Jump to content

Speculation Thread


jimdickloyal

Recommended Posts


10 hours ago, MenstrieSaint said:

I think the factor was, Rogers is on loan til the end of the season, and Aberdeen don't want him back, and Lyness,s contract has run out. So we can just say bye bye. Won't be surprised if we sign Lynass as back up next season

There is no way, I think, that we could not have got out of the Rodgers loan. We might still do so, if we sign another GK..

I think Lyness was most likely on decent money and we did not want to have 2 big wage GK's

Not sure Lyness will be keen to come back - given that he thought he'd be offered a contract extension - especially as he had effectively become our No.1 GK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

Unless we were going to stick with our development keeper as backup, we needed to sign another keeper if Lyness was leaving.

You are right.  We need to have at least two experienced keepers in the squad.  The comment I made was in reply to a post about Rodgers confidence levels if Aberdeen had turned down him returning to the club now.  We have signed a keeper on an 18 month deal.  Naive as I am,  I would expect our new man to be first choice.  Having recently been our first choice keeper,  I can't imagine this helped his confidence.  But.. Such is football.  Players have to compete for places.  Also agree that Lyness would be unlikely to return ( unless he has another gig lined up) 

Edited by St.Ricky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derek McInness and his team must have been pissing themselves laughing the day Stubbs signed a season long loan for Rodgers. There is no way they were going to take him back and get saddled with his wages again. He'll be out the door at the end of the season I'm sure.

My only problem is that he isn't actually a goalkeeper. Surely we aren't going to play him if the Czech lad gets injured?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

You are right.  We need to have at least two experienced keepers in the squad.  The comment I made was in reply to a post about Rodgers confidence levels if Aberdeen had turned down him returning to the club now.  We have signed a keeper on an 18 month deal.  Naive as I am,  I would expect our new man to be first choice.  Having recently been our first choice keeper,  I can't imagine this helped his confidence.  But.. Such is football.  Players have to compete for places.  Also agree that Lyness would be unlikely to return ( unless he has another gig lined up) 

Aberdeen signed Cerny allowing Rogers to come to us as they had two experienced keepers. Makes sense they are in no rush to take him back if he is 3rd choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Kemp said:

Derek McInness and his team must have been pissing themselves laughing the day Stubbs signed a season long loan for Rodgers. There is no way they were going to take him back and get saddled with his wages again. He'll be out the door at the end of the season I'm sure.

My only problem is that he isn't actually a goalkeeper. Surely we aren't going to play him if the Czech lad gets injured?

A weekend bit harsh. After all Aberdeen had signed him in the first place. On the evidence so far however, when Lyness played we looked more secure  IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sweeper07 said:

I think Lyness was most likely on decent money and we did not want to have 2 big wage GK's

I doubt he was on good money tbh. His last club was Nuneaton who wouldn’t have been paying him that much, and he was signed to be a backup to Samson while Rogers was injured. I doubt we’d have had three keepers on decent wedge, Kearney hadn’t yet seen Rogers in action and the sole purpose of signing Lyness was to cover Sammy. Unfortunately Rogers was still pish on his return, we lost Samson and it ended up that Lyness got his chance and took it well. With the presumption we’d have had Samson and Rogers, there was probably no original intention of having Lyness actually play for us, he was just extra cover. For these reasons I doubt he was on that much money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

I doubt he was on good money tbh. His last club was Nuneaton who wouldn’t have been paying him that much, and he was signed to be a backup to Samson while Rogers was injured. I doubt we’d have had three keepers on decent wedge, Kearney hadn’t yet seen Rogers in action and the sole purpose of signing Lyness was to cover Sammy. Unfortunately Rogers was still pish on his return, we lost Samson and it ended up that Lyness got his chance and took it well. With the presumption we’d have had Samson and Rogers, there was probably no original intention of having Lyness actually play for us, he was just extra cover. For these reasons I doubt he was on that much money.

Happy to hear your opinion, but I believe Rodgers is not on good money with us (Aberdeen may well be paying a chunk)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

I doubt he was on good money tbh. His last club was Nuneaton who wouldn’t have been paying him that much, and he was signed to be a backup to Samson while Rogers was injured. I doubt we’d have had three keepers on decent wedge, Kearney hadn’t yet seen Rogers in action and the sole purpose of signing Lyness was to cover Sammy. Unfortunately Rogers was still pish on his return, we lost Samson and it ended up that Lyness got his chance and took it well. With the presumption we’d have had Samson and Rogers, there was probably no original intention of having Lyness actually play for us, he was just extra cover. For these reasons I doubt he was on that much money.

I'm sure that finances play a part in each signing.  The issue being to save where we can,  where we think quality won't be compromised.  As others say,  we are likely to be paying only part of Rodgers wages.  We have however signed a keeper on an 18 month deal.  The balance between core players on longer contracts and others on loan until the summer makes sense in planning for either staying up and further strengthening then or in adjusting our budget for the next season if we go down.  Good planning by the BOD. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe we were trying to induce Vaclav to join us not long after Sammy left. Unfortunately for Lyness he proved to be better than Rogers in those few weeks but Rogers is on a year's contract and Lyness only had a couple of weeks left. I would reckon that Lyness would have been far better competition for Vaclav however it looks like Aberdeen are making us stick to the loan agreement. Aberdeen have Cerny as a backup and he is a very good keeper so understandable they do not want Rogers back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sonny said:

I believe we were trying to induce Vaclav to join us not long after Sammy left. Unfortunately for Lyness he proved to be better than Rogers in those few weeks but Rogers is on a year's contract and Lyness only had a couple of weeks left. I would reckon that Lyness would have been far better competition for Vaclav however it looks like Aberdeen are making us stick to the loan agreement. Aberdeen have Cerny as a backup and he is a very good keeper so understandable they do not want Rogers back.

Makes sense for Aberdeen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

St Mirren refuse to give up on Morgan

Celtic winger Lewis Morgan
(Image: SNS)

St Mirren still harbour hopes of bringing Lewis Morgan back to Paisley.

The Saints sold the winger to Celtic this time last year – only for him to be loaned straight back.

Brendan Rodgers has revealed he will farm out Morgan again – and Sunderland were credited with an interest.

But Stadium of Light boss Jack Ross insisted he isn’t looking to again work with the 22-year-old in the near future.

Hibs remain interested, however, but a deal between the two clubs is unlikely.

And St Mirren haven’t given up hope of landing the star again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, mattman said:

St Mirren refuse to give up on Morgan

Celtic winger Lewis Morgan

(Image: SNS)

St Mirren still harbour hopes of bringing Lewis Morgan back to Paisley.

The Saints sold the winger to Celtic this time last year – only for him to be loaned straight back.

Brendan Rodgers has revealed he will farm out Morgan again – and Sunderland were credited with an interest.

But Stadium of Light boss Jack Ross insisted he isn’t looking to again work with the 22-year-old in the near future.

Hibs remain interested, however, but a deal between the two clubs is unlikely.

And St Mirren haven’t given up hope of landing the star again.

Would be massive if we can somehow tempt Lewis back, although I reckon unlikely. I did hear that he wouldn't be going to Sunderland though. Bringing Morgan back could be a real game changer in our relegation battle. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...