Jump to content

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, cookeh said:

Connecting the dots..

 

We're short of a striker

Rodgers has talked about how a lot of the younger players will be going out on loan to the Championship and League One to gain experience
We just played Leicester
Monk and Rodgers are mates

 

So.. would you welcome Hirst back if he came on loan?

Barking up the wrong tree mate - It’s Vardy - but keep it to thi sen

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are so obsessed with ex-players, even ones that didn't actually do anything for us.  Hirst played one league game for us I believe , he spent a year at a Belgian second division, whacking in three goals.  I'm not saying he's not going to make it big, he's certainly closer to success right now than he ever has been, but he's not there now.


We developed Hirst from a young age for the benefit of others, even third parties going out of their way to avoid paying any real dues to Wednesday.  He signed for OH Leuven only because he knew in advance that he'd eventually be signing for Leicester City.  He knew this method was being used to stop Leicester paying reasonable money to Wednesday.  Wednesday could have handled it better (ie, sold him), but Hirst has gone out of his way to make sure Wednesday don't benefit from the time and money spent on his own development.

 

He's not a player that is going to be getting regular first team football in the PL, I'm not sure he's realistically ready for a full season in the Championship.  

 

I'd find it an incredible ********-take if we were to take him back on loan to allow  him further development for someone else's benefit.

 

What would Wednesday get out of this?  A unproven risk that has taken the ******** out of us previously.  If we are going to take risks, that's fine and even great, I look forward to it.  But let's benefit from a risk if we get it right, instead of lining the pockets of others.

 

These "maybe we've made up with LCFC" posts are embarrassing and cringeworthy.  

 

fizz Hirst, fizz Leicester City.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Love 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s 30 years ago since his dad was the last player to score 20 or more goals at this level for us. Why not?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Manwë said:

We are so obsessed with ex-players, even ones that didn't actually do anything for us.  Hirst played one league game for us I believe , he spent a year at a Belgian second division, whacking in three goals.  I'm not saying he's not going to make it big, he's certainly closer to success right now than he ever has been, but he's not there now.


We developed Hirst from a young age for the benefit of others, even third parties going out of their way to avoid paying any real dues to Wednesday.  He signed for OH Leuven only because he knew in advance that he'd eventually be signing for Leicester City.  He knew this method was being used to stop Leicester paying reasonable money to Wednesday.  Wednesday could have handled it better (ie, sold him), but Hirst has gone out of his way to make sure Wednesday don't benefit from the time and money spent on his own development.

 

He's not a player that is going to be getting regular first team football in the PL, I'm not sure he's realistically ready for a full season in the Championship.  

 

I'd find it an incredible ********-take if we were to take him back on loan to allow  him further development for someone else's benefit.

 

What would Wednesday get out of this?  A unproven risk that has taken the ******** out of us previously.  If we are going to take risks, that's fine and even great, I look forward to it.  But let's benefit from a risk if we get it right, instead of lining the pockets of others.

 

These "maybe we've made up with LCFC" posts are embarrassing and cringeworthy.  

 

fizz Hirst, fizz Leicester City.

 

 

Same with most young loan signings though, you bring a player in because he offers something you don’t have. If he continues to improve, you benefit in the short term, but his parent club will benefit in the longer term. In truth, we should have a young player like George Hirst, but we don’t . If we bring in a target man, and he continues to be integral to the way we play, then we will need a young understudy. We can’t afford to have a Fletcher, and a Wickham just in case of injury. As I said, we should have that type of back up player already amongst our own youngsters, but we don’t 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, cookeh said:

Connecting the dots..

 

We're short of a striker

Rodgers has talked about how a lot of the younger players will be going out on loan to the Championship and League One to gain experience
We just played Leicester
Monk and Rodgers are mates

 

So.. would you welcome Hirst back if he came on loan?

does the turnstyle man confiscate crossbows?

once you s**t on wednesday, you've done for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When he left it was clear he wasn't ready for championship football. 

He hardly improved his reputation or made a mark in Belgium. 

 

Personally I'd be looking at someone on the periphory or close to breaking into the first team needing games and experience, I just don't think he's up to championship standards yet. 

Edited by shezzas left peg
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

Same with most young loan signings though, you bring a player in because he offers something you don’t have. If he continues to improve, you benefit in the short term, but his parent club will benefit in the longer term. In truth, we should have a young player like George Hirst, but we don’t . If we bring in a target man, and he continues to be integral to the way we play, then we will need a young understudy. We can’t afford to have a Fletcher, and a Wickham just in case of injury. As I said, we should have that type of back up player already amongst our own youngsters, but we don’t 

i can see your reasoning, but are better not available elsewhere, and not just young hirst?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to say no on principle. Don't know what was said between Chansiri & the Hirst camp, but his transfer to Belgium was a definite move to swindle the club. The thought of DC taking him back, paying his wages, and continue developing the player for Leicester's gain... has to be a concrete no. 

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

Chairman wouldnt have it.

Some fans wouldnt have it.

If he wasnt called Hirst would he potentially be a good signing..... Yes.

Is he better than what we have.... Yes.

 

Im in.

I've no animosity or hate against the lad, they saw an opportunity to hopefully better his career, maybe senior didn't want him to miss out like David did with man utd. 

 

I've just seen or heard nothing that implies he's capable of holding a first choice slot at championship level yet. 

It's a no from me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, shezzas left peg said:

I've no animosity or hate against the lad, they saw an opportunity to hopefully better his career, maybe senior didn't want him to miss out like David did with man utd. 

 

I've just seen or heard nothing that implies he's capable of holding a first choice slot at championship level yet. 

It's a no from me. 

Agree on the first part.

 

Secondly the Belgian thing didnt work, but prior to that he was banging them in at youth level for us. Since returning to Leicester Under 23's he has done the same earning a first team chance at the end of last season. With what we have been looking at this summer this is the type of player were after, and if he didnt have history i am sure we'd be in for him. Or at least looked at him.

 

That said, if he could hold down a slot at championship level is a question i cant answer.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Manwë said:

We are so obsessed with ex-players, even ones that didn't actually do anything for us.  Hirst played one league game for us I believe , he spent a year at a Belgian second division, whacking in three goals.  I'm not saying he's not going to make it big, he's certainly closer to success right now than he ever has been, but he's not there now.


We developed Hirst from a young age for the benefit of others, even third parties going out of their way to avoid paying any real dues to Wednesday.  He signed for OH Leuven only because he knew in advance that he'd eventually be signing for Leicester City.  He knew this method was being used to stop Leicester paying reasonable money to Wednesday.  Wednesday could have handled it better (ie, sold him), but Hirst has gone out of his way to make sure Wednesday don't benefit from the time and money spent on his own development.

 

He's not a player that is going to be getting regular first team football in the PL, I'm not sure he's realistically ready for a full season in the Championship.  

 

I'd find it an incredible ********-take if we were to take him back on loan to allow  him further development for someone else's benefit.

 

What would Wednesday get out of this?  A unproven risk that has taken the ******** out of us previously.  If we are going to take risks, that's fine and even great, I look forward to it.  But let's benefit from a risk if we get it right, instead of lining the pockets of others.

 

These "maybe we've made up with LCFC" posts are embarrassing and cringeworthy.  

 

fizz Hirst, fizz Leicester City.

 

 

 

So isn't that the same as any loan deal for a young Premier League player?

 

I've no idea if he's good enough, but if he is then the only ones obsessed with ex-players are the ones saying don't sign him because of the history.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we have this obsession with the son of a great footballer, he played one PL game for us. Played for a relatively unknown Belgium team, moved to Leicester City, and has pulled no trees up with them. If he had been Atde Nuhiu's son we would have hounded him out.

His Dad was a great player for us, he is an average footballer who will probably make a living in football but not at the highest level.

We shoul move on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...