Stickied League 1 Transfer Rumours/Confirmed Transfers 2024/25

[GeneralLee]

Looks like we're selling Harry Pickering to Blackburn for an initial fee of £650K which is disgustingly low for a player in the first year of a three year contract at the club. Add ons would take it to well over £2 million before the sell on percentage kicks in it seems but if he doesn't meet the vast majority of those add ons then we've absolutely been fleeced.

We're going to loan him back for the rest of the season, but I'm just baffled how you can develop a player for 15 years and accept a six figure initial fee when Northampton can sign Charlie Goode from Scunthorpe, get a solid year out of him and sell him for an initial £1 million. Walsall also got twice the initial fee we got for Pickering for Rico Henry and his add ons would bring them in tons of money. Hell, Exeter got tons more for Ethan Ampadu and he'd barely played for them whilst Pickering has nearly 150 games under his belt at two levels.

Whether the pandemic has reduced what we can ask for (even though Goode was sold in a pandemic), whether we undervalue our players or whether we have to put release clauses into contracts these days to sign players to long term contracts, something isn't right about this. This is a generational defensive talent for us who should be bringing in a fee fit for his description. We did well to get what we did for Perry Ng given he was about to be out of contract but for Pickering we best hope he meets the add ons else we've squandered a lot of cash.

Last night we rejected a £500k bid for Cameron Brannagan from Millwall (signed a new three year deal in the summer). We have been guilty of accepting silly bids in the past for players, however this one really does take the biscuit.

I do think however that for the next couple of years you will see players with perceived higher values going for ‘cheap’ to clubs higher up the pyramid. There will also be a lot of short term contracts handed out and an increased player trading model (as recently evidenced by Charlie Daniels and Jordan Obita to maximise club investment).

 

[GFC4EVA]

Scott Robertson on loan from Celtic, Gills fans any views?

Never really got going with us looked ok on his 1st couple of games, but he would play 1 game and be injured for the next 2 or 3, for me hes struggled to adapt to the men's game, if he can get a run think there is a decent player

 

[Luke Imp]

Anyone expecting much movement at their Club tomorrow?

 

[TimeyWimey]

Looks like we're selling Harry Pickering to Blackburn for an initial fee of £650K which is disgustingly low for a player in the first year of a three year contract at the club. Add ons would take it to well over £2 million before the sell on percentage kicks in it seems but if he doesn't meet the vast majority of those add ons then we've absolutely been fleeced.

We're going to loan him back for the rest of the season, but I'm just baffled how you can develop a player for 15 years and accept a six figure initial fee when Northampton can sign Charlie Goode from Scunthorpe, get a solid year out of him and sell him for an initial £1 million. Walsall also got twice the initial fee we got for Pickering for Rico Henry and his add ons would bring them in tons of money. Hell, Exeter got tons more for Ethan Ampadu and he'd barely played for them whilst Pickering has nearly 150 games under his belt at two levels.

Whether the pandemic has reduced what we can ask for (even though Goode was sold in a pandemic), whether we undervalue our players or whether we have to put release clauses into contracts these days to sign players to long term contracts, something isn't right about this. This is a generational defensive talent for us who should be bringing in a fee fit for his description. We did well to get what we did for Perry Ng given he was about to be out of contract but for Pickering we best hope he meets the add ons else we've squandered a lot of cash.

It’s an absolute shit show and somewhere down the line this “golden generation” we have (had) has been badly mis-managed in terms of contracts and forward planning. We’re probably ending up with a third of what Ng and Pickering could have made us. Absolutely no way Dario would have stood for that.

The idea of an immediate loan back doesn’t sit right with me either. Another anti-academy idea we’ve never previously bought into*, cos the players always went when they were ready. If Pickering isn’t going to be in Blackburn’s first team squad tomorrow, it isn’t the right move for him.

*Danny Murphy may get mentioned but his return wasn’t immediate and the difference between one of the biggest clubs in Europe and a mid-table Championship side we could be playing next season needn’t be mentioned.

 

[GFC4EVA]

Anyone expecting much movement at their Club tomorrow?

Striker is a must, Evan's wants 3 players whether we get them is another question

 

[TrinidadsNumberOne]

It’s an absolute shit show and somewhere down the line this “golden generation” we have (had) has been badly mis-managed in terms of contracts and forward planning. We’re probably ending up with a third of what Ng and Pickering could have made us. Absolutely no way Dario would have stood for that.

The idea of an immediate loan back doesn’t sit right with me either. Another anti-academy idea we’ve never previously bought into*, cos the players always went when they were ready. If Pickering isn’t going to be in Blackburn’s first team squad tomorrow, it isn’t the right move for him.

*Danny Murphy may get mentioned but his return wasn’t immediate and the difference between one of the biggest clubs in Europe and a mid-table Championship side we could be playing next season needn’t be mentioned.

The fact Artell got a lot of the current core of the squad to sign long term contracts is excellent and a vast improvement on what that useless prick we had before was doing. But if the cost of extending contracts of our players long term is to set a low release clause to sell them then I'm starting to think was it even worth it? We may well get £2 million+ and a sell on for Pickering if he progresses as we expect, but an initial £650K for a generational defensive talent (best since Billy Jones imo) is scarily low. Especially when Walsall got just over twice that for a similar homegrown LB who could have add ons bringing them as much as £5 million before a sell on kicks in. Makes me think Pickering's agent demanded the clause be set in the contract but Dario used to stop these clauses from being a thing as they were of a detriment to the club and its ethos. So why are we ceding power to the player when they know what the club is about?

We did well to get what we got for Ng in the end so I'm not as concerned by that. He's also not the generational defensive talent Pickering is. If anything, his sale makes the fee we got for Pickering look even worse. He's got his deserved salary increase and a move to a higher level and we've got a good fee for a player out of contract in 6 months.

Pickering will be Blackburn's starting LB next season 100%. However, they've got Barry Douglas in on a year's loan but can't afford him permanently. Pickering is better than Amari'i Bell so I'm sure he'll be starter on opening day next year if fit. If Blackburn desperately want him but know they can't cancel Douglas' loan deal then I don't blame them for doing what they're doing. Now I, like you, would rather sell him to a club that would actually play him from the get go, but I would much rather him do this than end up at basket case Sheffield Wednesday with a relegation release clause in his contract that robs us of any sell on in 3 or 4 months time.

I'd love to know the initial terms of the deal that we turned down. Blackburn argued our add ons were unreasonable at first. I'd love to know why they were? Maybe a sweetener was giving us Pickering till May so we'd drop the price of add ons or drop the sell on percentage. It's obvious a release clause was part of the deal though else we'd have rejected all their offers and started a bidding war in the Summer for him if that wasn't a thing. But why are we agreeing to clauses when we know we more or less have power on these players until they're 24?

Unless we know the full extent of the add ons, it makes you think it was probably better to risk a tribunal regarding Pickering rather than getting him to sign a 3 year deal with a clause. In the modern day, tribunals have massively benefited lower league clubs since the Billy Jones debacle.

 

[Guernica]

Striker is a must, Evan's wants 3 players whether we get them is another question

I wonder what Steve will do on Feb 2nd? loves a good transfer as well as talking about budgets and how supportive his chairman has been.

We are straying into off topic territory but what's happening with your season ticket refunds? I glimpsed at something yesterday, didn't read into at the time and can't find what it was I was reading from your supporters trust?

 

[TrinidadsNumberOne]

Anyone expecting much movement at their Club tomorrow?

Expect Pickering deal to go through today or tomorrow as mentioned above and can see us bringing in a striker on loan too.

 

[That Fat Centre Half]

The fact Artell got a lot of the current core of the squad to sign long term contracts is excellent and a vast improvement on what that useless prick we had before was doing. But if the cost of extending contracts of our players long term is to set a low release clause to sell them then I'm starting to think was it even worth it? We may well get £2 million+ and a sell on for Pickering if he progresses as we expect, but an initial £650K for a generational defensive talent (best since Billy Jones imo) is scarily low. Especially when Walsall got just over twice that for a similar homegrown LB who could have add ons bringing them as much as £5 million before a sell on kicks in. Makes me think Pickering's agent demanded the clause be set in the contract but Dario used to stop these clauses from being a thing as they were of a detriment to the club and its ethos. So why are we ceding power to the player when they know what the club is about?

We did well to get what we got for Ng in the end so I'm not as concerned by that. He's also not the generational defensive talent Pickering is. If anything, his sale makes the fee we got for Pickering look even worse. He's got his deserved salary increase and a move to a higher level and we've got a good fee for a player out of contract in 6 months.

Pickering will be Blackburn's starting LB next season 100%. However, they've got Barry Douglas in on a year's loan but can't afford him permanently. Pickering is better than Amari'i Bell so I'm sure he'll be starter on opening day next year if fit. If Blackburn desperately want him but know they can't cancel Douglas' loan deal then I don't blame them for doing what they're doing. Now I, like you, would rather sell him to a club that would actually play him from the get go, but I would much rather him do this than end up at basket case Sheffield Wednesday with a relegation release clause in his contract that robs us of any sell on in 3 or 4 months time.

I'd love to know the initial terms of the deal that we turned down. Blackburn argued our add ons were unreasonable at first. I'd love to know why they were? Maybe a sweetener was giving us Pickering till May so we'd drop the price of add ons or drop the sell on percentage. It's obvious a release clause was part of the deal though else we'd have rejected all their offers and started a bidding war in the Summer for him if that wasn't a thing. But why are we agreeing to clauses when we know we more or less have power on these players until they're 24?

Unless we know the full extent of the add ons, it makes you think it was probably better to risk a tribunal regarding Pickering rather than getting him to sign a 3 year deal with a clause. In the modern day, tribunals have massively benefited lower league clubs since the Billy Jones debacle.

Would suggest that our fullback sales are probably a fair barometer, Justin (8 million) and Stacey (4 million). Cant comment on Pickering and his ability in relation to those 2 as havent seen him but even if he is only marginally "worse" than those 2 it does seem you arent getting a good price. It has to be pandemic and probably as big a factor the contract Pickering signed thats screwed you here, as that is so far below the going rate seemingly.

 

[DearneValleyRover]

Not expecting anything now unless we lose someone so I suppose it depends how much Preston want Wright

 

[Indian Dan]

Anyone expecting much movement at their Club tomorrow?

Sheridan out

 

[Boletus Edulis]

Anyone expecting much movement at their Club tomorrow?

Lowe has said we are looking at a CB. Rumours going round it is an unnamed person from Man U.

 

[Boletus Edulis]

The fact Artell got a lot of the current core of the squad to sign long term contracts is excellent and a vast improvement on what that useless prick we had before was doing. But if the cost of extending contracts of our players long term is to set a low release clause to sell them then I'm starting to think was it even worth it? We may well get £2 million+ and a sell on for Pickering if he progresses as we expect, but an initial £650K for a generational defensive talent (best since Billy Jones imo) is scarily low. Especially when Walsall got just over twice that for a similar homegrown LB who could have add ons bringing them as much as £5 million before a sell on kicks in. Makes me think Pickering's agent demanded the clause be set in the contract but Dario used to stop these clauses from being a thing as they were of a detriment to the club and its ethos. So why are we ceding power to the player when they know what the club is about?

We did well to get what we got for Ng in the end so I'm not as concerned by that. He's also not the generational defensive talent Pickering is. If anything, his sale makes the fee we got for Pickering look even worse. He's got his deserved salary increase and a move to a higher level and we've got a good fee for a player out of contract in 6 months.

Pickering will be Blackburn's starting LB next season 100%. However, they've got Barry Douglas in on a year's loan but can't afford him permanently. Pickering is better than Amari'i Bell so I'm sure he'll be starter on opening day next year if fit. If Blackburn desperately want him but know they can't cancel Douglas' loan deal then I don't blame them for doing what they're doing. Now I, like you, would rather sell him to a club that would actually play him from the get go, but I would much rather him do this than end up at basket case Sheffield Wednesday with a relegation release clause in his contract that robs us of any sell on in 3 or 4 months time.

I'd love to know the initial terms of the deal that we turned down. Blackburn argued our add ons were unreasonable at first. I'd love to know why they were? Maybe a sweetener was giving us Pickering till May so we'd drop the price of add ons or drop the sell on percentage. It's obvious a release clause was part of the deal though else we'd have rejected all their offers and started a bidding war in the Summer for him if that wasn't a thing. But why are we agreeing to clauses when we know we more or less have power on these players until they're 24?

Unless we know the full extent of the add ons, it makes you think it was probably better to risk a tribunal regarding Pickering rather than getting him to sign a 3 year deal with a clause. In the modern day, tribunals have massively benefited lower league clubs since the Billy Jones debacle.

Are Blackburn expecting you to pay a loan fee for Pickering, or is that part of the reason why the initial fee is lower had hoped?

 

[TrinidadsNumberOne]

Would suggest that our fullback sales are probably a fair barometer, Justin (8 million) and Stacey (4 million). Cant comment on Pickering and his ability in relation to those 2 as havent seen him but even if he is only marginally "worse" than those 2 it does seem you arent getting a good price. It has to be pandemic and probably as big a factor the contract Pickering signed thats screwed you here, as that is so far below the going rate seemingly.

You also have to factor in the fact we've had Pickering at this club since he was a child. 10-15 years development and it seems he's going for a pittance compared to other players of his ilk, some of whom didn't even come from their club's respective academies. Didn't expect the money Luton got for their fullbacks. Justin will play for England and Stacy was paid a higher salary than Pickering and obviously was part of a team promoted to the Championship. But we've had our pants pulled down by this clause. Players like Pickering could keep our model running for years single handedly if they were sold at their true value but someone at the club has dropped a bollock ceding power to his agent.

Are Blackburn expecting you to pay a loan fee for Pickering, or is that part of the reason why the initial fee is lower had hoped?

Can imagine the loan back will see us pay him the wage he's currently on now with Blackburn footing the rest of his wages. Don't expect a straight loan fee involved but the price of the add ons that we initially wanted will ultimately be reduced slightly as a result. He's going to a club that will play him as a starter from next season at least so we'll do well out of it in the end, but if he flops we've lost a lot of money other clubs would've forced clubs to pay them.

Clauses go against the ethos of our Academy. We effectively have power over Pickering until he's 24 so I just don't get why we have such a low release clause in his contract.

 

[Crewelad87]

650,000 for Pickering is ridiculous. He’s worth 3 times that. I’ve got a feeling the fee is so low due to a clause in his contract.

 

[GFC4EVA]

I wonder what Steve will do on Feb 2nd? loves a good transfer as well as talking about budgets and how supportive his chairman has been.

We are straying into off topic territory but what's happening with your season ticket refunds? I glimpsed at something yesterday, didn't read into at the time and can't find what it was I was reading from your supporters trust?

Not quite sure tbh, the club havent offered any sort of refund from last season and some fans havent been happy about it, one fan went to a organisation to complain so the club have refunded his ticket from this season so now hes not happy about it, that's what I made of it from what I read.

 

[Guernica]

Not quite sure tbh, the club havent offered any sort of refund from last season and some fans havent been happy about it, one fan went to a organisation to complain so the club have refunded his ticket from this season so now hes not happy about it, that's what I made of it from what I read.

Okay, thanks. Jeez, no refunds?

Speaking of that, I received my share certificate yesterday for my 2019/20 remaining season ticket, club handled it really well, offered refunds or donate it as shares.

 

[Marked Ox]

Anyone expecting much movement at their Club tomorrow?

I hope so! A left back and at least 1 winger is a must. Preferably 2 wingers though.

 

[Marked Ox]

Sheridan out

Is that hopeful thinking or likely to happen?

 

[TimeyWimey]

The fact Artell got a lot of the current core of the squad to sign long term contracts is excellent and a vast improvement on what that useless prick we had before was doing. But if the cost of extending contracts of our players long term is to set a low release clause to sell them then I'm starting to think was it even worth it? We may well get £2 million+ and a sell on for Pickering if he progresses as we expect, but an initial £650K for a generational defensive talent (best since Billy Jones imo) is scarily low. Especially when Walsall got just over twice that for a similar homegrown LB who could have add ons bringing them as much as £5 million before a sell on kicks in. Makes me think Pickering's agent demanded the clause be set in the contract but Dario used to stop these clauses from being a thing as they were of a detriment to the club and its ethos. So why are we ceding power to the player when they know what the club is about?

We did well to get what we got for Ng in the end so I'm not as concerned by that. He's also not the generational defensive talent Pickering is. If anything, his sale makes the fee we got for Pickering look even worse. He's got his deserved salary increase and a move to a higher level and we've got a good fee for a player out of contract in 6 months.

Pickering will be Blackburn's starting LB next season 100%. However, they've got Barry Douglas in on a year's loan but can't afford him permanently. Pickering is better than Amari'i Bell so I'm sure he'll be starter on opening day next year if fit. If Blackburn desperately want him but know they can't cancel Douglas' loan deal then I don't blame them for doing what they're doing. Now I, like you, would rather sell him to a club that would actually play him from the get go, but I would much rather him do this than end up at basket case Sheffield Wednesday with a relegation release clause in his contract that robs us of any sell on in 3 or 4 months time.

I'd love to know the initial terms of the deal that we turned down. Blackburn argued our add ons were unreasonable at first. I'd love to know why they were? Maybe a sweetener was giving us Pickering till May so we'd drop the price of add ons or drop the sell on percentage. It's obvious a release clause was part of the deal though else we'd have rejected all their offers and started a bidding war in the Summer for him if that wasn't a thing. But why are we agreeing to clauses when we know we more or less have power on these players until they're 24?

Unless we know the full extent of the add ons, it makes you think it was probably better to risk a tribunal regarding Pickering rather than getting him to sign a 3 year deal with a clause. In the modern day, tribunals have massively benefited lower league clubs since the Billy Jones debacle.

Maybe times have changed and expecting it to be as black and white as the player/club agreement of years ago of play for us, sign your contracts and we'll sort your future out is now pie in the sky. However, it all reeks and I dare say a precedent has been set with release clauses and players running down contracts that will weaken the academy significantly (as if it hasn't taken enough hits over the last 10 years).

Can you imagine the club ever allowing a player to dictate the fee they are sold for under Dario et al? I imagine part of it is due to lack of confidence in our ability to improve these players (not sure why) and Pickering's release clause seemed a sensible fee at the time the contract was signed. You listen to the podcast with ex-players, telling stories how incredibly arrogant and confident Dario was in his judgement and ability to improve players. You get the feeling that's missing now.

Can imagine the loan back will see us pay him the wage he's currently on now with Blackburn footing the rest of his wages. Don't expect a straight loan fee involved but the price of the add ons that we initially wanted will ultimately be reduced slightly as a result. He's going to a club that will play him as a starter from next season at least so we'll do well out of it in the end, but if he flops we've lost a lot of money other clubs would've forced clubs to pay them.

Clauses go against the ethos of our Academy. We effectively have power over Pickering until he's 24 so I just don't get why we have such a low release clause in his contract.

'Cashing in' then spending that money (on wages) to continue the development of [now] another club's player. Development time that would otherwise be extra money to us come the summer. Bleurgh.

 

[Indian Dan]

Is that hopeful thinking or likely to happen?

Rumour has it. Power’s civil court case is Tuesday and he’s out the door after that I reckon, too. I realise it’s all great fun for you lot - and rightly so - but a greater shambles it’s hard to imagine.

You and Eric couldn’t have done much worse!

 

[Marked Ox]

Rumour has it. Power’s civil court case is Tuesday and he’s out the door after that I reckon, too. I realise it’s all great fun for you lot - and rightly so - but a greater shambles it’s hard to imagine.

You and Eric couldn’t have done much worse!

That case will take a while to complete, won't it?

 

[masi51]

In talks with Arsenal about taking Mathew Smith for the rest of the season
Swindon fans is he any good??

 

[Indian Dan]

Honestly, I thought he’d go to a Championship club.

He was very good in our shite team. You’ll be lucky if you get him.

Dinosaur Sheridan is the reason he’s been recalled.

 

[masi51]

Honestly, I thought he’d go to a Championship club.

He was very good in our shite team. You’ll be lucky if you get him.

Dinosaur Sheridan is the reason he’s been recalled.

i cannot keep my face straight....wind up

 

[Indian Dan]

That case will take a while to complete, won't it?

I don’t think it will. We’ve discovered his lawyers are essentially specialists in family law! Can’t see how he can argue the toss - especially as he was found guilty of trying to shaft a fella who had invested over £1m and Power ‘forgot’ to actually sign the 15% share certificate he had sold/conned him into buying.

He’s trying to shaft Gareth Barry over his investment - which was based on him getting a share of any transfer fees the club received.

All of in all we’re hoping to get rid of both Power and Sheridan sharpish.

 

[Indian Dan]

i cannot keep my face straight....wind up

My sides are splitting with your hilarious jape.

 

[Agombar stool]

Bristol City recalled Johnny Smith. Ah well!

I'm a bit disappointed how it turned out with J.Smith. he clearly has something about him after a great goal against Charlton in the league Cup. After that it just wouldn't go in for him and
his confidence dipped and once Jurassic John came in his time here was done. At 23 he is the sort of player we should be looking to sign for nothing to look to improve and potentially sell on for decent profit.

 

[Boletus Edulis]

rumour is we have signed CB Sam Woods from Palace. Anyone know anything about him?

And another rumour is that Wootton will be going to Wigan.

Ps Woods confirmed. He likes unusual names beginning with A, played for Accies last year in SPL.

 

[eric read]

Rumour has it. Power’s civil court case is Tuesday and he’s out the door after that I reckon, too. I realise it’s all great fun for you lot - and rightly so - but a greater shambles it’s hard to imagine.

You and Eric couldn’t have done much worse!

Well, you'll have to wait and see on that one.

My lawyers tell me I should have control of the club by noon on Wednesday. The decision then is whether to wind the club up or just give Sheridan a five year contract to finish what he's started?