Clarke is here on loan for 28 days only (1 Viewer)

[BrisbaneBronco]

According to Charltons website we only have Clarke for 28 days loan starting from 1st Jan.
CCFC say trial with a view to a permanent signing.
Some confusion here.
Suppose if loan goes ok then we still have 3 days to sign him before window closes.
But if we lose McG and do not sign Clarke, that would be a massive blow.

 

---

[ccfcway]

or, if we only have enough wages for one striker and McG says "i wanna stay" an we have signed Clarke for 3 months

 

[wingy]

Probably easier to get quick clearance from the league with the loan than doing the transfer outright.Will he be allowed to play against spurs?:thinking about:

 

[BurbageSkyBlues]

It kind of leaves the door open for either deal, or possibly both.

Can't help feeling though, that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush....

 

[ccfcway]

but we cant afford 2 birds and the one bird we want is currently looking at other bushes

 

[Tonylinc]

Am I reading too much into this? If Clarke is only signed up for 28days is that to give us time to re-sign McG following the end of his loan spell?

 

[ccfcway]

Yep .

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

I would imagine the loan is like a trial period or as said if Goldie decides he wants to stay

 

[BrisbaneBronco]

I would imagine the loan is like a trial period or as said if Goldie decides he wants to stay

Also I suppose if Clarke is on loan he can play v Shrewsbury but if on trial he is not registered as our player.
Who knows

 

[sw88]

Not sure such deal would make Clarke want to perform for us? And I thought 28 day loans were only outside the window when they are classed as 'emergency loans' which this one wouldnt be, unless we were continuing to try and lure McGoldrick into a longer contract?

 

[Astute]

unless we were continuing to try and lure McGoldrick into a longer contract?

It seems that whoever is in charge of squad finances now finally knows what they are doing. The last thing anyone should want is McG leaving. But if we manage to keep him, had signed Clarke for longer and the home gates not gone up there is a good chance of having FFP problems.

 

[MusicDating]

Intriguing...story on cafc website goes to a dead link now...and nothing on ccfc's yet...

 

[Grendel]

28 days takes you to 1 day before the transfer day deadline so it makes sense.

It also shows why we cannot sign mcgoldrick as the FPP rules would embargo us immediately with the wages he would be on. No one knows what the loan arrangement is but we will not be paying 100% wages.

By having a 28 day loan it allows the club to readjust budgets in the meantime to ship players out.

 

[SkyBlueBlood]

Surely if he signs with us for 28 days that will be his 3rd club this season, so he can't play for anyone else after it.

Just a guess but that says this is short to get the deal done today, with a view to a perm once negotiations are complete.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

28 days takes you to 1 day before the transfer day deadline so it makes sense.

It also shows why we cannot sign mcgoldrick as the FPP rules would embargo us immediately with the wages he would be on. No one knows what the loan arrangement is but we will not be paying 100% wages.

By having a 28 day loan it allows the club to readjust budgets in the meantime to ship players out.

This is most likely-though I don't see the benefit to Clarke in this arrangement.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Very clever if so

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I should imagine that whatever the aspiration, Waggott's had the forethought to negotiate first-refusal and an affordable transfer fee; just like we did with McGoldrick. Ahem....

 

[sw88]

This is most likely-though I don't see the benefit to Clarke in this arrangement.

He'll still be getting whatever wage he signed up for with Charlton so hes not missing out on much apart from a longer period if first team football

 

[lordsummerisle]

I should imagine that whatever the aspiration, Waggott's had the forethought to negotiate first-refusal and an affordable transfer fee; just like we did with McGoldrick. Ahem....

There may never have been an "affordable" transfer fee, or "affordable" wages for a permanent deal.

Do you suggest that if there hadn't been these at the outset then we shouldn't have loaned McGoldrick at all?

Ahem..

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

I should imagine that whatever the aspiration, Waggott's had the forethought to negotiate first-refusal and an affordable transfer fee; just like we did with McGoldrick. Ahem....

Maybe forest wanted to wait to see what offers they received in January. Ahem...

 

[mattylad]

yeah think we thought DMG was gone but now its clouded as to what his future is so makes sense to have it as an option or could just be the story was wrong on the CAFC site

 

[Grendel]

I should imagine that whatever the aspiration, Waggott's had the forethought to negotiate first-refusal and an affordable transfer fee; just like we did with McGoldrick. Ahem....

Forest would never had agreed a pre arranged transfer fee and mcgoldrick doesn't have to agree a transfer.

Anyway the wages would take us over FPP and given your moral stance I am sure you would then be on here expressing disgust at signing him. Ahem.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

They may have put together a quick loan deal so we get the deal processed faster, and also, if he is on loan, it'll be easier to make it a permanent deal.

 

[AFCCOVENTRY]

Probably on the bench today then?

 

[Jack Griffin]

Maybe forest wanted to wait to see what offers they received in January. Ahem...

Thats what I think & Clarke is the contingency in case resigning McGoldrick falls through cause he gets a better offer from higher division club.

I guess both become possible if the fantastic form continues & we hit top 6 by mid-Jan.

 

[sw88]

2 and a half year deal apparently. Who's the lier? Or did we do the 28 day thing to make sure it went through in time for today?