G Hirst On Loan

[gurujuan]

4 minutes ago, Etchesketch said:

We had four forwards this season with the U23s Omar Damba, Jordan O'Brien, Fraser Preston and Preslav Borukov.  All four have been released. 

Exactly, and with only Hagan stepping up from the 18s, we will be searching for strikers for the U23s as well as the first team We could be looking to recruit 7 or 8 strikers next month Scary

[SolihullOwl79]

1 hour ago, gurujuan said:

Exactly, and with only Hagan stepping up from the 18s, we will be searching for strikers for the U23s as well as the first team We could be looking to recruit 7 or 8 strikers next month Scary

Yet still, I was ridiculed for my suggestion of getting young Hirst on loan. All this talk of wasting money on him to develop for another club. I understand that when taking a player on loan, IF it is is beneficial to the parent club then it is THEY who will often either pay his full wage or only seek a contribution from the club percentage wise.

 

Also, the comment's that I've been down the pub and therefore my judgement being impaired is completely improper. 

 

While some have been furloughed and been off down the beaches, attending protests, going to illegal street raves and queuing in hordes to get in the likes of Wetherspoons and Primark, I have been on the front line as a Registered Mental Health Nurse working to ensure the public are keeping themselves safe in these troubling times. 

 

My suggestion of Hirst was because maybe he has unfinished business and a point to prove here. Perhaps that determination could see him succeed. It's not like we're overburdened with quality OR quantity in our front line. 

 

Some people on here with their "established reputations" are nothing short of bullying sycophants of the forum's creator. Absolutely devoid of any decency. 

[Dutch McLovin]

1 hour ago, SolihullOwl79 said:

Yet still, I was ridiculed for my suggestion of getting young Hirst on loan. All this talk of wasting money on him to develop for another club. I understand that when taking a player on loan, IF it is is beneficial to the parent club then it is THEY who will often either pay his full wage or only seek a contribution from the club percentage wise.

 

Also, the comment's that I've been down the pub and therefore my judgement being impaired is completely improper. 

 

While some have been furloughed and been off down the beaches, attending protests, going to illegal street raves and queuing in hordes to get in the likes of Wetherspoons and Primark, I have been on the front line as a Registered Mental Health Nurse working to ensure the public are keeping themselves safe in these troubling times. 

 

My suggestion of Hirst was because maybe he has unfinished business and a point to prove here. Perhaps that determination could see him succeed. It's not like we're overburdened with quality OR quantity in our front line. 

 

Some people on here with their "established reputations" are nothing short of bullying sycophants of the forum's creator. Absolutely devoid of any decency. 

Your spot on here.

 

You cant live in the past live in the now. We need players we have no money (or are not allowed to spend it) and are in a massive mess. Signing someone with potential to improve us and himself is a no brainer.

[FinnishOwl]

3 minutes ago, Dutch McLovin said:

Your spot on here.

 

You cant live in the past live in the now. We need players we have no money (or are not allowed to spend it) and are in a massive mess. Signing someone with potential to improve us and himself is a no brainer.

 

While I cannot see George Hirst signing for us, possibly ever, I agree that this is the way we have to take. Maybe some positivity in the fact that we could be quite attracting to young talent. There are no multi-million pound players ahead to defeat so the route to the first team is shorter if they just have what it takes. I don't believe we nurture them any more than others, so the saying good enough, old enough applies also here.

[cowl]

I'd personally be very happy to see us take a player like Hirst on loan for a season.

 

But even if Leicester were willing, I doubt Chansiri would be receptive to such an idea, and quite possibly George Hirst himself neither.

[Guest LondonOwl313]

Putting all the baggage to one side the simple question is 'is he good enough for championship football?'. He wasn't when he was here otherwise Carlos would have involved him in the squads ahead of Nuhui. Then he went to Belgium and had a poor record. Now he's done ok for a Premier League youth team. If he isn't on the periphery of the squad at Leicester then he's not good enough to be first choice here.

[gurujuan]

3 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

Putting all the baggage to one side the simple question is 'is he good enough for championship football?'. He wasn't when he was here otherwise Carlos would have involved him in the squads ahead of Nuhui. Then he went to Belgium and had a poor record. Now he's done ok for a Premier League youth team. If he isn't on the periphery of the squad at Leicester then he's not good enough to be first choice here.

Just because he isn’t on the periphery of the first team squad at Leicester, third in the Premier League, and a shoe in for the Champions League, doesn’t mean he isn’t good enough for Sheffield Wednesday. 
If he came, which I agree is unlikely, he wouldn’t be first choice anyway I suppose. Would be happy enough for him to be understudy to say, someone like Conor Wickham

[Manwë]

2 hours ago, SolihullOwl79 said:

Yet still, I was ridiculed for my suggestion of getting young Hirst on loan. All this talk of wasting money on him to develop for another club. I understand that when taking a player on loan, IF it is is beneficial to the parent club then it is THEY who will often either pay his full wage or only seek a contribution from the club percentage wise.

 

Also, the comment's that I've been down the pub and therefore my judgement being impaired is completely improper. 

 

While some have been furloughed and been off down the beaches, attending protests, going to illegal street raves and queuing in hordes to get in the likes of Wetherspoons and Primark, I have been on the front line as a Registered Mental Health Nurse working to ensure the public are keeping themselves safe in these troubling times. 

 

My suggestion of Hirst was because maybe he has unfinished business and a point to prove here. Perhaps that determination could see him succeed. It's not like we're overburdened with quality OR quantity in our front line. 

 

Some people on here with their "established reputations" are nothing short of bullying sycophants of the forum's creator. Absolutely devoid of any decency. 

 

Apologies if you took my reply as anything other than friendly disagreement.  It's not my way.  But I think taking a player who rejected us and we rejected him is certainly not the way forward for either party, unfinished business or not.

[Ante's Bubbly]

On 04/07/2020 at 11:53, SolihullOwl79 said:

I think that although there was some disharmony over the transfer to that Belgian team owned by Leicester, it could be a good time to get him back on a season long loan deal with option to purchase. He doesn't get much if any game time at Leicester. Now could be ideal opportunity for us to get him in the first team line up as number 9. It could be good for all parties! 

 

Anybody else have any thoughts on this? 

 

Thankfully no.

[Ante's Bubbly]

Having said no, now that you have made me think about it. It would fit in with our existing player signing strategy to sign him, pay him an extortionate amount of money per week and not play him for a whole season. Or have we already done that?

 

Edited July 8, 2020 by Ante's Bubbly