Academy & U21s

[Spartakfenni]

3 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Who says Morton has that sort of clause in it?

Evidence suggests there’s a clause in the loan agreement. Why has he been immune from being dropped when he’s been poor? JDT was quick to bench both Travis and Buckley, Morton continued to want the ball 5 metres in front of the back four facing his own goal, knocking it back to the defence/goalkeeper which ensured our pedestrian forward movement. It’s obvious there’s a clause.

[rigger]

11 minutes ago, Spartakfenni said:

Evidence suggests there’s a clause in the loan agreement. Why has he been immune from being dropped when he’s been poor? JDT was quick to bench both Travis and Buckley, Morton continued to want the ball 5 metres in front of the back four facing his own goal, knocking it back to the defence/goalkeeper which ensured our pedestrian forward movement. It’s obvious there’s a clause.

It's obvious that you think there is a clause, that doesn't mean there is.

[islander200]

25 minutes ago, Spartakfenni said:

Evidence suggests there’s a clause in the loan agreement. Why has he been immune from being dropped when he’s been poor? JDT was quick to bench both Travis and Buckley, Morton continued to want the ball 5 metres in front of the back four facing his own goal, knocking it back to the defence/goalkeeper which ensured our pedestrian forward movement. It’s obvious there’s a clause.

It not obvious there is a clause.He had been benched and only came back into the side due to an injury to Buckley.

[Exiled_Rover]

1 hour ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Markanday showing what others could see

The calls to have him in the squad were premature. Does a few fancy flicks here and there, couple of stepovers, but has largely been anonymous

Which is a shame as I was as excited as anybody when we signed him. £1m, Spurs wanted to keep him, banging them in at youth level. But not everything works out

Hopefully he matures more next season and we get some return on him

I thought it was £500k?

[Mattyblue]

The ‘Morton Clause’ is one of those rumours/putting 2 + 2 together things that has become a fact.

Hear it all the time and not just on here.
 

[superniko]

2 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

The ‘Morton Clause’ is one of those rumours/putting 2 + 2 together things that has become a fact.

Hear it all the time and not just on here.
 

It’s bizarre as well, as he was dropped and has only returned on the back of Buckleys injury. 
Think we can put that one to bed now 

[joey_big_nose]

10 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

The ‘Morton Clause’ is one of those rumours/putting 2 + 2 together things that has become a fact.

Hear it all the time and not just on here.
 

Yeah I believed it as it was pretty inexplicable why Morton wasn't dropped after a run of poor performances. But then we did drop him and kept him dropped. So probably there isn't a clause or if there is its small enough for us to pay the fine. 

These clauses do exist though, and I think are pretty common, so it's not outlandish to think Morton has one. Prem clubs (or any clubs) do not want to loan players to sit on the bench a league below. The clauses manage that.

[Mattyblue]

Could well be, but not sure Joe Bloggs in the Blackburn End or roverboi95 on Twitter will be in the loop either way…

[RoverCanada]

Across our Liverpool loanees, Morton's been dropped recently, Clarkson was dropped plenty, and even Elliott was dropped quite a few times when he was here.

Liverpool loans aside, the likes of Reed, Palmer, Branthewaite, Giles, and Khadra weren't automatic starters. van Hecke even took a bit of time to break into the side (might've been injury-related?)

That, plus Sharpe has reported that we don't do such deals... Maybe there are some financial penalties we're not aware of, but I wouldn't put too much stock in it.

Harwood-Bellis was one I was suspicious of when he was randomly thrown on as a RB sub a few times, but he was generally decent and we were desperate for CB cover that year, so it wasn't a big deal. Tosin was an obvious first choice CB too.

The only one we've got burned on was the Poveda loan, but that was due to lacking a termination clause in case of severe injury. (Come to think of it, Poveda did return for a couple games at the end of that season)

[DeeCee]

Morton could, in the future be class, trouble is, at the moment and in this division he's not.

[chaddyrovers]

3 hours ago, Spartakfenni said:

Evidence suggests there’s a clause in the loan agreement. Why has he been immune from being dropped when he’s been poor? JDT was quick to bench both Travis and Buckley, Morton continued to want the ball 5 metres in front of the back four facing his own goal, knocking it back to the defence/goalkeeper which ensured our pedestrian forward movement. It’s obvious there’s a clause.

Hasn't he been dropped recently and that's would suggest that there isn't a clause? 

Also it's your opinion that there is a clause in the deal? 

Edited March 17, 2023 by chaddyrovers

[bluebruce]

11 hours ago, Spartakfenni said:

The one appearance was as a sub at 83 minutes. We should have never sent him to Aberdeen without a deal that included playing time as per Morton.

We probably just assumed Aberdeen would play him. From what I've seen, and the standard of Scottish football, I'm surprised they aren't. Like, not even off the bench apart from once, early days, when they were down to 10 men...he might not have been breaking into our team but I shouldn't think anybody expected he'd play so little for Aberdeen. They must be mad at us for taking Hedges off them fairly cheap (kidding, before anyone starts)!

It's looking like a bad loan though so far. Hopefully we are in dialogue with Aberdeen in the hopes of improving the situation. If he doesn't earn himself a starting berth that's one thing, but to not even be getting chances off the bench to show he deserves a starting berth, that just makes for an utter waste of a loan, of a player we could have used as backup or a bench option ourselves.

Edited March 17, 2023 by bluebruce

[bluebruce]

9 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Hasn't he been dropped recently and that's would suggest that there isn't a clause? 

Also it's your opinion that there is a clause in the deal? 

There may be a clause, there may not. Morton playing badly and still being in the team doesn't prove there is, much as him being dropped recently doesn't prove he's not.

On the first point, sometimes managers subconsciously attach a bit more calibre to loanees belonging to huge Premiership sides like Liverpool. Also even without a clause, a player might be kept in the team to retain good relationships with Liverpool for future loanees, especially after we (rightly) dropped Clarkson last season. Obviously I'm not saying that's a good policy, but it could factor into the thinking if the management don't see much between Morton and Buckley.

On the second point, we've no idea what form a clause would take if it is there. It could be something like must play 70% of the games he is fit for to avoid a fine, in which case playing him so much early on would mean we barely need to play him now to get that over the line. It could be a monthly thing, where we are charged more if he doesn't play any games in a month, in which case just sticking him in now and then would do the job, but it wouldn't explain how much he was played for most of the season. Or he must start 90% of games he's fit for each month, or over the season, but now we're in the business end of the season and promotion is on the line, we don't give a fuck about the fine anymore. Or it could be pretty much anything else. Without knowing how a clause would be structured, it's impossible to infer whether it does or doesn't exist based on how things have gone.

[rigger]

30 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

We probably just assumed Aberdeen would play him. From what I've seen, and the standard of Scottish football, I'm surprised they aren't. Like, not even off the bench apart from once, early days, when they were down to 10 men...he might not have been breaking into our team but I shouldn't think anybody expected that. They must be mad at us for taking Hedges off them fairly cheap (kidding, before anyone starts)!

It's looking like a bad loan though so far. Hopefully we are in dialogue with Aberdeen in the hopes of improving the situation. If he doesn't earn himself a starting berth that's one thing, but to not even be getting chances off the bench to show he deserves a starting berth, that just makes for an utter waste of a loan, of a player we could have used as backup or a bench option ourselves.

Markanday was not pulling up trees with our U21's. Never mind Aberdeens first team.

[ben_the_beast]

10 minutes ago, rigger said:

Markanday was not pulling up trees with our U21's. Never mind Aberdeens first team.

As a gauge of Aberdeens quality, Leighton Clarkson actually has 5 goals and 5 assists in 24 starts for them this season.

[rigger]

12 minutes ago, ben_the_beast said:

As a gauge of Aberdeens quality, Leighton Clarkson actually has 5 goals and 5 assists in 24 starts for them this season.

Which has no relevance what-so-ever, to Markandays abilities. 

[Spartakfenni]

58 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

There may be a clause, there may not. Morton playing badly and still being in the team doesn't prove there is, much as him being dropped recently doesn't prove he's not.

On the first point, sometimes managers subconsciously attach a bit more calibre to loanees belonging to huge Premiership sides like Liverpool. Also even without a clause, a player might be kept in the team to retain good relationships with Liverpool for future loanees, especially after we (rightly) dropped Clarkson last season. Obviously I'm not saying that's a good policy, but it could factor into the thinking if the management don't see much between Morton and Buckley.

On the second point, we've no idea what form a clause would take if it is there. It could be something like must play 70% of the games he is fit for to avoid a fine, in which case playing him so much early on would mean we barely need to play him now to get that over the line. It could be a monthly thing, where we are charged more if he doesn't play any games in a month, in which case just sticking him in now and then would do the job, but it wouldn't explain how much he was played for most of the season. Or he must start 90% of games he's fit for each month, or over the season, but now we're in the business end of the season and promotion is on the line, we don't give a fuck about the fine anymore. Or it could be pretty much anything else. Without knowing how a clause would be structured, it's impossible to infer whether it does or doesn't exist based on how things have gone.

Bruce you beat me to it. A playing clause doesn’t necessarily mean he plays every game. Look at the stats he’s made more appearances than any other midfielder this season. Based on his performances he should have been pulled from the starting eleven long before he was dropped. Just a point how many games was he actually drooped for?

[ben_the_beast]

4 hours ago, rigger said:

Which has no relevance what-so-ever, to Markandays abilities. 

Yes it does. You commented that if Markanday were not pulling up trees in our u21's he'd have no hope in Aberdeens first team.

The majority of Rovers fans will have seen little to zero of Aberdeen, so I've simply given a very recent reference point for people to gauge the quality of their squad, in the form of Clarkson. 

[rigger]

6 minutes ago, ben_the_beast said:

Yes it does. You commented that if Markanday were not pulling up trees in our u21's he'd have no hope in Aberdeens first team.

The majority of Rovers fans will have seen little to zero of Aberdeen, so I've simply given a very recent reference point for people to gauge the quality of their squad, in the form of Clarkson. 

So have you seen much of Aberdeen,  the Scottish premiership or Clarkson, recently ?

Markanday may improve and become a first team player, but so far he has been sold by Spurs, couldn't tie down a place at either the Rovers or Aberdeen. From what I saw of him with our U21s, he has a lot of improving to do.

Edited March 17, 2023 by rigger

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Well, he’s not going to improve much sat on the bench at Aberdeen.

[rigger]

9 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Well, he’s not going to improve much sat on the bench at Aberdeen.

Hopefully we are not paying all his wages, as we would have been if he was sat on the bench at the Rovers. It may also be a reality check for him. 

[bluebruce]

U21s 2-1 down at half time to Liverpool. Kaminski in goal. Ours scored by Gilsenan.

[chaddyrovers]

lost 3-2 to them. 

[arbitro]

Poor performance by the team and the score line actually flattered us as Liverpool were dominant. Ball retention was poor as was the passing. Kaminski's distribution was erratic particularly in the first half. I would like to make the excuse that it's because he has been out for a while but having seen it so many times in the first team I have my doubts. Mola also showed why he was a waste of a signing and should be nowhere near the first team squad. 

[chaddyrovers]

disappointed to hear about Kaminski performance today