Harry Burgoyne (loan cancelled)

[r4h4al]

Not sure why anyone thought we’d have Burgoyne back on loan to make it 2.

...because we were paying his wages. Not really bizarre.

 

[Justin]

But we have a quality keeper in Macey so there’s no way we’d pay for 2 loan keepers on our budget, longer than we had to. Even if we were paying part of Burgoyne’s wages, which is doubtful since he been injured (thus covered by insurance )

 

[PL2 3DQ]

With Burgoyne getting injured two weeks before the start of the season I can understand that we would be short of options but on paper a keeper arriving from Arsenal would be a good signing.

It hasn't worked out and if Macey plays for the second half of the season it would be very difficult to avoid relegation.
He's conceded the most goals in League One, this can't continue and with Burgoyne now gone back to Wolves and freeing up a wage we need to sign a keeper in January as a matter of urgency.

If we can't send Macey back then we should take the hit of paying the wages for a keeper that doesn't play for half a season, just as we did with Burgoyne, and sign someone else.

Where are you getting this from?

It’s complete nonsense to suggest we’ll definitely go down with Macey in goal. We’re top half of the current form guide. Sorry if that stat doesn’t suit your latest propaganda campaign.

Teams concede goals, not keepers alone.

Re: Pickford for Sunderland the season before last.

Read it again. I didn't say we would definitely go down, I said it would be very difficult to avoid relegation with Macey playing.

 

[r4h4al]

But if Adams had no desire to play him why not cancel the loan soon as he got injured?

 

[Justin]

With Burgoyne getting injured two weeks before the start of the season I can understand that we would be short of options but on paper a keeper arriving from Arsenal would be a good signing.

It hasn't worked out and if Macey plays for the second half of the season it would be very difficult to avoid relegation.
He's conceded the most goals in League One, this can't continue and with Burgoyne now gone back to Wolves and freeing up a wage we need to sign a keeper in January as a matter of urgency.

If we can't send Macey back then we should take the hit of paying the wages for a keeper that doesn't play for half a season, just as we did with Burgoyne, and sign someone else.

Where are you getting this from?

It’s complete nonsense to suggest we’ll definitely go down with Macey in goal. We’re top half of the current form guide. Sorry if that stat doesn’t suit your latest propaganda campaign.

Teams concede goals, not keepers alone.

Re: Pickford for Sunderland the season before last.

Read it again. I didn't say we would definitely go down, I said it would be very difficult to avoid relegation with Macey playing.

Yes but your implication is that Macey is to blame for our league position. But on current form we’ll easily avoid being in the bottom 4 at the end of the season. So you’ll need to explain your logic otherwise it reads like you have an ulterior agenda.

 

[Justin]

But if Adams had no desire to play him why not cancel the loan soon as he got injured?

Presumably not the club’s decision.

 

[Balham Green]

With Burgoyne getting injured two weeks before the start of the season I can understand that we would be short of options but on paper a keeper arriving from Arsenal would be a good signing.

It hasn't worked out and if Macey plays for the second half of the season it would be very difficult to avoid relegation.
He's conceded the most goals in League One, this can't continue and with Burgoyne now gone back to Wolves and freeing up a wage we need to sign a keeper in January as a matter of urgency.

If we can't send Macey back then we should take the hit of paying the wages for a keeper that doesn't play for half a season, just as we did with Burgoyne, and sign someone else.

Where are you getting this from?

It’s complete nonsense to suggest we’ll definitely go down with Macey in goal. We’re top half of the current form guide. Sorry if that stat doesn’t suit your latest propaganda campaign.

Teams concede goals, not keepers alone.

Re: Pickford for Sunderland the season before last.

Macey is not great but crazy to suggest he is the main reason why we may go down or to allude that he is at faultfor our defensive record. If we didn't have a keystone cops defence and had somebody who provided some leadership back there he might be more confident. I would suggest playing most of the season with 2 full backs who would struggle to get in to a Sunday League team has been more of the problem. Re Burgoyne I would assume Argyle did not want him back as they already have committed to a season long loan for Macey. We are not in a position to pay FOUR keepers!

 

[up the line]

I imagine Wolves thought, quite rightly, do we really want our lad playing behind that utter shambles of a defence and conceding lots of confidence sapping goals.

 

[Ollieargyle9]

Macey is utterly hopeless, it's is by no means our defence looks so clueless and shaky with a clueless and shaky keeper behind them.

As for this loan deal I think the club was hugely naive to have such favourable terms for Wolves. There are plenty of young goalkeepers out there getting no playing time, we weren't cup in hands begging for him so why were the terms so set against us.

As for Wolves, I'm in no way surprised that a greedy Premier League club would milk us of 6 months wages on an injured player with every intention of having him back when he was fit. Such is the nature of the game at the top, such is the nature with many people who have more money than they know what to do with. What would be peanuts to them is 1-2 full time players for us but because they can save a few peanuts then take advantage of that poorly defined contract for all its worth. Disgusting but utterly predictable.

Sorry, but what obligation did Wolves have? Absolutely none. Why do some still not understand that football is a business that deals in entertainment, not a charity. And then to conflate it with the politics of envy as well. Wolves have done nothing wrong.

And this pretty much sums up the self-centred mindset of the modern game.

Contractually no they have done nothing wrong and please point to where I suggested they did. This isn't about their obligations, it's about decency and looking out for smaller clubs who don't rake it in from Premier League sponsorship deals.

This is no different to the greed these juggernauts show when it comes to hoarding youth players, refusing to trickle down their riches to grassroots football, threatening to form breakaway leagues to get better shares of TV deals. None of which break any rules or agreements, that isn't the point though. It's about greed, it's about all that is wrong with the "business is business" mindset.

We naively signed up to a contract heavily weighted in favour of Wolves and got well and truly bitten on the behind for our mistake. Whoever agreed to that deal is just as much at fault, however the decent thing to do bearing in mind Wolves were probably insured anyway would've been to take him back, the wage is nothing to them, absolutely nothing with the money they'll earn this year. Us on the other hand it's one less player we can afford to pay because we've got an injured goalkeeper burning a hole in our budget.

 

[phil thefluter24]

Macey is utterly hopeless, it's is by no means our defence looks so clueless and shaky with a clueless and shaky keeper behind them.

As for this loan deal I think the club was hugely naive to have such favourable terms for Wolves. There are plenty of young goalkeepers out there getting no playing time, we weren't cup in hands begging for him so why were the terms so set against us.

As for Wolves, I'm in no way surprised that a greedy Premier League club would milk us of 6 months wages on an injured player with every intention of having him back when he was fit. Such is the nature of the game at the top, such is the nature with many people who have more money than they know what to do with. What would be peanuts to them is 1-2 full time players for us but because they can save a few peanuts then take advantage of that poorly defined contract for all its worth. Disgusting but utterly predictable.

Sorry, but what obligation did Wolves have? Absolutely none. Why do some still not understand that football is a business that deals in entertainment, not a charity. And then to conflate it with the politics of envy as well. Wolves have done nothing wrong.

And this pretty much sums up the self-centred mindset of the modern game.

Contractually no they have done nothing wrong and please point to where I suggested they did. This isn't about their obligations, it's about decency and looking out for smaller clubs who don't rake it in from Premier League sponsorship deals.

This is no different to the greed these juggernauts show when it comes to hoarding youth players, refusing to trickle down their riches to grassroots football, threatening to form breakaway leagues to get better shares of TV deals. None of which break any rules or agreements, that isn't the point though. It's about greed, it's about all that is wrong with the "business is business" mindset.

We naively signed up to a contract heavily weighted in favour of Wolves and got well and truly bitten on the behind for our mistake. Whoever agreed to that deal is just as much at fault, however the decent thing to do bearing in mind Wolves were probably insured anyway would've been to take him back, the wage is nothing to them, absolutely nothing with the money they'll earn this year. Us on the other hand it's one less player we can afford to pay because we've got an injured goalkeeper burning a hole in our budget.

Agree entirely Ollie . It really does seem as though the agreement with Wolves was heavily biased towards them in the event of just such a scenario occurring. Dont know who was responsible for it but it looks like a desperate move when it wasn't really needed.Bad bit of business all round! Just yet a another example of the mercenary greed which has gripped this game of ours

 

[Frank Butcher]

Macey is utterly hopeless, it's is by no means our defence looks so clueless and shaky with a clueless and shaky keeper behind them.

As for this loan deal I think the club was hugely naive to have such favourable terms for Wolves. There are plenty of young goalkeepers out there getting no playing time, we weren't cup in hands begging for him so why were the terms so set against us.

As for Wolves, I'm in no way surprised that a greedy Premier League club would milk us of 6 months wages on an injured player with every intention of having him back when he was fit. Such is the nature of the game at the top, such is the nature with many people who have more money than they know what to do with. What would be peanuts to them is 1-2 full time players for us but because they can save a few peanuts then take advantage of that poorly defined contract for all its worth. Disgusting but utterly predictable.

Sorry, but what obligation did Wolves have? Absolutely none. Why do some still not understand that football is a business that deals in entertainment, not a charity. And then to conflate it with the politics of envy as well. Wolves have done nothing wrong.

And this pretty much sums up the self-centred mindset of the modern game.

Contractually no they have done nothing wrong and please point to where I suggested they did. This isn't about their obligations, it's about decency and looking out for smaller clubs who don't rake it in from Premier League sponsorship deals.

This is no different to the greed these juggernauts show when it comes to hoarding youth players, refusing to trickle down their riches to grassroots football, threatening to form breakaway leagues to get better shares of TV deals. None of which break any rules or agreements, that isn't the point though. It's about greed, it's about all that is wrong with the "business is business" mindset.

We naively signed up to a contract heavily weighted in favour of Wolves and got well and truly bitten on the behind for our mistake. Whoever agreed to that deal is just as much at fault, however the decent thing to do bearing in mind Wolves were probably insured anyway would've been to take him back, the wage is nothing to them, absolutely nothing with the money they'll earn this year. Us on the other hand it's one less player we can afford to pay because we've got an injured goalkeeper burning a hole in our budget.

Victimhood - always someone else's fault or obligation. Poor little Argyle didn't have to sign that deal, but they did. As Dan Ellard mentioned earlier with the Simon Walton example, I don't suppose it mattered then we were at an advantage?

And anyway, given that the season long loan has reportedly been cancelled by mutual consent in early December, haven't Wolves actually done us a favour?

 

[foreigner]

Macey is utterly hopeless, it's is by no means our defence looks so clueless and shaky with a clueless and shaky keeper behind them.

As for this loan deal I think the club was hugely naive to have such favourable terms for Wolves. There are plenty of young goalkeepers out there getting no playing time, we weren't cup in hands begging for him so why were the terms so set against us.

As for Wolves, I'm in no way surprised that a greedy Premier League club would milk us of 6 months wages on an injured player with every intention of having him back when he was fit. Such is the nature of the game at the top, such is the nature with many people who have more money than they know what to do with. What would be peanuts to them is 1-2 full time players for us but because they can save a few peanuts then take advantage of that poorly defined contract for all its worth. Disgusting but utterly predictable.

Sorry, but what obligation did Wolves have? Absolutely none. Why do some still not understand that football is a business that deals in entertainment, not a charity. And then to conflate it with the politics of envy as well. Wolves have done nothing wrong.

And this pretty much sums up the self-centred mindset of the modern game.

Contractually no they have done nothing wrong and please point to where I suggested they did. This isn't about their obligations, it's about decency and looking out for smaller clubs who don't rake it in from Premier League sponsorship deals.

This is no different to the greed these juggernauts show when it comes to hoarding youth players, refusing to trickle down their riches to grassroots football, threatening to form breakaway leagues to get better shares of TV deals. None of which break any rules or agreements, that isn't the point though. It's about greed, it's about all that is wrong with the "business is business" mindset.

We naively signed up to a contract heavily weighted in favour of Wolves and got well and truly bitten on the behind for our mistake. Whoever agreed to that deal is just as much at fault, however the decent thing to do bearing in mind Wolves were probably insured anyway would've been to take him back, the wage is nothing to them, absolutely nothing with the money they'll earn this year. Us on the other hand it's one less player we can afford to pay because we've got an injured goalkeeper burning a hole in our budget.

Victimhood - always someone else's fault or obligation. Poor little Argyle didn't have to sign that deal, but they did. As Dan Ellard mentioned earlier with the Simon Walton example, I don't suppose it mattered then we were at an advantage?

And anyway, given that the season long loan has reportedly been cancelled by mutual consent in early December, haven't Wolves actually done us a favour?

Wolves have done us a favour- lol!
Someone said Wolves aren't that wealthy. Well in comparison to us they are. There seems to have been some naivety on Argyle's part with this deal, but the whole thing leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

 

[Frank Butcher]

Wolves have done us a favour- lol!
Someone said Wolves aren't that wealthy. Well in comparison to us they are. There seems to have been some naivety on Argyle's part with this deal, but the whole thing leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

Well, they could have refused and let it run for the whole year I suppose.

Someone has to take responsibility for their actions. Simple.

 

[Gloucester Green]

Macey is not a good keeper, don't be fooled by the occasional good shot stop or by his plausible keeper-physique. He doesn't command his area, come off his line, kick the ball accurately, etc. He's a real liability.

Said similar to this after a few weeks but got shot down. Amazing when it comes to fruition and his performances don't improve

 

[r4h4al]

I imagine Wolves thought, quite rightly, do we really want our lad playing behind that utter shambles of a defence and conceding lots of confidence sapping goals.

Probably.