This Crooks transfer

B_G said:
I'm more annoyed that we didn't get a striker in a January than I am about them allowing Crooks to leave.

Crooks would make a difference but even still we would have square pegs in round holes. I just don't believe there's not a single srterikrr available for loan if the right striker wasn't available to sign.
Click to expand...
I'm a big believer that this has been on the cards for some time and we bought Azaz to replace Crooks. The Rogers transfer on top of the injuries to Latt and Coburn threw a spanner in the works and I agree a forward should have been priortised. The trouble with that though is we will have been quoted inflated prices with others wanting a slice of the Rogers money.
 
LessoftheLip said:
But we'd have been better off taking it in January and then reinvesting the money in areas of the pitch we are short on.
Click to expand...
We weren't restricted by finances in January. If there was a player available at a price we liked then we would have bought them. We didn't need to wait for Crooks to be sold to spend the money.
 
Wish it would just be done or not done as soon as possible - 3 days since it was announced he was travelling out there. Surely that's enough time to get it sorted one way or another?
 
Norman_Conquest said:
I'm a big believer that this has been on the cards for some time and we bought Azaz to replace Crooks. The Rogers transfer on top of the injuries to Latt and Coburn threw a spanner in the works and I agree a forward should have been priortised. The trouble with that though is we will have been quoted inflated prices with others wanting a slice of the Rogers money.
Click to expand...
Just loan one then. Anything to get us through this spell. There's got to be an actual striker sitting in one of the PL U23 squads needing game time. At least it would be an option
 
viv_andersons_nana said:
It feels strange but if he wants to leave the club doesn’t have a choice.
Click to expand...

The club definitely does have a choice.

"No, we're not selling you."

He's then not sold and either continues to be a valuable part of the squad or damages his reputation and prospects by refusing to play for 6 months.
But there's a clear choice for a club when they sell players.

Crooks doesn't strike me as the sort who'd down tools, so I expect it would have been the former.

I have no issue with Crooks wanting the move, and I don't hold any ill will to him over him leaving, but just because a player wants to leave doesn't mean a club has to sell them, especially not outside of the transfer window.
 
Last edited:
Nano said:
We weren't restricted by finances in January. If there was a player available at a price we liked then we would have bought them. We didn't need to wait for Crooks to be sold to spend the money.
Click to expand...
The club seems to have a contradictory view on the value of its own players vs the value of other club's players.
Maybe there was a player we fancied outside our price bracket? The Crooks fee would have helped.
 
edinboro said:
His experience and knack of finding a goal will be missed. Giving up on the season now seems really poor, but it feels like that.

I don't imagine Crooks has kicked off to leave - really doesn't seem the sort.
Click to expand...
Prob right, but he only got 6 starts after Carrick came in last season and all those were as CF (emergency) which none of us wants long term even Crooks. We could see by the end of last season that he really fitted a 5 man mid on the right next to Jones and receiving those slide rule passes into the box , in the Warnock/Wilder setup but doesn't naturally fit the new model of 3 AM ahead of 2 CM's. This season he played the AM in the middle of the 3 and got 18 starts. with 3 goals and 6 assists but deffo no Akpom. I am sure the club would have preferred a summer sale but the US transfer window doesn't fit Europe times but the club obviously have a good relationship with him by letting him have a preferred say in where he goes, and of course we get some cash. We are not reaching play-offs with or without Crooks so its now time sort out the team without him around
 
Last edited:
TeaCider said:
Crooks doesn't strike me as the sort who'd down tools, so I expect it would have been the former.
Click to expand...
No but there's a good chance this is a once in a lifetime opportunity. I doubt they would have waited till the summer. If he didn't go now, they'd have filled their roster with someone else.

The roster system is quite complicated in the MLS. There's 233 international slots across the league. Each team has a different amount of slots as they are tradeable but ot works out to be an average of 8 slots per club. There's also salary caps and each team is limited to 20 senior players.

Top and bottom of it, if he didn't go now I doubt they would hold a slot open for him till their mid season window. They would fill it with someone else. In my opinion it would be wrong to deny him that opportunity especially given we have used him in a rotational capacity.

If we'd brought in a striker in January like we should have then we wouldn't feel as let down by this.
 
B_G said:
If we'd brought in a striker in January like we should have then we wouldn't feel as let down by this.
Click to expand...
(y) I think this is the general gist of what a lot of people are saying.
Azaz in, Rogers out.
Two centre forwards injured.
One centre forward playing on the right.
A known risk that Crooks would leave after the window closes.
We did nothing to mitigate that risk.
 
B_G said:
No but there's a good chance this is a once in a lifetime opportunity. I doubt they would have waited till the summer. If he didn't go now, they'd have filled their roster with someone else.

The roster system is quite complicated in the MLS. There's 233 international slots across the league. Each team has a different amount of slots as they are tradeable but ot works out to be an average of 8 slots per club. There's also salary caps and each team is limited to 20 senior players.

Top and bottom of it, if he didn't go now I doubt they would hold a slot open for him till their mid season window. They would fill it with someone else. In my opinion it would be wrong to deny him that opportunity especially given we have used him in a rotational capacity.

If we'd brought in a striker in January like we should have then we wouldn't feel as let down by this.
Click to expand...

If we'd brought in a striker in January, we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we have now.

It's because we didn't that makes selling Crooks mental.

Even if we end up bringing in a free agent, it would be a bit more acceptable.

But as it stands, we've sold the two players that topped our goal and assist chart, whilst knowing that both of our strikers are suffering with long term injuries, and have been playing half of the team out of position to compensate for a deficient squad
 
B_G said:
No but there's a good chance this is a once in a lifetime opportunity. I doubt they would have waited till the summer. If he didn't go now, they'd have filled their roster with someone else.

The roster system is quite complicated in the MLS. There's 233 international slots across the league. Each team has a different amount of slots as they are tradeable but ot works out to be an average of 8 slots per club. There's also salary caps and each team is limited to 20 senior players.

Top and bottom of it, if he didn't go now I doubt they would hold a slot open for him till their mid season window. They would fill it with someone else. In my opinion it would be wrong to deny him that opportunity especially given we have used him in a rotational capacity.

If we'd brought in a striker in January like we should have then we wouldn't feel as let down by this.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the situation.

Crooks has an amazing chance that will not be there in July. I actually like the fact the club are thinking of the player. It generates revenue, and Crooks can play football in America for a few years. Good for him and his family.
 
Each final position in the league brings you extra revenue, so getting say 1 million for Crooks now may end up costing us more at the end of the season the further down the league we drop.
 
dribble said:
Each final position in the league brings you extra revenue, so getting say 1 million for Crooks now may end up costing us more at the end of the season the further down the league we drop.
Click to expand...
The Championship isn’t the Premier League. Money for league position won’t be huge.

Besides, the club are doing right by Crooks, which shows a bit of compassion and understanding. Sadly lacking at lots of time in society.
 
Nero said:
The Championship isn’t the Premier League. Money for league position won’t be huge.

Besides, the club are doing right by Crooks, which shows a bit of compassion and understanding. Sadly lacking at lots of time in society.
Click to expand...
I dont agree with it the club arent a charity he should have been told no move before the summer unless the club think theres nothing to play for now?
 
dribble said:
Each final position in the league brings you extra revenue, so getting say 1 million for Crooks now may end up costing us more at the end of the season the further down the league we drop.
Click to expand...
Don't forget the drop in ticket revenue this season and next if the football is turgid. Not saying Crooks is the be all and end all but if we perform like we did yesterday for the rest of the season then I expect a reasonable drop off in STs next season
 
Glover_elbow said:
I dont agree with it the club arent a charity he should have been told no move before the summer unless the club think theres nothing to play for now?
Click to expand...
Put yourself in Carrick and Scott’s position.

You have a good bloke and honest professional being offered a fantastic opportunity. Crooks is 30 and has a chance to live and work in America. That chance will likely not be there in July.

Showing some understanding and care to that is not a bad thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top