Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Harry Clarke - sold by Ipswich to Stoke(p23)
Comments
-
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.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.0 -
That's wide of the mark .....like Harry's shotsSuedeAdidas said:I wonder if he proposed by text?3 -
Hope we try and do what we did with Coventry, don’t necessarily offer a fee but offer a sell on clause instead2
-
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!”2 -
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.JustFloydRoad said:Option took, so remains at Ipswich
Ipswich have sure had a Conor Clearout. They have wisely i mo kept Harry Clarke0 -
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.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...0 -
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 shape1
-
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 perhapseastterrace6168 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).0 -
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 backGarrymanilow 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 shape2 -
Joins Stoke:
https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/sport/26433575.ipswich-town---harry-clarke-join-stoke-city-3-5m-deal/
You can see why now they kept him 3.5m is worth it instead of letting him go for free.1 -
Sponsored links:
-
You can also see why those saying we'd be lucky to get £750k for TC are living in the early 2000s.10
-
Absolutely. Shows what we are up against transfers wise. I quite liked Clarke and he was solidly Championship standard, but if that’s what £3.5 million gets you these days it is going to take some exceptionally savvy transfer business for us to compete without a serious injection of cash from somewhere. Not trying to be miserable - it can be done so why not us, but that’s the reality of it and our fanbase needs to have realistic expectations because of it.Scoham said:You can also see why those saying we'd be lucky to get £750k for TC are living in the early 2000s.12 -
Pants well and truly pulled downJustFloydRoad said:Joins Stoke:
https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/sport/26433575.ipswich-town---harry-clarke-join-stoke-city-3-5m-deal/
You can see why now they kept him 3.5m is worth it instead of letting him go for free.2 -
Mad transfer fee for a very average player...3
-
Insane price for OK quality in the championship. Shows how much we have to up our game this season in the market.0
-
Can’t wait to boooo him7
-
Ipswich sell well, don't they?5
-
When he first joined and galloped forward he was decent. Latterly he was positioned further upfield, got the ball with back to goal, and couldn't beat his man.
We skipped a dud there.
0 -
His throw ons were consistently more dangerous than any kicked set piece we were producing12
-
After 8 consecutive seasons of finishing between 14-18th, Stoke have clearly got bored of treading water in the Championship and decided to make a push for the play offs this season. That's over 20m they've now spent this summer.
However it's a measure of how fucked football finances are now when Harry Clarke is worth 3.5m. Decent enough on his day, but overall a pretty average Championship full back.4 -
Sponsored links:
-
£3.5m for a throw in specialist. Bloody hell. Clarke was (sometimes) ok for us as a wing back at Championship level but couldn't hit a barn door with his shooting. And when he lost his head a bit his game went to bits. Stoke are spending serious money but it's anybody's guess if it's going to bring justifiable rewards.0
-
Overpriced yes, but 3.5m to Stoke is a lot different for them, than it is compared with us. Clarke is a solid championship player, it's not that crazy.5
-
Is Clarke even going to start at Stoke over Junior Tchmadeu? Feels like a depth signing.0
-
All things being equal, Clarke was a positive addition to the team. He was a 7 out of 10 championship player when, in the main, the Charlton players around him were 3 - 6 out of 10.
If Stoke are building a side of 7 out of 10's they have a chance. We are still 3 - 6.7 -
Exactly. He was a decent player for us and probably more at home in the Championship than 90% of our squad.SporadicAddick said:All things being equal, Clarke was a positive addition to the team. He was a 7 out of 10 championship player when, in the main, the Charlton players around him were 3 - 6 out of 10.
If Stoke are building a side of 7 out of 10's they have a chance. We are still 3 - 6.4 -
Started off okay and got steadily worse. Failed to stand out for me.Off_it said:
Exactly. He was a decent player for us and probably more at home in the Championship than 90% of our squad.SporadicAddick said:All things being equal, Clarke was a positive addition to the team. He was a 7 out of 10 championship player when, in the main, the Charlton players around him were 3 - 6 out of 10.
If Stoke are building a side of 7 out of 10's they have a chance. We are still 3 - 6.0 -
But still more at home in the Championship than 90% of our squad ....... alas.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Started off okay and got steadily worse. Failed to stand out for me.Off_it said:
Exactly. He was a decent player for us and probably more at home in the Championship than 90% of our squad.SporadicAddick said:All things being equal, Clarke was a positive addition to the team. He was a 7 out of 10 championship player when, in the main, the Charlton players around him were 3 - 6 out of 10.
If Stoke are building a side of 7 out of 10's they have a chance. We are still 3 - 6.1 -
If £3.5m buys you Clarke then it shows the madness of transfer fees in the Championship.Off_it said:
But still more at home in the Championship than 90% of our squad ....... alas.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Started off okay and got steadily worse. Failed to stand out for me.Off_it said:
Exactly. He was a decent player for us and probably more at home in the Championship than 90% of our squad.SporadicAddick said:All things being equal, Clarke was a positive addition to the team. He was a 7 out of 10 championship player when, in the main, the Charlton players around him were 3 - 6 out of 10.
If Stoke are building a side of 7 out of 10's they have a chance. We are still 3 - 6.0 -
It shows the madness of football finances, full stop. No doubt about that. But it is what it is, at least for now.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
If £3.5m buys you Clarke then it shows the madness of transfer fees in the Championship.Off_it said:
But still more at home in the Championship than 90% of our squad ....... alas.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Started off okay and got steadily worse. Failed to stand out for me.Off_it said:
Exactly. He was a decent player for us and probably more at home in the Championship than 90% of our squad.SporadicAddick said:All things being equal, Clarke was a positive addition to the team. He was a 7 out of 10 championship player when, in the main, the Charlton players around him were 3 - 6 out of 10.
If Stoke are building a side of 7 out of 10's they have a chance. We are still 3 - 6.3 -
Did I read that he's failed the medical?0
