end result. 

I've got no idea why Fernando was shipped out, maybe it was his choice. But to say it was create cap/visa space for a deal involving McCormack being obvious is a long bow. Also to say it was the right move, even now is just plain wrong IMO. We lost both players, both game changing players.

To me it was a mistake, a big mistake and although it was probably done with the best intentions it is still a major error and should be noted and avoided at all costs in the future. 

I don't disagree with the bolded comment, I've sooked at length to @bt50 about the decision to let Fernando go, however I'm also pretty confident it was to free up a VISA place for Ross. Even if we had have found a way to get Ross on a Marquee deal (which wasn't going to happen) we still would've needed to lose a VISA to make that happen. At the time the two obvious options were an under-performing Marcin, who we would've needed to pay out, or an on loan Brandan who we could effectively just send home.

In hindsight it was a mistake and backfired, but I do understand why it was made. The fact that there was no back-up option if the Ross deal fell through is the most damning aspect of the situation.

[bt50]

5 minutes ago, Jovan said:

I'm not sure it is that obvious. You make a few assumptions based on the end result. 

I've got no idea why Fernando was shipped out, maybe it was his choice. But to say it was create cap/visa space for a deal involving McCormack being obvious is a long bow. Also to say it was the right move, even now is just plain wrong IMO. We lost both players, both game changing players.

To me it was a mistake, a big mistake and although it was probably done with the best intentions it is still a major error and should be noted and avoided at all costs in the future. 

In order to keep Ross we had to make a visa spot available, which was essentially a choice between Brandan and Budzinski. Now i personally would have looked at releasing Bud, but i can understand that they were looking more favorably at the far cheaper option in Brandan, as well as the fact he was recovering from a major injury.

I really dont think its a long bow to draw at all, and tbh from the tidbits we've received from club staff then I'm 99% sure this was the case.

I think it was 100% the right call to pursue Ross over Brandan, but like i said, the major stuff up on the club's behalf was not having an adequate Plan B

1 minute ago, Embee said:

I don't disagree with the bolded comment, I've sooked at length to @bt50 about the decision to let Fernando go, however I'm also pretty confident it was to free up a VISA place for Ross. Even if we had have found a way to get Ross on a Marquee deal (which wasn't going to happen) we still would've needed to lose a VISA to make that happen. At the time the two obvious options were an under-performing Marcin, who we would've needed to pay out, or an on loan Brandan who we could effectively just send home.

In hindsight it was a mistake and backfired, but I do understand why it was made. The fact that there was no back-up option if the Ross deal fell through is the most damning aspect of the situation.

Twinning.

[jw1739]

Wasn't the Ross deal going to go through until the Villa Chairman torpedoed it at the last moment? Which kind of makes the lack of a Plan B perhaps a little bit more acceptable?

[Embee]

3 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

Wasn't the Ross deal going to go through until the Villa Chairman torpedoed it at the last moment? Which kind of makes the lack of a Plan B perhaps a little bit more acceptable?

Apparently that was the case.

It makes it a little bit more acceptable, but I personally would've liked to have seen us hold off the loan termination until we were certain on Ross.

[belaguttman]

9 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

Wasn't the Ross deal going to go through until the Villa Chairman torpedoed it at the last moment? Which kind of makes the lack of a Plan B perhaps a little bit more acceptable?

I think that it becomes even less acceptable. Developing a Plan B is even more important when the final decision on a key recruitment is dependant on a decision that is out of your control

[bt50]

10 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

Wasn't the Ross deal going to go through until the Villa Chairman torpedoed it at the last moment? Which kind of makes the lack of a Plan B perhaps a little bit more acceptable?

Yep, all indications point to the club being severely blindsided at the last minute. Understandable, but still doesnt excuse the lack of a plan b.

Whilst i appreciate @Embee notion that we could have held off on the loan termination, i think that is prob removing Fernando's perspective from the situation. I know if it was me that once i knew my club was set to boot me for someone else, i wouldn't be hanging around as a backup plan if another offer was already on the table.

[n i k o]

3 hours ago, bt50 said:

Yep, all indications point to the club being severely blindsided at the last minute. Understandable, but still doesnt excuse the lack of a plan b.

Whilst i appreciate @Embee notion that we could have held off on the loan termination, i think that is prob removing Fernando's perspective from the situation. I know if it was me that once i knew my club was set to boot me for someone else, i wouldn't be hanging around as a backup plan if another offer was already on the table.

I find it incredibly astonishing that the club even felt they could keep Ross for such a measly sum (in comparison to his deal with Villa). Of course without knowing of the talks behind the scenes it's difficult to understand, however I'd love to know what gave them any inclination that Villa would just allow us to use him or not want his fee paid out. Seems like a huge gamble that in all likelihood was going to end one way. 

Maybe the Fernando decision was made on its own 'merits.' Was his body ok, long term? Was there a clash of personalities? Looking towards next season did Wazza see him in his plans? Did they want to have some transferable cap money for next season? Did they want a visa spot available for another position?

Another reason may be the coming of Arzani...?  If he was in the plans as a replacement for Fernando then fair enough. However I don't think the Fernando decision wasn't made because if this. Fernando was released well before Arzani showed that he could hold down a starting eleven position. 

 

[Embee]

5 minutes ago, n i k o said:

I find it incredibly astonishing that the club even felt they could keep Ross for such a measly sum (in comparison to his deal with Villa). Of course without knowing of the talks behind the scenes it's difficult to understand, however I'd love to know what gave them any inclination that Villa would just allow us to use him or not want his fee paid out. Seems like a huge gamble that in all likelihood was going to end one way. 

Maybe the Fernando decision was made on its own 'merits.' Was his body ok, long term? Was there a clash of personalities? Looking towards next season did Wazza see him in his plans? Did they want to have some transferable cap money for next season? Did they want a visa spot available for another position?

Another reason may be the coming of Arzani...?  If he was in the plans as a replacement for Fernando then fair enough. However I don't think the Fernando decision wasn't made because if this. Fernando was released well before Arzani showed that he could hold down a starting eleven position. 

 

Huh? We weren't going to pay him Brandan's wages, we were going to use his VISA spot.

Villa's football staff were apparently more than happy with the wages/fee we offered to pay for Ross for the remainder of the season until the owner stepped in at the last minute and demanded we pay them all.

[bt50]

11 minutes ago, n i k o said:

I find it incredibly astonishing that the club even felt they could keep Ross for such a measly sum (in comparison to his deal with Villa). Of course without knowing of the talks behind the scenes it's difficult to understand, however I'd love to know what gave them any inclination that Villa would just allow us to use him or not want his fee paid out. Seems like a huge gamble that in all likelihood was going to end one way. 

Maybe the Fernando decision was made on its own 'merits.' Was his body ok, long term? Was there a clash of personalities? Looking towards next season did Wazza see him in his plans? Did they want to have some transferable cap money for next season? Did they want a visa spot available for another position?

Another reason may be the coming of Arzani...?  If he was in the plans as a replacement for Fernando then fair enough. However I don't think the Fernando decision wasn't made because if this. Fernando was released well before Arzani showed that he could hold down a starting eleven position. 

 

Depends how you value it to the alternative. Clearly Villa had not many options as he was now tied in the clearance game, and surely if they'd decided he wasnt going to play for them no matter what, then getting 30% of your wages paid by another club for 4 months, as well as maintaining if not increasing his sale value, is a worthwhile venture. It's better than paying 100% and watching his value go down.
And it was clear that we weren't being greedy; we were restricted by the cap. Villa were well within their rights to wait until the last minute to tick off the loan in case an 11th hour offer came for him, but that was always unlikely given he wouldnt be able to play for 6 months, and they were always going to need to accept an overall loss as he was nowhere near the value that Villa paid for him. 

I really dont think the Brandan release has much grounds for debate tbh; he was clearly released to make way for Ross.

Edited April 3, 2018 by bt50

[n i k o]

Just now, Embee said:

Huh? We weren't going to pay him Brandan's wages, we were going to use his VISA spot.

Villa's football staff were apparently more than happy with the wages/fee we offered to pay for Ross for the remainder of the season until the owner stepped in at the last minute and demanded we pay them all.

That's not what I meant in regards to paying him Brandans wages. Your second sentence is more my intended meaning. I'm surprised they even considered to allow us to use him for the remainder of the season. I would have expected that they react as their owner has and demand the full payment of his contract. 

[Embee]

4 minutes ago, n i k o said:

That's not what I meant in regards to paying him Brandans wages. Your second sentence is more my intended meaning. I'm surprised they even considered to allow us to use him for the remainder of the season. I would have expected that they react as their owner has and demand the full payment of his contract. 

I would've thought they'd rather get SOME money back for a player they clearly have no intent of using rather than none. Seems that our staff and theirs thought the same thing.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Embee

[n i k o]

7 minutes ago, bt50 said:

Depends how you value it to the alternative. Clearly Villa had not many options as he was now tied in the clearance game, and surely if they'd decided he wasnt going to play for them no matter what, then getting 30% of your wages paid by another club for 4 months, as well as maintaining if not increasing his sale value, is a worthwhile venture. It's better than paying 100% and watching his value go down.
And it was clear that we weren't being greedy; we were restricted by the cap. Villa were well within their rights to wait until the last minute to tick off the loan in case an 11th hour offer came for him, but that was always unlikely given he wouldnt be able to play for 6 months, and they were always going to need to accept an overall loss as he was nowhere near the value that Villa paid for him. 

I really dont think the Brandan release has much grounds for debate tbh; he was clearly released to make way for Ross.

I agree completely with the bolded part. I wonder then what gave the owner of Villa reason to want to hold on to Ross. 

[Embee]

Just now, n i k o said:

I agree completely with the bolded part. I wonder then what gave the owner of Villa reason to want to hold on to Ross. 

Sounds like he was cutting off his nose to spite his face to me. Felt that a team associated with Manchester City should just be able to cough up all the cash and if they can't then he would hold Ross there.

Stupid move IMO.

[Dylan]

1 minute ago, n i k o said:

I agree completely with the bolded part. I wonder then what gave the owner of Villa reason to want to hold on to Ross. 

Spite?

[bt50]

2 minutes ago, n i k o said:

I agree completely with the bolded part. I wonder then what gave the owner of Villa reason to want to hold on to Ross. 

 

1 minute ago, Embee said:

Sounds like he was cutting off his nose to spite his face to me. Felt that a team associated with Manchester City should just be able to cough up all the cash and if they can't then he would hold Ross there.

Stupid move IMO.

Yeh this IMO.

[n i k o]

@bt50 @Embee @Dylan

Agree with that 

[bt50]

As much as rich people are generally rich because they make good business decisions, sometimes theyre just petulant cunts because the money or profit doesnt actually mean anything to them. Drop in the ocean, get one up over the Joneses etc.

From what i've heard the Villa owner doesnt actually have much to do with the running of the club, but requires that he tick off all sales and loan deals.

Edited April 3, 2018 by bt50

[playmaker]

Based on performance alone, Fitzy and Kamau are our weakest players with the least potential and should be off-loaded at the end of the season, as should Bud if he is not up to Wazza's standard for any reason.

The addition of a high quality Marquee and Visa (to Wazza's liking) to our current squad is a very exciting prospect for next season.

I think the release of Brandan was an error and obviously was made for the Ross deal, however with the narrowing and more direct play of late with competent centralised attacks, Vidosic, Arsani and Mauk a becoming a handful for the opposition defence even without Brandan.

I just hope Ross enjoyed his time here tbh and is available for next season to give us a great chance of getting a quality player next to Bruno.

Edited April 3, 2018 by playmaker

[Dylan]

4+1 visa outside of the cap would be nice, which I think has a big chance of happening for next season

Edited April 3, 2018 by Dylan

[haz]

Im starting to lean towards the reason that the club has intel that next season will be 4+1. Hence why Brandan was released (In addition to injury)

[jeffplz]

Brandan simply wasnt sharp while he was here.  Bringing him back into the squad just 5 months after his surgery was a hugely controversial decision by the medical team but although it paid off in that he was able to play without pain, he wasnt good. Not sure why yall dont believe Wazza

[jw1739]

On 4/3/2018 at 4:27 PM, haz said:

Im starting to lean towards the reason that the club has intel that next season will be 4+1. Hence why Brandan was released (In addition to injury)

TBH I can't see that has relevance. His loan was due to expire on 31st May 2018 anyway. IMO the two most plausible reasons for his release were that he is the very antithesis of the type of player favoured by Joyce and because right until the last minute it looked as though McCormack could stay and we had to make room for that to happen.

Edited April 11, 2018 by jw1739

[haz]

1 hour ago, jw1739 said:

TBH I can't see that has relevance. His loan was due to expire on 31st May 2018 anyway. IMO the two most plausible reasons for his release were that he is the very antithesis of the type of player favoured by Joyce and because right until the last minute it looked as though McCormack could stay and we had to make room for that to happen.

Ah thanks I always forget he was on loan