Jack Wilshere

NWCherries98 said:
I’m just repeating an earlier rumour that I heard which I, tbf, prefaced as being a potentially “hilariously good” bit of business. As in, “wow, that would be great if we pulled it off!”. I would be happy with Ritchie and some cash for King tbh; Gayle would be a nice bonus. You have to factor in losing Kings wages being fairly substantial too.

Not sure the age factors in as much of a problem considering how young and shallow our squad is; we have the 9th youngest squad in the league and 7th smallest, so it’s not like we’re running on fumes in terms of youth.

Ritchie and Gayle are proven quality at this level. Gayle especially. King leaving in this scenario leaves us with 2 strikers and Surridge and Solanke are very different types of player, so would solve two problems very easily.

Kermogant is a great example of a player that was the wrong side of 30 but proved to be exactly what we needed, for example. We needed that second striker to go up then, and we need an answer at LWB now, as well as more chances being created for the frontline. On paper, Wilshere and Ritchie solve both these problems for me.
Click to expand...

Question is, Ritchie LM/ LWB putting crosses in or Ritchie RM dovetailing with the fullback, cutting in and then banging them in the top corner? I would say we are weaker down the right hand side and Ritchie had more physicality than Brooks to play that role.
 
canadiancherry said:
Question:
Given that we're in the middle of the transfer window, and Jack is not under contract, is there a mechanism by which we could give him a "trial" game (or two) in January where he plays for us?
Would give us a chance to see what he can do in a real game, and would be good for him in that he'd be able to showcase his talents again.
Win-win.
Click to expand...

There would be mechanisms by which you could probably swing something under the rules but, from Jack's perspective, that's a lose. Essentially he'd be broadcasting that he was willing to go on a trial at a Championship club. Reality is he'd want to be here short term to prove his fitness so he could move to a club further up the food chain next season. If he's shown willingness to go on trial with us then it weakens his hand in negotiations with a bigger team. He (or, more likely, his agent) would never sanction it.
 
kirsikka said:
There would be mechanisms by which you could probably swing something under the rules but, from Jack's perspective, that's a lose. Essentially he'd be broadcasting that he was willing to go on a trial at a Championship club. Reality is he'd want to be here short term to prove his fitness so he could move to a club further up the food chain next season. If he's shown willingness to go on trial with us then it weakens his hand in negotiations with a bigger team. He (or, more likely, his agent) would never sanction it.
Click to expand...
But if that's where he's actually at -- training with a Championship club, and not getting any PL takers -- then I'm not sure it's a "lose" from his perspective.
Regarding mechanisms, are 2-week contracts illegal or something?
What would really look bad, though, is if he genuinely had a trial game and we "cut" him. Then he looks like a L1 player. So risk, yes, but at this point in his career playing it safe isn't going to help him much.
 
There's a big difference between training at a former club to get over an injury, something fairly common, and broadcasting yourself as so broken you need trial games in tier 2.

I'm not convinced it works for us either. If he proves his fitness in a couple of matches what's to stop someone else signing him?

We'd be better off organising some behind closed doors matches in which he takes a full part. Then we can make a judgement without anyone else being able to see.

I very well could be wrong but I don't think there's a minimum contract length.
 
kirsikka said:
There's a big difference between training at a former club to get over an injury, something fairly common, and broadcasting yourself as so broken you need trial games in tier 2.

I'm not convinced it works for us either. If he proves his fitness in a couple of matches what's to stop someone else signing him?

We'd be better off organising some behind closed doors matches in which he takes a full part. Then we can make a judgement without anyone else being able to see.

I very well could be wrong but I don't think there's a minimum contract length.
Click to expand...
You've just reminded me of the halcyon days when the Rothmans Football Yearbook would describe another unimpressive player as "non contract"!
 
It wasn't too long ago that a player would arrive on non contract terms for a month then disappear, never to be heard of again. That almost has the makings of a good horror movie plot.

We sometimes forget how fortunate we are right now to have players we actually know mostly on contracts of a decent length. When they agree to sign them.
 
billythekid said:
It would be except the date of the story.

But then I think Ritchie has been connectied with our club nearly if not all transfer seasons since.

Maybe one day it may just happen.
Click to expand...
Ha ha, sorry I didn't look at the date!
 
Shame injuries ruined him as he looked to have an amazing career ahead of him. If he can still do a job from now till the end of the season then good
 
"In accordance with FIFA Regulations a Player may be registered with a maximum of three clubs during one season. During this period, the player is only eligible to play in official matches for two clubs. "

Was Jack registered and did he play at all with West Ham before being released? If so, then if he plays for us it rules out another club in England, with his only option a league that has a different calendar like MLS. i.e. this might limit him to one choice of club for rest of year ruling out a short-term deal.
 
ChampagneCherry said:
"In accordance with FIFA Regulations a Player may be registered with a maximum of three clubs during one season. During this period, the player is only eligible to play in official matches for two clubs. "

Was Jack registered and did he play at all with West Ham before being released? If so, then if he plays for us it rules out another club in England, with his only option a league that has a different calendar like MLS. i.e. this might limit him to one choice of club for rest of year ruling out a short-term deal.
Click to expand...
Not sure where you get "rest of year" as the quote you posted says "during one season". This season is half done and he hasn't played for anyone yet. So he can play for 2 clubs between now and the end of the season.
But really, I think if we do sign him, it will be at least until the end of June. A shorter-term deal would be interesting but doesn't seem to be a 'thing.'
 
canadiancherry said:
Not sure where you get "rest of year" as the quote you posted says "during one season". This season is half done and he hasn't played for anyone yet. So he can play for 2 clubs between now and the end of the season.
But really, I think if we do sign him, it will be at least until the end of June. A shorter-term deal would be interesting but doesn't seem to be a 'thing.'
Click to expand...
Just checked, he played an EFL game for West Ham before leaving.

Thus only one more team he is allowed to play for this season, short term deals or not, so imagine he wants to make sure he gets to play.

Maybe Lerma's possible ban was a reason to go get an extra midfield, so outcome of that and now Stan is relevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;