Transfer Rumours 201X Season

**Real ale Madrid** · 31/01/2018, 8:02 PM

Originally Posted by bluemovie

I think you've got that spot on. We basically signed him to sell him. We'll likely do that with some more players too. Drinan played four times for us and we sold him for about €100,000. We get about half of that I believe with the rest split between Cork, Cobh and was it Carrigaline? He did fine for us in those few games, but not a standout. Himself and John Martin went on trial to Ipswich a few weeks after Drinan signed. It seems Ipswich highly rate him highly for his athleticism. He was well-touted for his UEFA Youth league performances for Cork and definitely has a bit about him. Mick McCarthy is full of praise for him and had him on the bench for an FA Cup game. Not sure how he'll get on over there, but a fantastic bit of business by Waterford.

Doesn't make any sense. Why did he sign for Waterford? He could have just left Cork City as a free agent and Ipswich could have signed him for nothing bar the City development fee. That whole transfer stinks.

**total hoofball** · 31/01/2018, 8:08 PM

Originally Posted by bluemovie

I think you've got that spot on. We basically signed him to sell him. We'll likely do that with some more players too. Drinan played four times for us and we sold him for about €100,000. We get about half of that I believe with the rest split between Cork, Cobh and was it Carrigaline? He did fine for us in those few games, but not a standout. Himself and John Martin went on trial to Ipswich a few weeks after Drinan signed. It seems Ipswich highly rate him highly for his athleticism. He was well-touted for his UEFA Youth league performances for Cork and definitely has a bit about him. Mick McCarthy is full of praise for him and had him on the bench for an FA Cup game. Not sure how he'll get on over there, but a fantastic bit of business by Waterford.

Correct me if I'm wrong: So Drinan a talented Cork Under 19 player (future starting XI player) currently on amateur terms/expenses comes to contract discussion with Cork who offer him a pro or semi-pro deal - but Drinan has offer of a trial with Ipswich and Cork won't sanction any possible Ipswich trial for 'whatever reason' if Drinan is under a contract with Cork

Waterford nip-in, offer Drinan a pro or semi-pro contract (likely better money than Cork to tempt him away from a top of table club) with full understanding that if Ipswich give him any trial they won't stand in his way as worse case scenario Waterford take a share of any compensation from Ipswich for player that was only contracted with Waterford for 6 months maximum.

Presuming Waterford receive more money from the deal that they paid Drinan in wages that was a very smart move that leaves Cork looking dumb losing out on what Waterford gained financially. I'm guessing similar story with Ogbene?

**total hoofball** · 31/01/2018, 8:14 PM

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

Doesn't make any sense. Why did he sign for Waterford? He could have just left Cork City as a free agent and Ipswich could have signed him for nothing bar the City development fee. That whole transfer stinks.

If he rejects Cork, then rejects Waterford, then goes on trial to Ipswich and if that doesn't work out then he has no club to fall back on in the LOI for a decent pro-contract

Looks to me that lad got very smart advice, Waterford used him for a potential compensation fee or as a first team player and he used Waterford as a club to fall back on as Cork (now very stupidly) were not playing ball with him.

**osarusan** · 31/01/2018, 8:18 PM

Redacted FC's Barry Cotter signs for Ipswich for an undisclosed fee.

**El-Pietro** · 31/01/2018, 8:23 PM

Originally Posted by total hoofball

If he rejects Cork, then rejects Waterford, then goes on trial to Ipswich and if that doesn't work out then he has no club to fall back on in the LOI for a decent pro-contract

Looks to me that lad got very smart advice, Waterford used him for a potential compensation fee or as a first team player and he used Waterford as a club to fall back on as Cork (now very stupidly) were not playing ball with him.

Stupid or principled? All LOI clubs should be standing up to English clubs and say no to trials. Waterford have done well here (as has Drinan obviously) but they have undercut a fellow LOI club and weakened their own bargaining position in future, as well as the bargaining position of all clubs.

I'm not super upset about this one, I don't know what Drinan will amount to, but I'm glad we are sticking to our guns and saying no to trials.

The Ogbene situation was very different.

**Jofspring** · 31/01/2018, 11:07 PM

At the time we got Ogbene the story going around is that Cork were only offering him low wages a week and he would not be a guaranteed starter. I remember the Cork fans going mad about losing one of their best talents for a few quid extra. Not sure if blocking trials abroad was an issue but I believe when redacted signed Ogbene he was offered a little more than Corks offer, was guaranteed more first team football and was told that the club wouldn’t stand in the way of him going on trials at the end of his first season. That looks to be the way it worked out as Ogbene was off on trials within a few weeks of the season ending.

There is also a big difference between a LOI club having a strong stance on letting one of their players they have developed go on trials elsewhere and a club trying to sign a talented player from elsewhere with the offer of letting them go on trials as a bargaining chip.

For example if Cork had the chance to sign a top young player from Man City, would they not use the fact they would let him trial elsewhere if clubs in England showed interest in the future as a bargaining tool, they could potentially make some money and they would have the services of the player for a year?

**El-Pietro** · 31/01/2018, 11:13 PM

There was no mention of trials in relation to Ogbene. That was never an issue.

**Real ale Madrid** · 01/02/2018, 8:07 AM

Originally Posted by total hoofball

If he rejects Cork, then rejects Waterford, then goes on trial to Ipswich and if that doesn't work out then he has no club to fall back on in the LOI for a decent pro-contract

Looks to me that lad got very smart advice, Waterford used him for a potential compensation fee or as a first team player and he used Waterford as a club to fall back on as Cork (now very stupidly) were not playing ball with him.

The bit in bold there is a stretch. He would have got a contract no bother if the trial didn't work out. He's only 19 anyway - its not as if he has a wife and kids. He was probably living at home. Hardly a disaster if he didn't get a Ipswich deal. Why would an English club pay a transfer fee they don't need to ? There is more to that than meets the eye - I don't know what it is but I'm glad City didn't sell out and stuck to their guns. If Drinan stayed, got established in the first team (i.e. was as good as he thought himself ) , then City stood to make a big fee if he moved - as it was we missed out on a 40 / 50 k by not allowing him have a trial. I'm ok with that. If Waterford want to make a quick few euro off the back of that fine, if that is what really happened.

**micls** · 01/02/2018, 2:53 PM

I'd rather lose a player here and there than for it to become normal to allow players to go on trials. If a club wants them, make an offer.

Ogbene was offered a contract as per our player development system. He said he'd meet JC. He signed for Limerick and didn't turn up to the meeting. I assume he was getting more money but the first team football was likely a big attraction. He wouldn't have been starting the season for us. Worked out for the lad but don't think there's much we could have done differently. These things happen.

**Mr A** · 01/02/2018, 2:53 PM

Not sure what the harm is in letting a player go on trial is it's out of season?

**micls** · 01/02/2018, 2:57 PM

Originally Posted by Mr A

Not sure what the harm is in letting a player go on trial is it's out of season?

If a player in contract is out going on trials for different clubs, they're head isn't going to be in the right place for you. If they don't get the move they're coming back to you with confidence after taking a major hit. If they do the club is likely trying to get them on the cheap as a trialist and you're between accepting whatever pittance they offer or upsetting the player by standing in their way. There's no benefit to the club and it has plenty of potential downsides.

If a team thinks one of our players is good enough, make us an offer. Otherwise, they've work to be doing here. If a player wants a chance to prove their good enough, do it for us, do it here, you'll get your chance.

**El-Pietro** · 01/02/2018, 3:08 PM

It also completely devalues our players.

**Mr A** · 01/02/2018, 3:13 PM

If you say know aren't you risking a demotivated player and being accused of standing in their way? It might be harder to get youth players in if they think it'll be harder for them to get to the UK- as unfortunately that's still often the ambition for youth players.

I see both sides, I just think it depends on circumstances.

**osarusan** · 01/02/2018, 3:29 PM

Originally Posted by micls

you're between accepting whatever pittance they offer or upsetting the player by standing in their way.

How would it be any different at a club which didn't allow trials?

**ToberonaTornado** · 01/02/2018, 5:12 PM

Eoghan Stokes released by Leeds last night.

http://www.the42.ie/eoghan-stokes-le...28062-Feb2018/

**micls** · 01/02/2018, 6:11 PM

Well, the players that would be going on trial are players clubs aren't likely to make an offer for off the bat, so you skip it completely.

Of course, if a player is good enough for an offer to be made without trial, you face the same situation, but it likely limits the numbers.

I think letting it depend on circumstances causes more issues, some players allowed go on trial and others not could breed resentment. A clear no trials policy allows the players to know and make the call before they sign with us. You're not saying no and demotivating someone, it's simply not an option which they were aware of.

Hopefully the amount of players that have gotten contracts overseas from our club without trials will show them they can still make it over there if that's the aim.

I'm not saying it's right for all clubs, but I think it's right for us and for our setup currently.

**bluemovie** · 01/02/2018, 6:27 PM

Thanks Total Hoofball for explaining it neatly. With Cork on the verge of winning the title (ok it was a long verge) Drinan wasn't going to get a look in. Instead, he came to Waterford where he got immediate first team football and was watched by scouts. He was also allowed go on trial to Ipswich and his transfer was gladly facilitated by the club. Our aim is to become self-sufficient and the sale of players will be an important part of that. I doubt Cork's high principles were in effect as much whenever they signed half of Sligo's squad.

**micls** · 01/02/2018, 6:53 PM

Originally Posted by bluemovie

Thanks Total Hoofball for explaining it neatly. With Cork on the verge of winning the title (ok it was a long verge) Drinan wasn't going to get a look in. Instead, he came to Waterford where he got immediate first team football and was watched by scouts. He was also allowed go on trial to Ipswich and his transfer was gladly facilitated by the club. Our aim is to become self-sufficient and the sale of players will be an important part of that. I doubt Cork's high principles were in effect as much whenever they signed half of Sligo's squad.

What a bizarre final sentence. We didn't take Sligo players on trial. We did what football clubs do. We scouted them, we offered them contracts, and we agreed fees or compensation with Sligo where required. That is exactly the same 'moral principle' or basic respect we are looking for from other clubs.

**bluemovie** · 01/02/2018, 7:07 PM

You know we paid a fee to Cork for Drinan last summer though?

**osarusan** · 01/02/2018, 7:47 PM

I can kind of see where you are coming from, but I wonder whether or not as likely to lose the interest of another club by not allowing a player go on trial with them, as you are likely to spur them into making an offer without a trial. I mean, if we had not allowed Ogbene to go on trials, would Brentford have just offered whatever they did for him after the trial, or would they have decided to look elsewhere.

I'd say that a clear message that trial or no trial, we will not let a player go without getting paid what he is worth is the key point to get across.