neio Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 3 American teams and now a Chinese team in for Mccormack, starting to get worried that we can't get a deal done Edited January 23, 2018 by neio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haz Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 11 minutes ago, neio said: 3 American teams and now a Chinese team in for Mccormack, starting to get worried that we can't get a deal done Quick put the 'Unlimited Meat Pies and Sausage Rolls' clause in his contract! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snordork Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 Report: Leeds United plan £7 million double raid on Aston Villa pair Ross McCormack and Tommy Elphick https://tinyurl.com/ycdym4ul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeartOfCity Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 1 minute ago, Snordork said: Report: Leeds United plan £7 million double raid on Aston Villa pair Ross McCormack and Tommy Elphick https://tinyurl.com/ycdym4ul Ah shit! 😭 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haz Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 It will be MLS or us and it if its MLS it will be if they stump up the cash for a transfer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fensaddler Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 1 hour ago, Snordork said: Report: Leeds United plan £7 million double raid on Aston Villa pair Ross McCormack and Tommy Elphick https://tinyurl.com/ycdym4ul Third club rule? No I don't understand either but apparently he can't go to another English club?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malloy Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 6 minutes ago, fensaddler said: Third club rule? No I don't understand either but apparently he can't go to another English club?? If a bid does come in from an English club, meaning he can't play, I wonder if they would be open to loaning him to us for the remainder of the season. It would likely be the best result for all parties involved. Aston Villa get their fee, we keep McCormack for the season, the buying club get their player and keep them playing competitively, McCormack gets to go back to England with his family after A-League season ends instead of the alternative of heading to US and having them need to relocate or leaving them in England. This is of course on the assumption that the rules stop players from playing with three clubs as opposed to being registered at three clubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw1739 Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 48 minutes ago, fensaddler said: Third club rule? No I don't understand either but apparently he can't go to another English club?? It's explained - sort of - in FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. In essence, a player may be registered with a maximum of only three clubs in any one season (only one at a time of course) and may play competitive matches for only two of those. There are other conditions around that basic rule as well. Do a Google search on "Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players" - there are numerous versions on line (.pdf) and I haven't pinpointed the latest version yet. Edit: He can't play for another English or Australian club this season, but he could play in the MLS. It's a sub-rule on "overlapping seasons" that I haven't quite worked out yet. Edited January 23, 2018 by jw1739 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahanga Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 34 minutes ago, jw1739 said: It's explained - sort of - in FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. In essence, a player may be registered with a maximum of only three clubs in any one season (only one at a time of course) and may play competitive matches for only two of those. There are other conditions around that basic rule as well. Do a Google search on "Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players" - there are numerous versions on line (.pdf) and I haven't pinpointed the latest version yet. Edit: He can't play for another English or Australian club this season, but he could play in the MLS. It's a sub-rule on "overlapping seasons" that I haven't quite worked out yet. My gut instinct tells me that the existence of this rule is the only thing giving us a chance in retaining Rosco. Edited January 23, 2018 by jw1739 Correction to quoted post: players to clubs 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haz Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) Quote Melbourne City frees up cap space to keep striker Ross McCormack after releasing Neil Kilkenny DAVID DAVUTOVIC, Herald Sun January 23, 2018 11:44am MELBOURNE City will launch a last-ditch attempt to keep prolific striker Ross McCormack until the end of the season and freeing up crucial salary cap funds. Last season’s best and fairest winner, out-of-favour Neil Kilkenny was released by City on Tuesday night and the midfielder was expected to join Perth Glory for the rest of the season.Although City agreed a severance payment to Kilkenny, his exit could release enough funds to get the McCormack deal over the line. Thursday’s crucial clash against second-place Newcatsle Jets at AAMI Park is McCormack’s last under his current loan deal from Aston Villa as Bruno Fornaroli’s injury replacement.Prior to Kilkenny’s release, City appeared resigned to losing the prolific McCormack but it appears Kilkenny’s release leaves the door ajar as negotiations move into overdrive. Villa had agreed in principle for McCormack to stay with City, but it’s believed that they want City to contribute more to his lucrative Championship salary while a six-figure loan fee is also believed to have been a stumbling block. City has been hamstrung by only being able to offer funds from within the cap, with a spot opening up after Marcelo Carrusca’s exit. Kilkenny’s exit leaves them with in excess of $200,000 to play with after City had just over $100,000 left inside the cap. If that figure is not enough to satisfy Villa, the other option could be bringing marquee player Marcin Budzinski inside the cap and sign McCormack as a marquee alongside Fornaroli, where there is no pay ceiling. “We’re just waiting to hear on a daily basis, I think it’ll go right to the wire (this week),’’ City coach Warren Joyce said last weekend. “We’re not in total control of the situation so we’re a bit dictated to by them really. There’s things with Villa that have got to be sorted. “The fact that it’s coming on the end of January and his loan (ends) just before that doesn’t help.” FIFA rules prevent McCormack from playing for another club this season, meaning a return to England would likely leave him sidelined at Villa, where manager Steve Bruce has made it clear he is not part of first-team plans. McCormack told the Herald Sun last week that he wanted to stay and the club has agreed that he can return to the UK in February to see his kids if they agree a deal. Joyce was confident that McCormack, who has scored 14 goals in 16 games, could deliver more if he stayed. “He still thinks there’s more to come from him, he’s got sharper over the last few weeks. The added games have sharpened him up,’’ he said. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/football/a-league/teams/melbourne-city/melbourne-city-want-to-keep-striker-ross-mccormack-after-releasing-neil-kilkenny/news-story/6c93da7081476c5fc928b7107336aefc Surely moving Budzik into the cap and giving him $250k+ for the last 10 games would be the smart option? Edited January 23, 2018 by haz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Embee Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, haz said: Surely moving Budzik into the cap and giving him $250k+ for the last 10 games would be the smart option? You'd think so, not to mention that I thought clubs had to put a loan player's entire wages towards the cap regardless of how much they were contributing. Edited January 23, 2018 by Embee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haz Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 13 minutes ago, Embee said: You'd think so, not to mention that I thought clubs had to put a loan player's entire wages towards the cap regards of how much they were contributing. Yea there is a few points in that article confused me. I thought David D was all over the rules? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murfy1 Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Embee said: You'd think so, not to mention that I thought clubs had to put a loan player's entire wages towards the cap regards of how much they were contributing. This is definitely complicated, but my understanding is that: - Aston Villa want a new payment (a loan fee) from Melbourne City so we can keep Ross for the remainder of the season, and they can get some money to seemingly "recoup" some of the money they are spending now on Ross's wages (who, of course, is not featuring in the Aston Villa team). - City had about 100k under the cap (after Vidosic and Delbridge's arrivals reduced the money gained from Cahill's, Brandan's and Carrusca's exits), and now with Kilkenny's exit City has a total of 200k or a bit more under the cap - Now City can throw the whole 200k at Aston Villa to pay for the loan fee (which, hopefully, Aston Villa might decide is a sufficient sum for Ross to be loaned out to us for the remainder of the season). - On Ross's wages inside the cap, my guess is that perhaps because we have already had Ross on loan at MCFC, as an injury replacement marquee, we can put Ross's wages into the "marquee column", and we don't need to put his wages into the "salary cap column", because it would be unnecessary/inappropriate to register one player's wages for one season twice in the two columns (because we have already declared Ross's wages for this season, and that was when he first arrived as an injury replacement marquee). - On Budzinski, I guess he would need to choose to move within the cap. And maybe he is against that, and there could be multiple reasons why. 1, for example, Budzinski is contracted for next season, so for starters there is the job security of being here until next season and on a marquee wage (of about 400k). Also 2, even if Budzinski agreed to move inside the cap for this season, getting 200k for 10 games (and hence getting more money than his 400k a season marquee wages for the remainder of the season), he might (justifiably) doubt that he would get wages comparable to 400k or more for next season, so while the 200K move inside the cap might be financially payoff for Budzinski over the short term (that is, the remainder of this season), Budzinski might think that over the longer term that he would be unable to gain more money (if he moved inside the cap for 200k, and negotiated with the club for a salary cap wage for next season, compared with his current situation of 400k marquee wages for this season AND next season). Overall, for job security and financial reasons, I can see why Budzinski (and most A-League marquees in general, I believe) rarely and only reluctantly chose to move inside the salary cap. Edited January 23, 2018 by Murfy1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haz Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Murfy1 said: - On Budzinski, I guess he would need to choose to move within the cap. And maybe he is against that, and there could be multiple reasons why. 1, for example, Budzinski is contracted for next season, so for starters there is the job security of being here until next season and on a marquee wage (of about 400k). Also 2, even if Budzinski agreed to move inside the cap for this season, getting 200k for 10 games (and hence getting more money than his 400k a season marquee wages for the remainder of the season), he might (justifiably) doubt that he would get wages comparable to 400k or more for next season, so while the 200K move inside the cap might be financially payoff for Budzinski over the short term (that is, the remainder of this season), Budzinski might think that over the longer term that he would be unable to gain more money (if he moved inside the cap for 200k, and negotiated with the club for a salary cap wage for next season, compared with his current situation of 400k marquee wages for this season AND next season). Overall, for job security and financial reasons, I can see why Budzinski (and most A-League marquees in general, I believe) rarely and only reluctantly chose to move inside the salary cap. In regards to Budzik, it would just be a re-negotiated contract, so he would know the details for next season. Plus from the article you posted in the Budzinski thread, he might leave at the end of the season. And they might put a clause if he doesnt meet a certain amount of playing minutes (just like Arzani's case) he can leave. I can understand the reason you mentioned about him not unsure about his future 'job' security and salary, but this would all be cleared up in a typical contract negotiation. Of course if CFG said 'Your contract is now $200k to the end of the season, we will negotiate your position and salary once the season is concluded'. Then I would 100% turn it down because of the uncertanity. Edited January 23, 2018 by haz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neio Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 Are we even sure if we are allowed to move budzinski inside the cap? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haz Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 1 hour ago, neio said: Are we even sure if we are allowed to move budzinski inside the cap? Who knows? Rules change all the time, David D believes we can Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missing_Moy Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) If his loan ends Thursday can he play Thursday? Edited January 23, 2018 by Missing_Moy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malloy Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 18 minutes ago, Missing_Moy said: If his loan ends Thursday can he play Thursday? Other articles stated that it ends on Friday, thursday being his last day with us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Afif Adam Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 18 minutes ago, malloy said: Other articles stated that it ends on Friday, thursday being his last day with us. Someone make a “Thank You Ross” TIFO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw1739 Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, neio said: Are we even sure if we are allowed to move budzinski inside the cap? My understanding is that FFA's approval is required for a player to be a marquee i.e. paid outside the salary cap. It follows that we cannot unilaterally move that player inside the cap to allow another player to become a marquee. As for paying "part of" McCormack's wages inside the cap and Aston Villa paying the rest, I just don't believe that's possible under the "Lampard Rule." Edited January 23, 2018 by jw1739 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thisphantomfortress Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 I'm sure we could keep him as a guest player in the same way Perth got Keogh a few seasons back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw1739 Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 3 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said: I'm sure we could keep him as a guest player in the same way Perth got Keogh a few seasons back? Agree. I think I've mentioned that a couple of times. Seems like that's by far the easiest way - although it requires FFA approval of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post thisphantomfortress Posted January 23, 2018 Popular Post Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 4 minutes ago, jw1739 said: Agree. I think I've mentioned that a couple of times. Seems like that's by far the easiest way - although it requires FFA approval of course. Considering the following : - the league is stale and crowds are down - all teams beside Sydney are average and without ross we won't be able to mount a challenge - McCormack is highly marketable and banging in the goals All signs point towards keeping Ross being good for the league as a whole. On this basis I believe the FFA will reject it. 6 1 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 The guest rule still applies by the way. It’s 10 games. What doesn’t exist is the whole season guest rule Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw1739 Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 2 minutes ago, Dylan said: The guest rule still applies by the way. It’s 10 games. What doesn’t exist is the whole season guest rule I believe now 14? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 19 minutes ago, jw1739 said: I believe now 14? Probably right. I knew they increased it a couple of years ago, sounds more plausible that it’s from 10 to 14 Edited January 23, 2018 by Dylan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fensaddler Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 I suspect the club know what route they are going to follow re Ross's status interested squad, FFA rules etc. It just needs a deal on the numbers with Villa. They may be hanging on to see if they get a better offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snordork Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 Clement Tito : Warren Joyce speaks about Ross McCormack's future. Story up later https://twitter.com/ClementGTito/status/956014415912071168 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neio Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 If one thing this club is good at, it's getting around rules to do with getting players I'm sure someone is going through the Aleague rules and coming up with the best way to keep Ross, I just hope it's enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haz Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 14 minutes ago, neio said: If one thing this club is good at, it's getting around rules to do with getting players I'm sure someone is going through the Aleague rules and coming up with the best way to keep Ross, I just hope it's enough Dont think FFA are the problem at the moment, will be Villa wanting to get their money back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snordork Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 Melbourne City face losing Ross McCormack after Newcastle Jets game http://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/melbourne-city-face-losing-ross-mccormack-after-newcastle-jets-game-20180124-h0nq60.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playmaker Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 (edited) Talks to keep McCormack at City going down to the wire, but Jets game could be finale Ross McCormack could play his final game for Melbourne City when Warren Joyce's team take on second-placed Newcastle Jets at AAMI Park on Thursday night, with no deal yet struck to keep the Scottish marksman at the A-League club for the rest of the season. If McCormack's employers, Aston Villa, opt to take him back to the UK by the end of the January transfer window, Joyce will be left with a huge task replacing a player who has scored more than half of City's goals this season. He has 14, including four from penalties and four from direct free kicks, while the team has scored 26 in total. Ross McCormack has scored more than half of Melbourne City's goals this season, with 14 to his name. Photo: AAP Bruno Fornaroli, the club's talismanic top scorer in seasons past, is still out of action – he received a setback 10 days ago as he recovers from the injury that has kept him out of the team all year.. Joyce indicated he would be prepared to put his faith in City's impressive crop of young attacking players, headed by teenager Daniel Arzani, should he be forced to do without McCormack – who has suggested he would prefer to stay – for the rest of the season. "The talks with Ross are ongoing between Aston Villa [and City] ... we will have to see how that goes in the next few days," Joyce said on Wednesday. "Discussions are going on as we speak. I honestly don't know [how it will turn out]. There's lots of things that need to be discussed with Aston Villa. They are his parent club, they have a major say in what happens. They have owners there that have a say in what happens to Ross. "He's had different issues ... with wanting to see his children and things like that. We knew about that, we will just have to wait and see, the next few days are probably key to it." What, he was asked, was his plan B? "We will just look at that when and if. We are just looking to get Ross to the club. If not there is still time left in the window. But as it has shown with the young lads who have stepped up, there's other young players at the club who are desperate for a chance. We have got Mauky [Stefan Mauk] Rui [Ruon Tongyik] and Bruce [Kamau] back now [from Olyroo duties] to add to that crew. "We have seen Connor Metcalfe get a little chance. Ramy [Najjarine] a few weeks ago was certainly knocking on the door for a chance at the first team and got injured when he was away with Australia, so he's another one that's dying to break into the group. "You are looking for that. The kids are in a grand final [National Youth League], they have everything to play for, and they have a chance to promote themselves ... if they do great they can push themselves forward." Joyce was not prepared to speculate on when Fornaroli might be back. "He's worked tremendously hard over the period. The last couple of days he's upped it a bit. You have to keep upping the bar and pushing it again. Ten days ago there was another little hiccup, he was down and frustrated, but he overcame that hurdle. "To give timelines is difficult. He is working his socks off. He is bright and bubbly around the club, he is desperate to be involved." Centre-back Bart Schenkeveld is suspended for the visit of the Jets, but Joyce said there were plenty of alternatives. "Obviously [Harrison] Delbridge is back into contention [after a suspension]. Manny Muscat is now back available as well too. You are looking to those options. Iacopo La Rocca has an injury, Rui [Tongyik] is back not having had a great deal of football, but we have got those three back in contention for that position." City are one of the few teams to get a result in Newcastle this season. They survived a first-half barrage to win 2-1. Joyce believes that success was deserved, but is wary of the threat posed by Ernie Merrick's men on Thursday as they seek to hold on to second spot. "I thought we were lucky in the first half, I didn't think we were lucky in the second half. I think they are a good footballing side, they have certainly got some threats, they have shown all season that they can hurt you. They have people at the top of the pitch who have done very well in the league this year and might be some of the best players in the league. "We have got to be building on recent results. It's a great challenge for the players." Edited January 24, 2018 by playmaker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haz Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 (edited) Quote Melbourne City striker Ross McCormack returns to UK as club baulks at high loan fee DAVID DAVUTOVIC, Herald Sun January 24, 2018 8:38am A-LEAGUE goal machine Ross McCormack will return to the UK on Friday with his Melbourne City future still unresolved. City coach Warren Joyce conceded that Thursday night’s clash with second-place Newcastle Jets at AAMI Park could be McCormack’s his 17th and last for City. McCormack, who’s netted 15 goals, will hold face-to-face talks with Aston Villa chiefs over the weekend after his loan deal as Bruno Fornaroli’s injury replacement ends. It’s understood that the sticking point is Villa seeking a loan fee in excess of $100,000 from City. With his Villa future all but over and McCormack unable to play for another UK club this season under FIFA rules as he’s already played for two clubs, it’s believed that the striker will ask for the Championship club’s chiefs to find a way of making the City move happen. City has been actively seeking an attacker as they prepare for McCormack’s potential exit and Fornaroli still sidelined, though they received good news with Nathaniel Atkinson (ankle) expected to miss just 4-6 weeks. McCormack looks set to return to the first XI, boosting a side that smashed Adelaide United 5-0 last week with Olyroo Bruce Kamau also returning to the squad. “It could possibly be (his last game), but I honestly don’t know. Discussions are going on as we speak,’’ Joyce said. “We’re doing all we can behind the scenes, we’re concentrated on winning the game and then we’ll assess it after that. “He’s made it clear for a while that he would like to (stay). He’s obviously had different issues with (wanting) to see his children and things like that. “There’s lots of things that have got to be discussed with Aston Villa. They’re his parent club and they’ve got a major say in what happens. “The talks with Ross are going between Aston Villa, we’ll just see how that goes in the next few days.” Harrison Delbridge or Ruon Tongyik will come in for suspended stopper Bart Schenkeveld with Iacopo La Rocca injured. Joyce said the release of out of favour midfielder, last season’s best and fairest winner Neil Kilkenny, was the nature of the industry. “It’s great that he played well last season but it’s immaterial really. Two weeks ago is immaterial, you’ve got to raise the bar,’’ he said. “He played every pre-season game, found himself out of the team with injury going into the start of the season and we won the first four games and that’s about it really. Things like that happen in football.” The Jets have been boosted by the inclusion of Olyroos midfielder Riley McGree, who signed on loan from Club Brugge. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/football/a-league/teams/melbourne-city/melbourne-city-striker-ross-mccormack-returns-to-uk-as-club-baulks-at-high-loan-fee/news-story/bc5b2176da0b38a090acda6ff91481a9 All round interesting comments Edited January 24, 2018 by haz 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HEARTinator Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 Losing McCormack - it's the nature of world football and player movements that we have to accept if it comes true but that would put an absolutely serious dint in the team. It would be like SFC having to give up one of their key players like Bobo, Ninkovic or Mierzejewski. However for us, McCormack is even more important because he's scored the bulk of our goals. No love lost in these comments from Joyce: Joyce said the release of out of favour midfielder, last season’s best and fairest winner Neil Kilkenny, was the nature of the industry. “It’s great that he played well last season but it’s immaterial really. Two weeks ago is immaterial, you’ve got to raise the bar,’’ he said. “He played every pre-season game, found himself out of the team with injury going into the start of the season and we won the first four games and that’s about it really. Things like that happen in football.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malloy Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 5 hours ago, haz said: All round interesting comments Bit ridiculous if we think $100k is too high a loan fee imo. Subject to salary cap of course. If we are to do anything for the rest of the season and into finals we need a fucking striker and to lose one that is in a purple patch is gonna hurt us. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neio Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 Sounds like the best we can hope for is that we somehow sort it out and Ross returns for the Sydney game in 2 weeks Not holding my breath though, sounds like tonight is his last game Hopefully we have a plan B for both a striker, and also a visa player Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rass Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 Such a frustrating scenario. Left the ground Sunday night just so excited that the football had become enjoyable again. The players looked happy and were gelling, the football was more positive and there was that x factor in our play. Now I'm going tonight not sure what to expect, fearing that the team will be thrown upside down again and we'll lose this momentum we have created. Big fan of Ross and hope he stays, but it's so typical of our past that as soon as things start looking good, something comes along to wreck it. I'm not blaming the club or anyone for this - I'm a Villa fan, yet a bit pissed off with them and hopeful they will do the right thing by us - but of course it's not their duty or care to do so. One thing though; quite a few players have left since the start of the season and we have not (to my knowledge) replaced them all. If we throw all of that remaining cap to keep Ross, are we running the risk of our squad being too lean, especially with finals coming up soon and no guarantee of Bruno coming back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bt50 Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, rass said: Such a frustrating scenario. Left the ground Sunday night just so excited that the football had become enjoyable again. The players looked happy and were gelling, the football was more positive and there was that x factor in our play. Now I'm going tonight not sure what to expect, fearing that the team will be thrown upside down again and we'll lose this momentum we have created. Big fan of Ross and hope he stays, but it's so typical of our past that as soon as things start looking good, something comes along to wreck it. I'm not blaming the club or anyone for this - I'm a Villa fan, yet a bit pissed off with them and hopeful they will do the right thing by us - but of course it's not their duty or care to do so. One thing though; quite a few players have left since the start of the season and we have not (to my knowledge) replaced them all. If we throw all of that remaining cap to keep Ross, are we running the risk of our squad being too lean, especially with finals coming up soon and no guarantee of Bruno coming back? Don't care tbh. Our base 20 is pretty bloody good and we've shown we have capable youth kids in the wings in Metcalfe, Najaarine etc It would take a serious injury crisis for that to eventuate, in which case we'd prob be stuffed anyway. Out side of Sunday's XI we have cover in the following GK : Galekovic, Delianov DEF : Delbridge, Tongyik, La Rocca, Muscat, kids (Cavallo, Pierias?) MID : Mauk, Genreau, Najaarine, Cavallo 2.0 FWD : Kamau, Ross, Bruno (in a few weeks), Crowley, Edited January 24, 2018 by bt50 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rass Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 1 minute ago, bt50 said: Don't care tbh. Our base 20 is pretty bloody good and we've shown we have capable youth kids in the wings in Metcalfe, Najaarine etc It would take a serious injury crisis for that to eventuate, in which case we'd prob be stuffed anyway. Yep - just throwing it out there as I am not sure what plans the club has for the remainder for January. i.e. are they planning on an extra signing on top of a replacement for Ross, in which case they need all the spare coin they have? Otherwise if they are happy with that, I don't see why the rumoured $100K would be an issue at all for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.