Transfer Rumour Thread...

How will we benefit in the long run? It's simple, he scores 20-30 goals next season, we get promoted and then turn ourselves into an established Championship club. Who we bring in to provide competition is a slightly different matters and one which we'll still be discussing if Wyke was here. As a direct replacement though, he'll do.

 

Whilst it's very idealistic way to look at it, I agree in principle. However, take last season as an example, Wyke got injured and so was Poleon - so we played Jones and Patrick up front, got battered 3-0 by Fleetwood at home. Same situation, we played Taylor and McCartan up top, lost to Northampton. Same with Doncaster and several other fixtures. Whilst we still had dreadful games when Wyke played, his absences were always more obvious. As a direct replacement, Doyle is not the same type of player, and therefore not suitable. As an addition to someone replacing Wyke, he'd be great.

 

Again, not really how these contracts work. For a guy who formerly worked in finance, he wouldn't be so reckless to guarantee money to a club before he could secure it himself. If it is instalments, so will theirs be. In any event, most reporters claiming that there was no sell-on clause in his contract. We'll agree to disagree.

 

We need someone like Doidge or Eaves with Doyle.

 

He's a goalscorer, if he comes in he'll first and foremost be here to replace his goals, which makes him a suitable replacement. Who cares if he's not a Charlie Wyke clone? He'll have other qualities we can utilise.

 

I'd certainly more confident with either in addition to Doyle.

 

What was your point? That a goalscorer isn't a suitable replacement for a goalscorer because he's not stylistically identical to his replacement?

 

I'd be happy with replacing Wyke with Doyle and getting a million from Sunderland. good business.

 

Loan is a good move with an option to buy should he do well in the team.
If he ends up like McClean then we can send back and look elsewhere in January.

 

A lot depends on how Collins wants his team to play. The way Parky, McCall & Grayson had us set up, a big man up front was vital. Even McCall who wanted the ball on the floor as much as possible, that was with a view to a) going long when required or to switch it up (in his second season we went long far more without Josh Cullen) and b) getting crosses in the box towards Hanson or Wyke's head.

If Collins wants us to play slightly differently, for example playing more through the lines than over them, or getting the ball wide so that Scannell, Seedorf, Mellor & Riley can reach the byline, then Doyle could be a great replacement and Miller/Jones could add the squad depth. But the fact is, we don't know yet.

 

Hope we've got a high Apr % with the other 500k

 

Yeah but your not taking into account the probable change in tactics.

 

That was one of your points. Your other one was that Doyle isn't a suitable replacement for Wyke.

 

For the very last time, after which I won't even comment, I'm not criticising Doyle or his style of play...it's every other striker we have as back-up. They struggle alone, and Doyle won't fill that role. He'll offer something completely different, which could be great, or terrible, as you say we don't know. But either bring in another target man to play alongside Jones, Miller etc. or get rid and get more players who can play up top alone. Simple.

 

Doyle and 1m I'm fine with. I hope we spend this money on another striker who isn't a target man. I'd like a pacey smaller lad prepared to run in behind.

 

I will disagree, Jones isnt a target man,Miller isnt a target man and apparently Doyle isnt either.

A target man please City.

By the way Seedorf,Robinson and even Miller will be fine for pace.

 

You mean like the one who can't get a game for Burnley?

 

Because Doyle is a much more complete striker than Wyke, he scores all types of goals and goals out of nothing. His stance and finishing reminds me a little bit of Jon Stead.