Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Squad Registration Restrictions
SELR_addicks
Posts: 16,210
With the squad currently looking like this, we're potentially at the point where two senior players have to miss out from the Championship squad.
The U21 players, Asiimwe, Fullah, Mwamba and Mbick, don't count towards the 25-man limit, leaving us with 27 senior players for 25 places.
Goalkeepers
- Thomas Kaminski
- Will Mannion
- Tiernan Brooks
Defenders
- Lloyd Jones
- Reece Burke
- Amari'i Bell
- Ivan Mesik
- Collins Sichenje
- Billy Koumetio
- Josh Edwards
- Danny McNamara
- Kayne Ramsay
Midfielders
- Harvey Knibbs
- Conor Coventry
- Nathaniel Chalobah
- Joe Rankin-Costello
- Sonny Carey
- Timothy Ouma
- Greg Docherty
Attackers / Wingers
- Tyreece Campbell
- Millenic Alli
- Rob Apter
- Charlie Kelman
- Karlan Grant
- Miles Leaburn
- Daniel Kanu
- Matty Godden
U21 / don't count towards the 25
- Nathan Asiimwe
- Ibrahim Fullah
- Alan Mwamba
- Micah Mbick
So, assuming there are no more incomings or outgoings, two of the 27 senior players above has to be left out.
Who would you leave out or look to sell?
If you feel we need to make additional signing/s, who else misses out?
3
Comments
-
Ouma isn't on your list1
-
I think Asiimwe counts now? Doesn’t really matter as I’m sure he will be one that leaves anyway
Outside of that I’d sell Kanu and try and get rid of Costello (probably a loan) and then to bring in a new winger it’s probably TC or Apter that will leave depending on the former’s contract situationIf we could get rid of Kaminski and sign a new goalkeeper then I would. But I don’t think that will happen1 -
Pelling1993 said:Ouma isn't on your list
Corrected it, so two have to miss out!1 -
Asiimwe misses the U21 cut by 3 days! It's born on or after 1st Jan 2005. He was born 29th December 2004 so is included in the 25.NabySarr said:I think Asiimwe counts now? Doesn’t really matter as I’m sure he will be one that leaves anyway
Outside of that I’d sell Kanu and try and get rid of Costello (probably a loan) and then to bring in a new winger it’s probably TC or Apter that will leave depending on the former’s contract situationIf we could get rid of Kaminski and sign a new goalkeeper then I would. But I don’t think that will happen1 -
Sell/loan out JRC, Kanu, Asiimwe, Campbell and bring in a new RW is probably the most likely outcome
0 -
Personally I would keep TC over Apter. Also be a shame to lose Kanu and Assimwe permanently. Loans?2
-
I’m guessing we’re aiming for 2 per position (in a 4-2-3-1) plus an extra GK, CB and striker, giving us 25 seniors plus Mwamba, Fullah and Mbick.
Carter mentioned 8-8-8 now being 9-9-9, which would be 27 players, but I don’t see any of those three being loaned out - they’re too good for non-league and we won’t want them unable to be recalled until January.
With us wanting to bring in a RW that means four need to go.
Kanu and Asiimwe are the obvious ones to go, ideally for fees - Kanu’s contract expires next summer and Asiimwe isn’t realistically going to make it at this level in the near future.
JRC is probably the one to try to move on in CM. Offers more on the ball than others, but doesn’t seem to have the engine and defensive qualities NJ wants in CM.
Coventry and Docherty both have contracts expiring next summer, so one of them going could be an alternative.
For the fourth exit, with a RW expected to come in I expect one of TC or Apter to go. TC would be a permanent, Apter I imagine a loan is more likely.
Someone mentioned Brooks could be loaned out with an u21 GK being third choice. That could be an option but I don’t think NJ will go for it. We only have 2 u21 GKs and 1 u18 GK, so we don’t have loads of depth in that position below the first team which may have to be considered.
0 -
I don’t even think that should be a consideration. I’d question the marbles of anyone who would rather lose TC.redman said:Personally I would keep TC over Apter.20 -
In an ideal world....
I would sell or loan Assimwe.
Renew the contract of Kanu then loan him.
Sell Costello
Sell Apter
Sell Kaminski
Loan out Brooks
Sell Burke
Buy a new RW, a new keeper and still have 2 squad places to fill with a CM and a last minute loanee if needed for injury cover etc.
I really don't see the need for a 3rd keeper when you can bring in an emergency one on loan still.
Apter I have never rated, just not got the size/strength for the Championship for me.
In the real world I think we sell Kanu, Asiimwe, TC and Doc. Slightly depressing we will sell TC and not Apter for me.
1 -
Sell Kaminski, Asiimwe and JRC.
Loan Apter.
Give Kanu a new contract and then loan him.
That should (i think) bring us down to 23 spots.
Then bring in Rak-Sakyi and a new keeper.
25 spots. Job done.
2 -
Sponsored links:
-
Sell Kanu TC (contract dependent)
Loan Asiimwe JRC
0 -
When does this need to be concluded?0
-
I wonder if we'll look to keep Asiimwe around until the end of the window as emergency cover at RB while Ramsay is out0
-
The only reason we'd sell TC over Apter is because of his contract situation. If someone meets an asking price that we think is better than taking the tribunal risk then the club will view that as an important bit of business. Apter has 3 years left, is only 23 and could potentially be playing in a system that suits him better. If we get offered say £3.5m-4.5m for TC and he won't sign a new deal then that's probably the better play as realistically we'll only be able to loan Apter out again or sell him at a big loss. If we can then get in another right winger we'll be more balanced in the squad as well, clearly none of TC, Alli or Grant would ideally like to be playing on the right. I'm hopeful that Apter can rediscover a bit of his form if he stays but he's going to have to work hardAFKABartram said:
I don’t even think that should be a consideration. I’d question the marbles of anyone who would rather lose TC.redman said:Personally I would keep TC over Apter.0 -
Wrong thread for it, but we aren’t getting offered £4m for TC in last year of his contract1
-
AFKABartram said:When does this need to be concluded?Says whilst the transfer window is open the club can make changes to its squad list. But then must submit their list within 24 hours of the transfer window being closed.2
-
No, which means we'll most likely keep him unless a team get desperate. Which isn't a bad thing, I'd much rather we get another year out of him and he leave at the end of his deal than we panic and let him go for cheapAFKABartram said:Wrong thread for it, but we aren’t getting offered £4m for TC in last year of his contract4 -
.0
-
It would be good if someone challenged this nonsense in Court. It's clearly a restraint of trade under Common Law. IMO the only way around that conclusion is that it is considered a reasonable imposition to maintain the integrity of the competition. Now, I see how that works with the rules regarding the maximum total spend allowed on players but the number of actual players combined with an arbitrary under 21 exemption (why not 22 or 18 or whatever?) seems laughable to me.
Comparing the maximum of 25 with the actual match day squad - 11 starters plus 9 named subs, leaving only 5 not selected (one of whom would be a keeper presumably) starts to make the total look completely inadequate in the light of the strains and stresses of modern-day football.
A mere 5 injuries, illnesses or suspensions to experienced players (or heavily pregnant wives or bereavements) would leave a team unable to put out the 18 outfield players needed to fill the squad without including kids. Utterly bonkers.
2 -
Any emergency keeper we would bring in would probably be better that who we already have here.Athletico Charlton said:In an ideal world....
I would sell or loan Assimwe.
Renew the contract of Kanu then loan him.
Sell Costello
Sell Apter
Sell Kaminski
Loan out Brooks
Sell Burke
Buy a new RW, a new keeper and still have 2 squad places to fill with a CM and a last minute loanee if needed for injury cover etc.
I really don't see the need for a 3rd keeper when you can bring in an emergency one on loan still.
Apter I have never rated, just not got the size/strength for the Championship for me.
In the real world I think we sell Kanu, Asiimwe, TC and Doc. Slightly depressing we will sell TC and not Apter for me.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Seems Kaminski is going to be one of the players that are left out/sold.Who are the others? Kanu potentially out on loan?0
-
Surely Kanu will be sold considering his contract length. Doubt hes going to sign a new deal, only to be shipped out for another year.0
-
Kaminski won’t change the numbers though because he would need to be replaced by a keeper we weren’t going to sign originally.SELR_addicks said:Seems Kaminski is going to be one of the players that are left out/sold.Who are the others? Kanu potentially out on loan?Kanu is going permanent once we find someone to offer us a fair fee, Asiimwe goes as well, most likely doc and then one of Burke/Apter/JRC/Knibbs/Coventry and that will be the squad completed most likely0 -
We seem to be trying to address this but there's loads of clubs from the prem down who have too many players to register. Making decent loans available for those with space.0
-
Is this a new thing? I don't remember it being an issue in previous summers? Or is it just that we now have a bloated squad and some of our younger players have aged out of being outside the limit?0
-
The rules are massively unfair on 21/22 year olds, just above the cutoff age, but in football terms still "youngsters", learning their trade. I can see most Championship clubs being hollowed out of most players of this age, as unless they are already decent Championship players, they are wasting a squad space, which can be taken by someone more experienced.cafcfan said:It would be good if someone challenged this nonsense in Court. It's clearly a restraint of trade under Common Law. IMO the only way around that conclusion is that it is considered a reasonable imposition to maintain the integrity of the competition. Now, I see how that works with the rules regarding the maximum total spend allowed on players but the number of actual players combined with an arbitrary under 21 exemption (why not 22 or 18 or whatever?) seems laughable to me.
Comparing the maximum of 25 with the actual match day squad - 11 starters plus 9 named subs, leaving only 5 not selected (one of whom would be a keeper presumably) starts to make the total look completely inadequate in the light of the strains and stresses of modern-day football.
A mere 5 injuries, illnesses or suspensions to experienced players (or heavily pregnant wives or bereavements) would leave a team unable to put out the 18 outfield players needed to fill the squad without including kids. Utterly bonkers.1 -
Second one. Miles and TC both counted as underage last yearcantersaddick said:Is this a new thing? I don't remember it being an issue in previous summers? Or is it just that we now have a bloated squad and some of our younger players have aged out of being outside the limit?0 -
Very annoying. Perhaps the rules should exclude 22 yr olds if they came through your own academy? but not if brought in from elsewhere?fenaddick said:
Second one. Miles and TC both counted as underage last yearcantersaddick said:Is this a new thing? I don't remember it being an issue in previous summers? Or is it just that we now have a bloated squad and some of our younger players have aged out of being outside the limit?5 -
The funny thing is that the PFA are legally challenging the financial redirections in L1 and have no issues with the player limits. The idea is to stop the bigger clubs in a division from hoarding all the best players and having bloated squads.cafcfan said:It would be good if someone challenged this nonsense in Court. It's clearly a restraint of trade under Common Law. IMO the only way around that conclusion is that it is considered a reasonable imposition to maintain the integrity of the competition. Now, I see how that works with the rules regarding the maximum total spend allowed on players but the number of actual players combined with an arbitrary under 21 exemption (why not 22 or 18 or whatever?) seems laughable to me.
Comparing the maximum of 25 with the actual match day squad - 11 starters plus 9 named subs, leaving only 5 not selected (one of whom would be a keeper presumably) starts to make the total look completely inadequate in the light of the strains and stresses of modern-day football.
A mere 5 injuries, illnesses or suspensions to experienced players (or heavily pregnant wives or bereavements) would leave a team unable to put out the 18 outfield players needed to fill the squad without including kids. Utterly bonkers.
Your 5 missing players point is an incentive to have a good academy and to give those players a chance. We had large stretches last season with 5+ missing players but because we had TC, Leaburn, Gough and Anderson (at the beginning) under the limit it didn’t stop us putting out a decent bench0 -
The problem is that those academy players become part of the 25 once they get past 21, which is still a young age.fenaddick said:
The funny thing is that the PFA are legally challenging the financial redirections in L1 and have no issues with the player limits. The idea is to stop the bigger clubs in a division from hoarding all the best players and having bloated squads.cafcfan said:It would be good if someone challenged this nonsense in Court. It's clearly a restraint of trade under Common Law. IMO the only way around that conclusion is that it is considered a reasonable imposition to maintain the integrity of the competition. Now, I see how that works with the rules regarding the maximum total spend allowed on players but the number of actual players combined with an arbitrary under 21 exemption (why not 22 or 18 or whatever?) seems laughable to me.
Comparing the maximum of 25 with the actual match day squad - 11 starters plus 9 named subs, leaving only 5 not selected (one of whom would be a keeper presumably) starts to make the total look completely inadequate in the light of the strains and stresses of modern-day football.
A mere 5 injuries, illnesses or suspensions to experienced players (or heavily pregnant wives or bereavements) would leave a team unable to put out the 18 outfield players needed to fill the squad without including kids. Utterly bonkers.
Your 5 missing players point is an incentive to have a good academy and to give those players a chance. We had large stretches last season with 5+ missing players but because we had TC, Leaburn, Gough and Anderson (at the beginning) under the limit it didn’t stop us putting out a decent bench
The system encourages clubs to keep 19 and 20 year olds at the club, but to loan out or sell them as soon as they become 21.0
