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

Harry Clarke - rumoured to be released by Ipswich (p18)

1…171819202123»

Comments

  • LargeAddick
    LargeAddick Posts: 33,855
    edited June 15
    se9addick said:
    I assume his contract includes a clause that will increase his salary upon Ipswich’s promotion back to the PL, which makes him completely unaffordable for us. 
    Depends. He's got a year left. Let's say that he's now on 20k pw. Let's say we offered a 3 year deal on 15k pw. What would you do? I know it's not as simplistic as that but security of three years as opposed to just one has its  advantages.
  • Oggy Red
    Oggy Red Posts: 45,140
    SuedeAdidas said:
    I wonder if he proposed by text?
    That's wide of the mark .....like Harry's shots
  • Crispywood
    Crispywood Posts: 2,169
    Hope we try and do what we did with Coventry, don’t necessarily offer a fee but offer a sell on clause instead 
  • Oh Eddie Youds...
    Oh Eddie Youds... Posts: 1,360
    Unbelievable that Ipswich took up the option to extend in order to get a fee.

    In light of the money they’ve made from returning to the prem & the amount of other players they’ve robbed us on recently (Fraser & Ahadme etc) you’d think they’d let us have this one “on the house!”
  • Lincsaddick
    Lincsaddick Posts: 32,776
    JustFloydRoad said:
    Option took, so remains at Ipswich

    I'm fed up with using the term 'short term' .. BUT suspect that older, experienced, played up and down the leagues, tough professionals, is where we will be 'shopping' this window .. so, left back Conor Townsend, released by Ipswich, 33 years old, fits the above criteria, could do a very good SHORT TERM job for us for a couple of seasons. 
    Ipswich have sure had a Conor Clearout. They have wisely i mo kept Harry Clarke
  • MuttleyCAFC
    MuttleyCAFC Posts: 48,251
    eastterrace6168 said:
    I don't see why Ipswich would suddenly see the light with Clarke after loaning him out to us last season, and now being Prem bound, no the whole options thing is to get a fee, and I expect him gone this window, now whether its us or not is questionable, but would love him back with us on a perm if possible...
    Maybe either party could take up the option. Can't see how they would either if they didn't feel they needed him in the Championship.
  • Garrymanilow
    Garrymanilow Posts: 14,543
    I'd be surprised if we paid for Clarke. You could start to feel Nathan's eye twitching with regards to Clarke as his defensive mistakes and squandered chances piled up and by the end he was talking fairly openly about mistakes and 'Harry Clarke's few minutes of madness'. I like Clarke but the way we play we need a player who can seriously trouble the GA stats or create opportunities up the pitch. It didn't quite work with Apter as a very attacking option but Clarke threw away so many chances in front of goal and started to slip up at the back as well as the season wore on. I like the idea of Sykes as a player who has played RW and RWB across his career given how high we like to push the RWB up and I don't see us getting in a first choice and also paying a fee for Clarke as a backup with quite a different profile. I think it's far more likely we get a first choice and Fevrier and then spend on a more defensive-minded LWB to compete with Edwards so we can be consistent in our shape
  • JustFloydRoad
    JustFloydRoad Posts: 2,671
    edited June 15
    eastterrace6168 said:
    I don't see why Ipswich would suddenly see the light with Clarke after loaning him out to us last season, 

    Ashley Young retiring perhaps
    eastterrace6168 said:
     no the whole options thing is to get a fee, and I expect him gone this window, now whether its us or not is questionable, but would love him back with us on a perm if possible...

    Wouldn't say the whole thing, but if he doesn't sign a new deal then they would want to get a fee for him. Thing is they can do what we can't (since they have Premier League finances).
  • NabySarr
    NabySarr Posts: 5,672
    Garrymanilow said:
    I'd be surprised if we paid for Clarke. You could start to feel Nathan's eye twitching with regards to Clarke as his defensive mistakes and squandered chances piled up and by the end he was talking fairly openly about mistakes and 'Harry Clarke's few minutes of madness'. I like Clarke but the way we play we need a player who can seriously trouble the GA stats or create opportunities up the pitch. It didn't quite work with Apter as a very attacking option but Clarke threw away so many chances in front of goal and started to slip up at the back as well as the season wore on. I like the idea of Sykes as a player who has played RW and RWB across his career given how high we like to push the RWB up and I don't see us getting in a first choice and also paying a fee for Clarke as a backup with quite a different profile. I think it's far more likely we get a first choice and Fevrier and then spend on a more defensive-minded LWB to compete with Edwards so we can be consistent in our shape
    I think Clarke and Chambers were very much the best wing backs available to us in January and we were desperate, rather than being the players/profile of player that Jones really wants at wing back 

Categories