Jump to content

jimdickloyal

Speculation Thread

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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)

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, St.Ricky said:

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. 

To be honest I would have felt more secure with a "backy-in!"!

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, munoz said:

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. 

 

Indeed , a fit Morgan in the team would virtually guarantee safety. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, St.Ricky said:

Would it be possible (theoretically) to sign Morgan and Allan? 

No. Not both on loan at least. 

We won't be recruiting for centre midfield anyway. We have Mcginn, Tansey, Erhahon, Magennis and Lyons as of next week. 

Centre mid isn't going to be a priority position, I don't think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. Not both on loan at least. 
We won't be recruiting for centre midfield anyway. We have Mcginn, Tansey, Erhahon, Magennis and Lyons as of next week. 
Centre mid isn't going to be a priority position, I don't think. 


Given that Erhahon has been playing left wing back, Lyons is a number 10 and Magennis has spent most of his senior career playing wide, I don’t think another central midfielder is outwith the realms of possibility.

We don’t seem to have a proper defensive midfielder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Wendy Saintss said:

 


Given that Erhahon has been playing left wing back, Lyons is a number 10 and Magennis has spent most of his senior career playing wide, I don’t think another central midfielder is outwith the realms of possibility.

We don’t seem to have a proper defensive midfielder.

 

The manager accepts that centre mid is Erhahon's best position but isn't quite ready for it yet (from Q and A a few weeks back). I reckon in a pinch, that's where he'd be used. 

Fair enough on Lyons. 

As for Magennis, he's been played wide due to necessity a lot of the time. I think if we add width in this window (which we seem intent on doing), his position might be more central when he gets back in the team. 

I could of course, be well wide of the mark. Just don't see central mid as a priority just now. I also forgot to include Flynn in my previous post but I still reckon there's a chance he'll be gone in this window. 

Left back, wingers and centre forward all take precedence just now I reckon. Centre half as well if Ferdinand walks. 

A proper defensive mid would be nice. Scott Allan wouldn't really fit that mould though. 

Edited by djchapsticks

Share this post


Link to post
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...