Eoin Doyle

No big deal @Bradford End simple oversight as I got reminded when I posted the same he's played for both Swindon and City, for me we tell Swindon pay his full wages whilst on loan or we bring him back to Valley Parade lets see how ambitious Swindon really are, currently top scorer across Europe Talk Sport claim.

 

No Bowyer needs to learn how to use players like Doyle and Vaughan. These players score goals.

So what shall we not bother signing forwards because Bowyer wants them to be midfielders?

He really must think McCartan is utter shi&e because he would be perfect for a Bowyer style forward you would of thought.

Also it's about having Donaldson, Vaughan and Doyle available battling for positions to hopefully get us up.

 

Doyle not in the Swindon squad, what does that suggest, back in January ??.

 

Not allowing him to play is the right decision by us.

 

marker to persuade Swindon to come up with something?

 

Absolutely. It would be mad to let him get cup tied at this stage of the season. Just imagine if we were to go on an FA Cup run and Vaughan got injured before the Don is back and we'd ruled out the possibility of recalling Doyle.
Also it puts more pressure on Swindon to fork out for his full wages or a fee if they don't want to lose him.

 

It suggest's it could be an option.
Very much like that we are playing hard ball for a change.
For me, they either pay all his wages from Jan onwards, or take him on a full transfer without any financial obligations against us to his contract ie we dont pay the last 6 months etc
Otherwise he simply comes back to us come Jan 2

 

We're probably going to be in the FA Cup final, so Doyle won't mind playing poorly in that.

 

The fact that Doyle didn’t play yesterday suggests City didn’t want him cup tied and therefore are considering bringing him back. The only other explanation is he’s injured.

 

Doyle was fit to play but was "ineligible" according to Swindon Town FC, my reading of that is that BCFC did not allow him to play.

 

Doyle didn’t play because that was part of his initial loan agreement before he joined us.

 

and the only reason for that would be to allow him to return and not be tied

 

Not really. It’s a fairly standard clause in a loan agreement. If, at the initial discussions about his loan agreement, Bowyer wanted him back surely he would only have offered a 6 month loan period.

I’m fairly sure he’ll be with us permanently.

 

Not at all, rarely do our loanees have a ‘standard clause’ like that.

Also Bowyer is allowed to change his mind, when he went to you he’d barely scored a goal in 18 months, now he’s the form striker in Europe. Pretty sure his thinking will be different to when the initial agreement was made.

 

If it is a standard clause, why was Wellens unwilling to reveal in his press conferences last week whether Doyle would be playing at Cheltenham for you then?

 

For the simple reason he wanted to keep Cheltenham from knowing until the last minute.

A friend of mine has a boy in the youth team at Swindon and he reckons we have an option to buy clause in January.

Anyway, we’ll find out soon enough!

 

You won't need the buy out clause, I reckon we'd let you have him for free. Seemingly though it's his wages that are the issue

 

If it is a standard clause we obviously made a conscious descision not to have him cup tied, as we allowed Fylde to Cup tie Hornby who was again on their bench for the FA Cup.

 

He's contract is up in the summer so I doubt his agent would allow a buy clause in January. That would be utter foolish and Doyle should sack his agent if true.

Think we have a recall in Jan option in Jan anyway.