Jump to content
Craigieboy

Transfer July open

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Pride_of_ayrshire said:

2 keepers. A centre back. And a no.10(Macaleny)would see me extremely happy.

 

I think we will see tish sign. Unless we pull out last minute to get our own back lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Pride_of_ayrshire said:

2 keepers. A centre back. And a no.10(Macaleny)would see me extremely happy.

 

Kilmarnock got Rogers than no 10 (McAleny free agent), winger (might Stewart Loan from Rangers), Keeper (Loan keeper English Premiership or Championship) & Midfielder (Tishibola free agent)

Edited by Craigieboy
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Craigieboy said:

Kilmarnock got Rogers than no 10 (McAleny free agent), winger (might Stewart Loan from Rangers), Keeper (Loan keeper English Premiership or Championship) & Midfielder (Tishibola free agent)

No more loan keepers cant be relying on loan after loan(i wont deny loan keepers but its better no to). We need an identifies no.1 for a couple of seasons straight much like JMac was.

Edited by Pride_of_ayrshire
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, killieblue said:

Alan Nixon on twitter saying we are “frantically” looking for another keeper and that we have been looking at a few.

 

If they had more belief in Rodgers wouldn’t he have been offered more than a one year deal?

Edited by historyman
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Pride_of_ayrshire said:

No more loan keepers cant be relying on loan after loan(i wont deny loan keepers but its better no to). We need an identifies no.1 for a couple of seasons straight much like JMac was.

What do you have against loan keepers? We did alright with Woodman and Bachmann. 

We don't seem able to produce our own goalkeepers these days and, if we can get better value from loaning than signing, I don't see what the problem is.

 

Edited by skygod
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, skygod said:

What do you have a against loan keepers? We did alright with Woodman and Bachmann. 

We don't seem able to produce our own goalkeepers these days and, if we can get better value from loaning than signing, I don't see what the problem is.

 

Think he just meant that it would be nice to have a good keeper for more than one season. Which i’m sure we can all agree on. However, if a good loan move opened up then i’m all for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in favour of Bachmann returning but I would like to see a permanent goalkeeper as first choice. We are rebuilding a back line this summer. With Broadfoot's age and Findlay’s development chances are we will be rebuilding the defence again next summer. Having a settled keeper would ease the pressure there. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, historyman said:

If they are more belief in Rodgers wouldn’t he have been offered more than a one year deal?

Not necessarily a lack of faith from the club.

 

Offering him a one-year deal might be more to do with motivating the player. Rodgers should feel lucky to be at a club like Kilmarnock, who are probably a bigger club than he could have hoped for when he left Aberdeen, and he should be desperate to prove himself and cement his place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KFCDJ said:

Not necessarily a lack of faith from the club.

 

Offering him a one-year deal might be more to do with motivating the player. Rodgers should feel lucky to be at a club like Kilmarnock, who are probably a bigger club than he could have hoped for when he left Aberdeen, and he should be desperate to prove himself and cement his place.

I would expect that it's a one year deal with an option depending on appearances.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, theboyjohnston said:

I would expect that it's a one year deal with an option depending on appearances.

which says to me we think we can do better. If we want a settled player in that position and some continuity then why not have him on a longer deal? If we were able to sign a player of Bachmann’s quality on a permanent basis we wouldn’t have him on a one year deal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, killieblue said:

Think he just meant that it would be nice to have a good keeper for more than one season.

If they are actually any good chances are we wouldn't have them for more than a season anyway. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, historyman said:

which says to me we think we can do better. If we want a settled player in that position and some continuity then why not have him on a longer deal? If we were able to sign a player of Bachmann’s quality on a permanent basis we wouldn’t have him on a one year deal. 

How do you know it was the club only offering a year? Or if the player requested just a years deal? 

Are you ever positive about anything? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, KFCDJ said:

Not necessarily a lack of faith from the club.

 

Offering him a one-year deal might be more to do with motivating the player. Rodgers should feel lucky to be at a club like Kilmarnock, who are probably a bigger club than he could have hoped for when he left Aberdeen, and he should be desperate to prove himself and cement his place.

I agree with this. Having played second fiddle for so long, a great chance to make the jersey his with the Bachman scenario.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skora11 said:

How do you know it was the club only offering a year? Or if the player requested just a years deal? 

Are you ever positive about anything? 


Do you honestly think a back-up goalie with Aberdeen who has played a total of 7 top flight games in Scotland would have knocked back the offer of a two year deal and asked for one year?

On your second point I would say that the transfer window so far has been better than the previous two in that we have brought in some permanent players to fill gaps in the squad but the goalkeeping situation has been badly managed. Many people said on here for weeks that getting Bachmann back would be great but as it wasn't agreed we needed to have an alternative. Doesn't look like that has been the case. Going into the season with young Lyle on the bench is not a good position to be in and I don't see how that can in any way be seen as a positive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mclean07 said:

No one  seems to believe we have a number ten.....Kiltie? 

I was thinking this, mcaleny whilst was decent for us, he’s not miles ahead of kiltie who was getting back to his old self last season. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, historyman said:


Do you honestly think a back-up goalie with Aberdeen who has played a total of 7 top flight games in Scotland would have knocked back the offer of a two year deal and asked for one year?

On your second point I would say that the transfer window so far has been better than the previous two in that we have brought in some permanent players to fill gaps in the squad but the goalkeeping situation has been badly managed. Many people said on here for weeks that getting Bachmann back would be great but as it wasn't agreed we needed to have an alternative. Doesn't look like that has been the case. Going into the season with young Lyle on the bench is not a good position to be in and I don't see how that can in any way be seen as a positive.

I don't know, maybe he doesn't want to tie himself in to a long term deal if he is going to be a number 2 for another 2 seasons?

It looked like Watford had agreed to loan Bachmann to us, and although only verbally, if you have word that Bachmann is coming back I think he was worth waiting on. It seems Watford have f**ked us over and we have been left with no Bachmann. The positive is that the club clearly hadn't just relied on getting Bachmann in and already had Rogers lined up. No issues with Lyle starting on the bench at the beginning of the season, it's unlikely he will be needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, historyman said:


Do you honestly think a back-up goalie with Aberdeen who has played a total of 7 top flight games in Scotland would have knocked back the offer of a two year deal and asked for one year?

On your second point I would say that the transfer window so far has been better than the previous two in that we have brought in some permanent players to fill gaps in the squad but the goalkeeping situation has been badly managed. Many people said on here for weeks that getting Bachmann back would be great but as it wasn't agreed we needed to have an alternative. Doesn't look like that has been the case. Going into the season with young Lyle on the bench is not a good position to be in and I don't see how that can in any way be seen as a positive.

Badly managed....we dont know the full Bschman story. If strong indications had been given that he was keen to return and Watford were happy with the arrangement then nothing presumably coukd be finalised until their league status was known. Getting relegated seems to have been the game changer.

How do you know there isn't an alternative that the club are negotiating with but wont be available for a while yet for wharever reason and there is sufficient faith in Rogers to stick with him for now?

Agree, if Lyle is to be the number 2 for any length of time far from ideal but let's give Fowler a bit of slack as he will be working on this as we type I'm sure.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Mclean07 said:

No one  seems to believe we have a number ten.....Kiltie? 

Will be interesting to see how Kiltie does if he gets enough early season game time. He showed a good spark in games he came  on in towards the end of the season.

Would love to see him kick on and be our go-to player in that link role. It is a big season for Greg 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mclean07 said:

No one  seems to believe we have a number ten.....Kiltie? 

totally agree bud,  ideal position for him.  He is good at linking the games can beat a man, score,  pass, etc.  I think he is our homegrown version of Stewrat (deliberate spelling).  If we play that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, mitch14 said:

The team we are playing on Saturday has one keeper and only a twenty year old who played a few games for Morton as backup. 

St Mirren have one keeper and youth player. County have one proper keeper and a youth player.

It's almost as if there's some sort of global event making clubs run with smaller squads and have a delayed transfer window... 

I don't think we should settle for that just because other teams have taken that approach. Marciano and Alnwick are more experienced goalkeepers than Rogers. Laidlaw i don't know too much about..

However, we are going into the season with what was intended to be our number two goalie between the sticks. I don't think anyone can deny that.
I don't think that is ideal and I'm surprised most on here seem to be quite relaxed about it. The club have know about the goalkeeping situation since March and they haven't fully addressed it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, historyman said:

I don't think we should settle for that just because other teams have taken that approach. Marciano and Alnwick are more experienced goalkeepers than Rogers. Laidlaw i don't know too much about..

However, we are going into the season with what was intended to be our number two goalie between the sticks. I don't think anyone can deny that.
I don't think that is ideal and I'm surprised most on here seem to be quite relaxed about it. The club have know about the goalkeeping situation since March and they haven't fully addressed it.  

I don't think people are relaxed about Rogers, more a case of seeing him in action first before making an informed decision as to his ability. Personally, he might just surprise a few people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×