Transfer Talk, Rumours and Speculation

[Jovan]

8 minutes ago, haz said:

 

Wait this guy is coloured?

Well this throws all the Joyce myths out the window

 

Why let facts get in the way of decent conspiracy narrative. 

 

22 minutes ago, NuggetsMcGreggor said:

So the a-league has changed the rule restricting the age of loan players then. Perhaps this is due to expansion and a lack of local talent. Interesting. Even more strange that we didn’t get someone from Man City 

It must have. 

Maybe next season. This was exactly got me excited early on after takeover. 

[jw1739]

Harrison was born in London and is of Jamaican heritage. Hasn't a lot of goals to his name. Could be the new Novillo.

Anyway, FFS, at least City are showing us that they want to be competitive - which many were beginning to doubt I suspect. We need a sense of excitement around the club to grow.

[Afif Adam]

ffs thought it was Callum Hudson Odoi

[rass]

2 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

Harrison was born in London and is of Jamaican heritage. Hasn't a lot of goals to his name. Could be the new Novillo.

Anyway, FFS, at least City are showing us that they want to be competitive - which many were beginning to doubt I suspect. We need a sense of excitement around the club to grow.

100% agree. ..and in all honesty, a much more exciting signing than Hoolahan would've been. 

Apparently sounded out by Joyce too...

[MHFC-FAN]

4 hours ago, NewConvert said:

Is that AEST or WAST?

WAST is that Wazza A Stupid Twat?

[Harrison]

I was always under the impression that clubs could sign foreigners of any age, provided they were older than 17 (school leaving age in every state and territory) at the date of registration.

In the case of Shayon Harrison, he is born in 1997 and so is 'over-age' for the purposes of the A-League and Y-League. 

The two blokes signed by CCM are 18 and 19 and count as visa players and 'under-age' but are free to play in the A-League because they satisfy the minimum age requirement. 

Happy to be corrected here. 

[Missing_Moy]

Wazza has played a RB at Striker so he could slot this bloke into a LW position easily 

[Afif Adam]

3 minutes ago, Missing_Moy said:

Wazza has played a RB at Striker so he could slot this bloke into a LW position easily 

for sure, bloke has played at lw back in 2015

[fensaddler]

If true could be excellent. Plays in the correct position, good age, already played first team regularly in Leagues 1 and 2. Feels like a good pick up, playing very much in the Novillo role. 

[belaguttman]

I've mixed feelings about it, I'd be very keen for Najjar and Najjarine to get more game time and experience, but it could be a good signing, better than signing a 37yo. What's the point of signing this guy to play him out of position? Why haven't we got a Man City player on loan?

Edited February 1, 2019 by belaguttman

[belaguttman]

59 minutes ago, haz said:

 

Wait this guy is coloured?

 

 

 

We're all coloured, apart from albinos. Even then, technically, white is a colour

[bt50]

9 minutes ago, belaguttman said:

I've mixed feelings about it, I'd be very keen for Najjar and Najjarine to get more game time and experience, but it could be a good signing, better than signing a 37yo. What's the point of signing this guy to play him out of position? Why haven't we got a Man City player on loan?

We could sign Messi and you'd bloody complain that he was too old.

[SF33]

So, how would we rate the period overall? Obviously the potential Harrison signing could change things. As it stands, the good is that we've secured a proven A-League quality striker, filled a need with as sure a thing as there probably is (at a great age) in this league.

Downsides? A lot of potentially vital depth (at the very least) departed very early on in the transfer window, for one signing, who won't pull the boots on until close to Valentine's Day. With the workload on the players in January, that should have been avoided. The standoff with Fornaroli is poor too. I think all options to find him a new home should have been explored and if we're staunch in holding him to his contract, swallow your pride and give him some game time. The lack of an international signing to replace O'Halloran (could change) is disappointing and while the short-term addition of Maclaren seems a pretty guaranteed way to improve our current match day squad, there would have to be concern about the reported length of a marquee contract. If Maclaren's contract is ultimately the reason that we can't afford to keep someone like De Laet or Schenkeveld, Maclaren's signing may not look as rosy in the near future.

[bt50]

5 minutes ago, belaguttman said:

We're all coloured, apart from albinos. Even then, technically, white is a colour

It's not actually. Neither is black.

[belaguttman]

Just now, bt50 said:

We could sign Messi and you'd bloody complain that he was too old.

Only if he was too old. 

[playmaker]

Change in formation 442, why not? No need to play him out of position.

Edited February 1, 2019 by playmaker

[neio]

26 minutes ago, Harrison said:

I was always under the impression that clubs could sign foreigners of any age, provided they were older than 17 (school leaving age in every state and territory) at the date of registration.

In the case of Shayon Harrison, he is born in 1997 and so is 'over-age' for the purposes of the A-League and Y-League. 

The two blokes signed by CCM are 18 and 19 and count as visa players and 'under-age' but are free to play in the A-League because they satisfy the minimum age requirement. 

Happy to be corrected here. 

There was a rule a few seasons back about minimum age for visa players. It was after brisbane brought in 3 or 4 youth players from Thailand iirc and they were hopeless and made them uncompetitive 

But that seems to be lifted 

[Mr MO]

If its only for remainder of the season and we need an impact player, would you rather sign Harrison or Affelay?

[bt50]

13 minutes ago, Mr MO said:

If its only for remainder of the season and we need an impact player, would you rather sign Harrison or Affelay?

Well probably Affelay, but the difference in price is probably fairly substantial.

In saying that, seeing a young talent come through sounds good to me. Happy if we get either tbh.

[neio]

10 minutes ago, Mr MO said:

If its only for remainder of the season and we need an impact player, would you rather sign Harrison or Affelay?

Affelay may have no interest in coming half way across the world

[Missing_Moy]

How does it work would the transfer had to of happened last night ?

or can we get loan players anytime ?

 

[fensaddler]

With MacLaren and assuming Harrison, played in the right structure, I reckon this is decent business. We've been creating a fair few chances, and with players back in normal positions we may create more. What we needed was a proven striker to convert those chances, and a quick, skilful winger/striker to create havoc. We could just have signed both. So after all the angst, I reckon we could at last be at the races. We won't top the ladder, but the key now is to finish at least fourth and ideally higher, and go into the finals strong. Then we might just make a GF. 

[jw1739]

11 minutes ago, Missing_Moy said:

How does it work would the transfer had to of happened last night ?

or can we get loan players anytime ?

Possibly we're using the same method as we have used for Maclaren. And in this case, it's easier because only two clubs are involved.

On the issue of "why don't we use Manchester City youth players on loan?" my answer is that it's mid-season in the the UK and probably any EDS players Manchester were prepared to loan out are already loaned? Whereas if you look at Harrison's record on Transfermarkt you'll see that he hasn't played for a while, making him more available.

As for signing young visa players I'm sure that the "rules" must have changed. We had a very promising young "foreign" player play with us a while back, can't remember the name but it was, I think, something like Christian, but the obstacle to signing him was that he was under-age.

Edited February 1, 2019 by jw1739

[Shahanga]

1 hour ago, NuggetsMcGreggor said:

So the a-league has changed the rule restricting the age of loan players then. Perhaps this is due to expansion and a lack of local talent. Interesting. Even more strange that we didn’t get someone from Man City 

A bizarre rule they brought in to eliminate one weird case (when the proper use of existing rules would have done, or failing that something far less heavy handed) and then didn’t really publicise. They then also can it without publicity. Anyway good riddance.

No wonder our A League rules dude @jw1739 pulls his hair out trying to keep track.

[Shahanga]

54 minutes ago, bt50 said:

It's not actually. Neither is black.

Indeed. Black is actually a lack of colour.

so the correct quote would be :

”wait, does this guy lack colouring”?

[jw1739]

5 minutes ago, Shahanga said:

A bizarre rule they brought in to eliminate one weird case (when the proper use of existing rules would have done, or failing that something far less heavy handed) and then didn’t really publicise. They then also can it without publicity. Anyway good riddance.

No wonder our A League rules dude @jw1739 pulls his hair out trying to keep track.

Here are the latest "National Registration Regulations." https://www.ffa.com.au/sites/ffa/files/2018-06/National Registration Regulations 2018.pdf

I think that the relevant clause is 4.5 (c), and my interpretation of that is that these regulations do not prohibit youth visa players. In fact they specifically allow them provided the FIFA Players’ Status Committee approves.

https://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/who-we-are/committees/committee/1882032/

I would welcome any other opinions.

[jw1739]

As far as physics is concerned, neither black nor white is a colour. But artistically both are known as colours.

I suggest we don't dwell on this particular topic. It just gets people into trouble eventually.

[Harrison]

7 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

Here are the latest "National Registration Regulations." https://www.ffa.com.au/sites/ffa/files/2018-06/National Registration Regulations 2018.pdf

I think that the relevant clause is 4.5 (c), and my interpretation of that is that these regulations do not prohibit youth visa players. In fact they specifically allow them provided the FIFA Players’ Status Committee approves.

https://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/who-we-are/committees/committee/1882032/

I would welcome any other opinions.

Look at my post above.

I was referencing the NRRs.

If you can find older versions of the NRRs, perhaps that will shed some more light on the changes to rules. 

[AntiScum]

59 minutes ago, Mr MO said:

If its only for remainder of the season and we need an impact player, would you rather sign Harrison or Affelay?

Affelay hands down. Would destroy the a-league hands down 

[Harrison]

1 hour ago, SF33 said:

The lack of an international signing to replace O'Halloran (could change) is disappointing and while the short-term addition of Maclaren seems a pretty guaranteed way to improve our current match day squad, there would have to be concern about the reported length of a marquee contract. If Maclaren's contract is ultimately the reason that we can't afford to keep someone like De Laet or Schenkeveld, Maclaren's signing may not look as rosy in the near future.

I'm pretty sure that the length of the contract is to enable us to sell him should he attract decent offers and desire such a move.  

[n i k o]

3 hours ago, haz said:

Sorry for Najjar. Interesting to see how we play?

Maybe we will be playing 2 up front, with Najjar on the bench?

Wait this guy is coloured?

Well this throws all the Joyce myths out the window

 

He's English 

[SF33]

51 minutes ago, Harrison said:

I'm pretty sure that the length of the contract is to enable us to sell him should he attract decent offers and desire such a move.  

But still, if Schenkeveld and De Laet wanted to stay on next season with the proviso that they both wanted marquee contracts (thoroughly deserved, most would agree), wouldn't Maclaren's deal throw a huge spanner in the works there?

(oh and I understand it's a gigantic 'if')

[bt50]

10 minutes ago, SF33 said:

But still, if Schenkeveld and De Laet wanted to stay on next season with the proviso that they both wanted marquee contracts (thoroughly deserved, most would agree), wouldn't Maclaren's deal throw a huge spanner in the works there?

(oh and I understand it's a gigantic 'if')

Personally i think we'd be silly to have both of them as marquees assuming the rules are the same. As much as they are our two best players.

[Harrison]

8 minutes ago, SF33 said:

But still, if Schenkeveld and De Laet wanted to stay on next season with the proviso that they both wanted marquee contracts (thoroughly deserved, most would agree), wouldn't Maclaren's deal throw a huge spanner in the works there?

(oh and I understand it's a gigantic 'if')

As BT says, we’d be silly to have two defenders as marquees and I don’t think the club will go down that path. 

But to answer your question, yes it would throw a huge spanner in the works. I think RDL is leaving regardless and BS could be tempted to stay on as a marquee but we will have to wait and see. 

The best we can hope for are rule changes. 

[bt50]

20 minutes ago, Harrison said:

As BT says, we’d be silly to have two defenders as marquees and I don’t think the club will go down that path. 

But to answer your question, yes it would throw a huge spanner in the works. I think RDL is leaving regardless and BS could be tempted to stay on as a marquee but we will have to wait and see. 

The best we can hope for are rule changes. 

Tbh I actually think the cap will be dramatically relaxed over the off season, even if that means simply increasing the cap by a mil or two. Not based on anything except quotes and bits and pieces here and there.

In which case I think we might be able to offer both a wage that’s enticing enough to stay. RDL I think would stay, but obviously better offers might come up too.

[DukeVader]

If RDL n BS did both want marquee or bigger wage surely we could figure it out somehow.. some victory/Perth/sydney teams have figured it out past few seasons (exception was perth getting caught cheating of course) 

[Harrison]

8 minutes ago, bt50 said:

Tbh I actually think the cap will be dramatically relaxed over the off season, even if that means simply increasing the cap by a mil or two. Not based on anything except quotes and bits and pieces here and there.

So do I. They’ll simplify it by removing the exemptions and allowances and expand it by a large enough amount to allow for richer clubs to bring in and keep quality players. 

But they’ll keep it to protect smaller clubs. 

[jw1739]

1 hour ago, Harrison said:

Look at my post above.

I was referencing the NRRs.

If you can find older versions of the NRRs, perhaps that will shed some more light on the changes to rules. 

@Harrison You can find the 2013 version here: https://www.ffa.com.au/sites/ffa/files/2017-09/National Registration Regulations.pdf 

In the Frequently Asked Questions on page 31 is says that a player cannot be a professional unless they have attained the statutory school-leaving age for the state or territory in which they are registered.

That's on page 8 of the 2018 version.

I can't find anything else so far.

[Jovan]

6 minutes ago, Harrison said:

So do I. They’ll simplify it by removing the exemptions and allowances and expand it by a large enough amount to allow for richer clubs to bring in and keep quality players. 

But they’ll keep it to protect smaller clubs. 

I'm not that confident anything will change. Maybe after the expansion clubs get competetive but for me not next season. 

Edited February 1, 2019 by Jovan

[jw1739]

1 minute ago, Jovan said:

I'm not that confident anything will change. Maybe after the expansion clubs get competetive but for not next season. 

Didn't FFA offer Heart an additional marquee spot but we declined?