Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Winter-January 2026 Transfer Window Rumours ...

15859606264

Comments

  • RonnieMoore
    RonnieMoore Posts: 4,729
    MarcusH26 said:
    The Rousillon signing was odd as well. Signed an unfit injured player to replace an injured player. Would have been better off giving an academy lad a chance instead. Gough hasn’t looked out of place at all. 
    I know NJ has kinda prefaced it with " we needed anyone in as cover and he was the only guy out there" but that just makes it even more stupid. He's been here since what end of November and has made a couple of U21s appearances and still looks nowhere near fit enough to contribute. 

    Bar Wickham scoring away at Cambridge have any of these short term contracts done anything decent? 
    Thierry Small was pretty good, the only regret is we didn't have a longer option in the contract after his initial half season
    Small and his agent would not an accept longer contract he does not stay anywhere to long even at this age he had something like 6 clubs already .. he won’t be at PNE next season 
  • Melrose
    Melrose Posts: 837
    Nathan Jones team selection for last nights game has confirmed what many of have suspected for some time. Playing some players who've just returned from injury and had a busy xmas schedule, was realitically only gonna end one way! He needs to stop "throwing the dice", and use his bloody head!!
  • Sword65pf
    Sword65pf Posts: 750
    Melrose said:
    Nathan Jones team selection for last nights game has confirmed what many of have suspected for some time. Playing some players who've just returned from injury and had a busy xmas schedule, was realitically only gonna end one way! He needs to stop "throwing the dice", and use his bloody head!!
    Modern football involves a lot of sports science, if the medical team are giving information to say a player can go again, which is they’re job NJ is going to select a team based on that, I don’t think he is just throwing the dice. Most of the players are playing most of the games, it’s just very unfortunate that we’ve ended up with injuries in the position that’s hurting us most. The gamble on signing potentially injury prone players isn’t paying off, hopefully this is being resolved to a certain extent in this window. 
  • lordromford
    lordromford Posts: 8,027
    Just to add Ramsey likely to be back Saturday 
    Just fyi Ronnie - repeating something that’s already been said isn’t “adding” anything.
  • cfgs
    cfgs Posts: 11,559
    Just to add Ramsey likely to be back Saturday 
    Just fyi Ronnie - repeating something that’s already been said isn’t “adding” anything.
    So basically the only truth he speaks are these repeated additions.  The rest is just dislike of certain players or made up stuff hoping to sound itk.
  • We are J Block
    We are J Block Posts: 296
    Richard J said:
    Can play across the whole back line. Is very much a work horse rather then a technical type. Be a good addition at the back. 
  • DOUCHER
    DOUCHER Posts: 8,315
    Pushing Bell to LWB yesterday feels like a decision that is going to cost us points and in doing so could be season defining. Apter or Fullah on the bench just to run with their pacy winger was what we needed. No injuries should have been the first priority and now we are going to struggle to replace 
    100% bang on - very strange decision and the biggest disappointment from last night - no problem playing him at LCB - if he gets injured there then if not this week, next week but moving him to LWB? He should have come off then and rested up if anyboidy was coming off but putting him to LWB last night is absolutely shooting yourself in the foot - or the hamstring 
  • CAFCsayer
    CAFCsayer Posts: 10,345
    If he's actually fit Clarke would be a good signing, but I really don't think we should be looking at any more defenders with patchy injury records
  • scruffle
    scruffle Posts: 2,310
    Clarke ticks a lot of boxes, potentially out of contract at end of season, good pedigree, lots of championship experience oh and injuries 

  • Sponsored links:



  • Msra8lf23
    Msra8lf23 Posts: 1
     
  • crookester
    crookester Posts: 1,393
    Maybe the thinking is that if you sign enough injury prone players for a position, chances are that one of them will be fit at a given point 😉
  • PBr
    PBr Posts: 5
    Across the Championship most clubs are listing several players injured and a few long term. Sheffield United will probably have half a dozen players out for this Saturday. It’s simply not possible to avoid it. Just part of the game and players get injured in training or in the case of Cole Palmer at home. They have to play matches to stay fully fit and many clubs don’t have the squads to rotate. I don’t blame Jones, it’s bad luck but it happens.
  • If Clarke is coming in that’s good news, we just need to build on that with an out an out lwb and a left footed central defender.

    i do also wonder if we will go back in for that Chelsea striker who we were linked with 
  • sam3110
    sam3110 Posts: 21,800
    If Clarke is coming in that’s good news, we just need to build on that with an out an out lwb and a left footed central defender.

    i do also wonder if we will go back in for that Chelsea striker who we were linked with 
    He's playing in Turkey
  • sam3110 said:
    If Clarke is coming in that’s good news, we just need to build on that with an out an out lwb and a left footed central defender.

    i do also wonder if we will go back in for that Chelsea striker who we were linked with 
    He's playing in Turkey
    Ahh okay then, maybe why Dykes is now linked 
  • Valley11
    Valley11 Posts: 12,091
    At the risk of sounding like a broken record, we desperately also need some quality. We’ve got a tonne of workers. Not easy in January. But a lot easier than trying to get out of League 1 next season. 
  • RonnieMoore
    RonnieMoore Posts: 4,729
    Melrose said:
    Nathan Jones team selection for last nights game has confirmed what many of have suspected for some time. Playing some players who've just returned from injury and had a busy xmas schedule, was realitically only gonna end one way! He needs to stop "throwing the dice", and use his bloody head!!
    And keeps playing Campbell as a wing back just so he gets in the team .. rather see a young player who actually can play that role .. Campbell costing us to many goals , Coventry , Blackburn and yesterday 
  • RonnieMoore
    RonnieMoore Posts: 4,729
    CAFCsayer said:
    If he's actually fit Clarke would be a good signing, but I really don't think we should be looking at any more defenders with patchy injury records
    90% of players have had injuries during their careers .. problem with January these are the only players that become available .. people think your going to get first team players in January think again 

  • Sponsored links:



  • cantersaddick
    cantersaddick Posts: 17,509
    edited 12:17PM
    Surely Clarke coming in would mean that Ramsay would be off then? 
    Why? We need more depth on that right hand side. Bree may or may not be staying but even if he stays we need depth there. As Jones has repeatedly said we can only play Apter RWB when we have a defensive LWB. We don't have that and may not consistently have that for a while so Bree has to play every game. Another option to rotate with him is very needed. 

    Clarke and Bree can also cover RCB which might be needed at this rate. But we need another RWB option to allow that.
  • Scoham
    Scoham Posts: 38,011
    Melrose said:
    Nathan Jones team selection for last nights game has confirmed what many of have suspected for some time. Playing some players who've just returned from injury and had a busy xmas schedule, was realitically only gonna end one way! He needs to stop "throwing the dice", and use his bloody head!!
    And keeps playing Campbell as a wing back just so he gets in the team .. rather see a young player who actually can play that role .. Campbell costing us to many goals , Coventry , Blackburn and yesterday 
    Enslin is the only realistic option, and he’s better going forward than he is defending.
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 70,654
    edited 11:45AM
    The Rousillon signing was odd as well. Signed an unfit injured player to replace an injured player. Would have been better off giving an academy lad a chance instead. Gough hasn’t looked out of place at all. 
    Presumably we don't have any left sided defenders in the academy that can step up, Gough and Josh Laq are happier on the right. Which makes the transfer decision last summer to not bring in more left sided cover a strange choice. We started the season with 3 players (Edwards, Gillesphey, Bell) to play 2 positions, so one injury leaves you with no left footed cover for either LWB or LCB.

    Rousillon was a signing between the transfer windows, when you can only sign free agents, so a very small and limited talent pool. You get the occasional diamond, but most free agents after the season has started, and window closed, are free for a reason...
  • cantersaddick
    cantersaddick Posts: 17,509
    Croydon said:
    But imagine if he came out and said we will be okay, we need to focus on other positions etc etc.

    He is just stating the obvious. Bell and Burke have quality so in his mind it was worth the punt. 
    I don't think Burke has been good enough to warrant the risk especially seeing as his signing came after Bell. Signing one is a risk, signing two is stupid. 
    I don't have a problem signing them both. It was expecting them both to cover 2 positions without proper depth was the issue. If Bell was LCB with Gilly and we had Edwards and another as options at LWB it would have been fine. At a push Josh can also cover LCB. Same with Burke as the only backup to Ramsay and Jones. We've been lucky Jones hasn't missed a game. Proper depth and you can have a couple injury prone like them. But if you have them you absolutely cannot skimp out on depth.
  • PBr
    PBr Posts: 5
    TC played well last night I thought. He’s not a natural in that role but he’s growing into it. And realistically there isn’t anyone else so we should just get behind him, it’s a really difficult position to play in, he’s having to cover a huge amount of ground.
  • oohaahmortimer
    oohaahmortimer Posts: 34,476
    Laddick01 said:


    Sign him up.
    That’s a Charlton performance made for zampa road
  • NabySarr
    NabySarr Posts: 4,763
    Think Clarke would be a great signing, proven at this level and covers both RCB and RWB. Started 25 games for an Ipswich team that got promoted from the championship 2 years ago 
  • Covered_End_Lad
    Covered_End_Lad Posts: 5,780
    The other positive about Clarke is that it should be realistic to get him on a permanent deal in the summer if he does well, only 24 and still best years ahead of him - he’s quick too. Concern is that at his young age has already had a number of injuries and our squad has too many players in this category already. I guess if he can prove his fitness by staying injury free for the rest of the season it may be less of a gamble. 
  • Croydon
    Croydon Posts: 13,007
    Croydon said:
    But imagine if he came out and said we will be okay, we need to focus on other positions etc etc.

    He is just stating the obvious. Bell and Burke have quality so in his mind it was worth the punt. 
    I don't think Burke has been good enough to warrant the risk especially seeing as his signing came after Bell. Signing one is a risk, signing two is stupid. 
    I don't have a problem signing them both. It was expecting them both to cover 2 positions without proper depth was the issue. If Bell was LCB with Gilly and we had Edwards and another as options at LWB it would have been fine. At a push Josh can also cover LCB. Same with Burke as the only backup to Ramsay and Jones. We've been lucky Jones hasn't missed a game. Proper depth and you can have a couple injury prone like them. But if you have them you absolutely cannot skimp out on depth.
    But that's the issue, we signed them knowing we wouldn't then get the depth required. If we were only able bring in the two bodies then getting two with such patchy injuries records was a stupid decision. 
  • Scoham said:
    thenewbie said:
    I’m still convinced Fullah will be off. Why not bring him on last night for TC. 
    Because getting absolutely trounced by several hundred million pounds worth of players in a game we'd more or less already lost would not really be of benefit to a teenager breaking through, nor would he make any difference.
    Could have put him on for Carey. I do think NJ is holding Fullah back a lot more than he 

    seems like three are joining this week. Didn’t realise we had so many potential football managers in our fan-base.