Jump to content

The Mckenna Dilemma


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Ten Caat said:

Loan for 6 months. Buy in the January. 

As others have said, it came in too late for us to organise a replacement

That's an example of McInnes having too much say in the Boardroom. An offer like that should have been accepted without hesitation.

It's up to McInnes to sign a Jason Kerr, Cedric Kipre with 2 minutes notice or a free agent after the deadline

Link to comment

1 minute ago, Chester Don said:

I would not at all be surprised if we don’t have a Middlesbrough, Stoke, villa or a Burnley, looking now the Forest bid is out there for all to see.  If Burnley let that Tacouwski lad (excuse the spelling) go then can see them sniffing.  Would love a Liam Lindsay plus cash our way deal?  Is he still at Stoke. 

Burnley are signing Joe Worrall......from Notts Forest. McKenna is his replacement

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Tord31 said:

That's an example of McInnes having too much say in the Boardroom. An offer like that should have been accepted without hesitation.

It's up to McInnes to sign a Jason Kerr, Cedric Kipre with 2 minutes notice or a free agent after the deadline

Maybe I’m wrong but was it not they wanted to loan him first with an option (not an obligation) to buy?

I could be completely wrong but I seem to remember some club tried that? 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, WesthillWanderersFC said:

Maybe I’m wrong but was it not they wanted to loan him first with an option (not an obligation) to buy?

I could be completely wrong but I seem to remember some club tried that? 

It's never been clarified.

A loan with an option to buy is not even worth anything. 

 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, WesthillWanderersFC said:

Maybe I’m wrong but was it not they wanted to loan him first with an option (not an obligation) to buy?

I could be completely wrong but I seem to remember some club tried that? 

I'm sure I read it as 6.5 option to buy and not an obligation too. Essentially try him for 6 months and make up your mind then. It was rightly rejected at the time if it was a loan and not upfront.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Durrant Dived said:

I'm sure I read it as 6.5 option to buy and not an obligation too. Essentially try him for 6 months and make up your mind then. It was rightly rejected at the time if it was a loan and not upfront.

This, plus it was relatively last minute meaning we were struggling for a replacement if memory serves.  Certainly don't remember it being anywhere near the no brainer category despite the headline figure.

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, Durrant Dived said:

I'm sure I read it as 6.5 option to buy and not an obligation too. Essentially try him for 6 months and make up your mind then. It was rightly rejected at the time if it was a loan and not upfront.

Aye that’s what I thought.

The club were right to tell them to fuck off then, if there was no obligation.

And the bid (despite Aberdeen publicly saying not to) was made the day of the transfer deadline and whilst we were in Croatia 
 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Durrant Dived said:

I'm sure I read it as 6.5 option to buy and not an obligation too. Essentially try him for 6 months and make up your mind then. It was rightly rejected at the time if it was a loan and not upfront.

Can’t see any club at all doing this with what is (was) their biggest asset at the time & as such I strongly doubt any club would have the audacity to attempt it in reality. Why would a club risk losing a valuable player with no guarantees & risk another club injuring him.

no chance it was a loan with ‘option’ it was simply a case that they weren’t allowed to pay up front & we couldn’t replace at such short notice

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, fine-n-dandy said:

Can’t see any club at all doing this with what is (was) their biggest asset at the time & as such I strongly doubt any club would have the audacity to attempt it in reality. Why would a club risk losing a valuable player with no guarantees & risk another club injuring him.

no chance it was a loan with ‘option’ it was simply a case that they weren’t allowed to pay up front & we couldn’t replace at such short notice

That's the best guess and it has never been clarified. It suits AFC to leave the story out there as option to buy.

Link to comment
Just now, Tord31 said:

That's the best guess and it has never been clarified. It suits AFC to leave the story out there as option to buy.

True but being logical about it. 
Do you really believe that was the offer?

Fair enough for a fringe player not in a club’s future plans in playing or asset value but for a clubs main asset?

No chance a club would be that ridiculous with an offer, they would be publicly ridiculed by ‘selling’ club & club would happily justify their reason for refusing the deal

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, WesthillWanderersFC said:

The alleged fee for Worrall is mental based on the donkey that played for SEVCO.

It just shows what McKenna could potentially go for in 12-18 months if he does well. 

Good to get the % sell on clause based on Worrall alone.


My flatmate is a Burnley fan, he agrees they would be better bypassing Worrall and paying a fraction of the price for McKenna.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Andy_123 said:

Not a bad deal for a guy who most of us were wanting shot of for whatever we could get not too long ago.

Hopefully becomes one of the many many players down there that are wildly overpaid for in a few years time.

Yip - then breaks both his legs in a freak training ground accident the following day

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment

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...