Page 6 of 25
Re: HoB v Barrow
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2021 3:58 pm
by russell_anderson
liverpoolann wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 3:00 pm
Perhaps we just nervous cos of the experience of Evatt and Rooney leaving which disappointed so many.Must confess want him with us this season seemed genuine when spoke of our survival in league and it be brilliant to see fans back in stadium.Still long contract be very expensive for another club.Can’t see him doing a Rooney accusing us of doing his head in.Unless he has had major ruck with new manager about how and where he sees him playing in team this year We should play hardball with any approaches.We still also need the disruptive midfielder and more concerned re that absence not Quigley at moment.
They are all genuine until another club offers more money! This isn't unique to Barrow but applies to all leagues. Even the top 6 in the Premier League lose players who get better offers. Just look at Wijnaldum at Liverpool for example. At our level, you basically have to sign almost a new team every season if you have any decent players. You only keep players that no club with better finances want once their contracts end and some even before there contracts have ended! Morecambe are a good example having won promotion and lost half a team!
Re: HoB v Barrow
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2021 4:33 pm
by A.B.
Thank you for all your efforts for our club, Scott.
Re: HoB v Barrow
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2021 5:14 pm
by NB Bluebird
A.B. wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 4:33 pm
Thank you for all your efforts for our club, Scott.
As he gone? I was hoping he'd stay.
Re: HoB v Barrow
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2021 5:22 pm
by Moribund
Clearly wants away, but surely the fee is the sticking point. I very much doubt we've inserted a pitiful release clause as some are suggesting.
Re: HoB v Barrow
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2021 5:24 pm
by whitty1969
Moribund wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 5:22 pm
Clearly wants away, but surely the fee is the sticking point. I very much doubt we've inserted a pitiful release clause as some are suggesting.
He is 29 years old. What would be pitiful?
Re: HoB v Barrow
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2021 5:39 pm
by Pedro
It's just where he is going few mentions of him on Shrewsbury forum being a fan.
Re: HoB v Barrow
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2021 5:40 pm
by Suffolk Blue
will3988 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 9:29 am
Bombadel wrote: ↑Sat Jul 10, 2021 9:58 pm
All this was cleared up on page 2, and the link posted for the interview between AJ and Cooper states “Scott Quigley missing, precautionary, didn’t want to risk him”
Thought Hutton was ace today, looks like a decent signing
He didn’t want to risk himself hence the reason he’s not training and refusing to play as he doesn’t want to get injured as he’s pushing for a move.
His release clause in his contract is £150k
So here we all are talking about a value of £250k and then someone pops up with a £150k release clause. Strange as I dont recall such a clause ever being mentioned before. So fact or fiction?
I'm pretty sure he's on his way, but I dont think its the stellar move that we might have thought. As far as the EFL is concerned we are into pre-season and most significant transfers will have been done early. I did think it would be Bradford until they signed Lee Angol in a rather rushed deal that sort of suggested they might have moved on. Despite any protestations of love for Steve Cotterill even in League 1 you'd have to be fully in the eyeline and thinking of Shrewsbury to warrant that much money in todays circumstances and it doesn't feel to me like theres been a lot of reciprocation on that front. Any Bolton interest could be managed under the non-approach agreement signed with Evatt of course. So as Sherlock would say once you have removed these candidates what remains must be true. So hooray to Hollywood.
The player's problem here is that he has two full years left on his contract. Were that 12 months he'd be in a very strong bargaining position. As it is he has to find someone willing to reflect the contract in the value of the deal. He and his advisers cannot get around that unless BAFC were so utterly desperate for the money they'd accept a low bid. Even if that were the case and I dont think it s, that would create a bidding "war" and that also doesn't appear to be happening. So BAFC still holds to better cards and if it decides that Quigley needs to go then its bargaining position is stronger than some might think.
Hence my question about the "release clause". Because if there was a clause in Quigleys contract that allowed him to effectively walk if £150k was put on the table, I'd be surprised that he hasn't already gone by now. Also if its the North Wales Operatic Society that is the intended destination, then they would have to pay top dollar being as they currently are, a team from a lower division (though soon to be great again apparently) and currently with a shed load of money to burn.
Re: HoB v Barrow
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2021 5:42 pm
by Main Stand SeasonTct
whitty1969 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 5:24 pm
Moribund wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 5:22 pm
Clearly wants away, but surely the fee is the sticking point. I very much doubt we've inserted a pitiful release clause as some are suggesting.
He is 29 years old. What would be pitiful?
He wants to go so cash in on him now I say. 29 now as you say. Stock is high after a good season. A woeful season next year and with just one year of his contract to go he probably wouldn’t command much of a fee.
Re: HoB v Barrow
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2021 5:46 pm
by Broughton Fan
What we don’t want is for this to drag on till the start of the season,I’m hopeful that that he will stay as he has always given 100% for us and he has shown that he cares about the club but if he wants away or if someone offers enough money for him then it’s better to do it sooner rather than later so that it gives us more time to get replacement when there are more players available and getting any new player integrated into the team so there’s no last minute chaos at the start of the season
Re: HoB v Barrow
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2021 6:40 pm
by Moribund
whitty1969 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 5:24 pm
Moribund wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 5:22 pm
Clearly wants away, but surely the fee is the sticking point. I very much doubt we've inserted a pitiful release clause as some are suggesting.
He is 29 years old. What would be pitiful?
His age is irrelevant - we're not going to replace him with equal or better for £150k.
Re: HoB v Barrow
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2021 6:54 pm
by Main Stand SeasonTct
Moribund wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 6:40 pm
whitty1969 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 5:24 pm
He is 29 years old. What would be pitiful?
His age is irrelevant - we're not going to replace him with equal or better for £150k.
We might already have better in the building in Zanzala.
Re: HoB v Barrow
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2021 7:18 pm
by spirit of 1990
Moribund wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 6:40 pm
whitty1969 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 5:24 pm
He is 29 years old. What would be pitiful?
His age is irrelevant - we're not going to replace him with equal or better for £150k.
Well we got him for nowt so these players are out there.
Re: HoB v Barrow
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2021 7:46 pm
by LewisBAFC1901
Furness CC Rumour mill spirals out of control again!
Re: HoB v Barrow
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2021 7:56 pm
by Falstaff
Wrexham forum 'Red Passion' claiming that Quigley has been seen at WFC today. Also expecting a transfer announcement tomorrow.
Re: HoB v Barrow
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2021 8:04 pm
by Jim
Falstaff wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 7:56 pm
Wrexham forum 'Red Passion' claiming that Quigley has been seen at WFC today. Also expecting a transfer announcement tomorrow.
Wrexham forum basing speculation on rumours on the Barrow forum, while Barrow forum is quoting rumours on the Wrexham forum based on rumours on the Barrow forum.
