Retained 20:45 - May 23 with 2699 views | cooper442 | Why are keeping hold of Jackson and Harness,no more than a couple of average league 1 players, simply not good enough even as squad players in championship.. | | | | |
Retained on 20:46 - May 23 with 2658 views | PhilTWTD | Regardless of their abilities or otherwise, they're both in contract so can't be released. | | | |
Retained on 20:49 - May 23 with 2631 views | ArnieM | Just because they are retained, doesn’t mean we wouldn’t sell! | |
| |
Retained on 20:57 - May 23 with 2562 views | J2BLUE | Both of them could be useful but even if we wanted to get rid of them we wouldn't include them on this list and we wouldn't announce we wanted to get rid of them as it would destroy our bargaining position. | |
| |
Retained on 20:59 - May 23 with 2546 views | SitfcB | Look up what a contract is. They’re not even that bad. [Post edited 23 May 2023 20:59]
| |
| |
Retained on 21:30 - May 23 with 2379 views | PioneerBlue | Not a lot to add here based on what others have said. Both are under contract. Whether they are or are not part of the final 22 come Sept is entirely separate. With regards to Harness, time to reflect on his 6 league goals in 20 odd appearances in what was a broken up season between around Oct/Nov and Feb due to injuries, then Broadhead’s arrival and catching on fire. | |
| |
Retained on 22:04 - May 23 with 2194 views | cressi |
Lots of players will leave for small fees the likes of Harper will be nominal fee. I believe the likes of Jackson will go if Town have lined up better players which is most likely think there will be a lot of better players coming in. | | | |
Retained on 23:01 - May 23 with 1979 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
Retained on 22:04 - May 23 by cressi | Lots of players will leave for small fees the likes of Harper will be nominal fee. I believe the likes of Jackson will go if Town have lined up better players which is most likely think there will be a lot of better players coming in. |
Theres a big difference between players out of contract being released and players, who are still under contract, being sold. | |
| | Login to get fewer ads
Retained on 09:02 - May 24 with 1521 views | Wickets | Yes if we want to sell them and i said IF , we have to retain them . | | | |
Retained on 09:18 - May 24 with 1456 views | clive_baker | They're both under contract so they don't come into the conversation re. retaining them for next season. That's not to say 1 or both of them won't move on though. Jackson is going into the final year of his contract now, it wouldn't surprise me if we look to move him on somewhere but whether there's much interest is another question. I could see him at Pompey, could occupy the wide position or offer competition for Bishop through the middle. Perhaps we could do a BOGOF with the Pig. | |
| |
Retained on 10:44 - May 24 with 1298 views | tractorboy1978 |
Retained on 09:18 - May 24 by clive_baker | They're both under contract so they don't come into the conversation re. retaining them for next season. That's not to say 1 or both of them won't move on though. Jackson is going into the final year of his contract now, it wouldn't surprise me if we look to move him on somewhere but whether there's much interest is another question. I could see him at Pompey, could occupy the wide position or offer competition for Bishop through the middle. Perhaps we could do a BOGOF with the Pig. |
I believe Warne wanted him when he was at Rotherham so Derby may not be a bad shout. I could also see Charlton coming in for one or two of our players post takeover. | | | |
Retained on 12:49 - May 24 with 1085 views | lurcher | Just because a player is still under contract it doesn't necessarily mean we are keeping them. There will be players who get told that they are not getting a squad number and will be forced to find another club on a loan or perm basis. There will be one or two like Jackson or Evans who may have to take that route. | | | |
| |