Apparently we rejected a 6 million quid bid for Onuah

[Wooders]

Whats the crack there then?

I'm delighted if we don't want to sell but 6 million seems a reasonable price to me?

[Mase]

Wasn't it from Sunderland? I just heard the elephant man refer to the rags as 'Manchester' on SkySports so I wouldn't do ANY business with the cunt in the near future.

[Piccsnumberoneblue]

I'm surprised and pleased if we turned that down. Show em we aint giving players away and I still like N N.
Six million would have got him I'd have thought, but fair play if we said No to them.

[CitizenYank]

I think we are asking the wrong question: Why give him to a Premier League team
who can take points away from us?

[john@staustell]

Price seems about right to me and I would be surprised if we had turned such a bid down- oh bugger, sorry I forgot he came through the academy and therefore should never be sold.

Seems to be a lot of Sunderland 'bids' to us get turned down and I reckon the E-man is using the Taggart tactic of saying he's gone for certain players when he hasn't to fool his fans.

[CitizenYank]

I think we are asking the wrong question: Why give him to a team
who can take points away from us?

[Scatman]

I think we are asking the wrong question: Why give him to a team
who can take points away from us?

Precisely the same question Everton asked themselves last year and Villa this year.

[john@staustell]

I think we are asking the wrong question: Why give him to a team
who can take points away from us?

That thought process would ban all same-league transfers. Or we could flog him to Exeter I guess.

You should be thinking about us winning games not teams taking points off us - glass half full and all that.

In any case it's open to question whether they are more likely to take any points of us with Nervous Ned included. Check out the Dippers' equaliser at Anfield, and the Scum game..............................

[Burt]

Any other Premier team would turn down £6mill for Ned if he played for them. He's worth a lot more than that given the circumstances.

[Ted Hughes]

I wonder if Ned is lined up for a transfer to a particular club but can't go until we've finished our business & it's nearer the window.

[MaineRoadMemories]

Maybe we are keeping him for the homegrown from the club player rule?

Quite a few pundits predicted players will be refused moves they would have got previously because they were trained at the club are are needed for a numbers reason rather than a playing reason.

[CityGer]

I think we are asking the wrong question: Why give him to a team
who can take points away from us?

That thought process would ban all same-league transfers. Or we could flog him to Exeter I guess.

You should be thinking about us winning games not teams taking points off us - glass half full and all that.

In any case it's open to question whether they are more likely to take any points of us with Nervous Ned included. Check out the Dippers' equaliser at Anfield, and the Scum game..............................

I know, I'm sick to death of hearing this. It is so unrealistic it's not true, especially with the reluctance of British players to ply their trade overseas.

[Ted Hughes]

Maybe we are keeping him for the homegrown from the club player rule?

Quite a few pundits predicted players will be refused moves they would have got previously because they were trained at the club are are needed for a numbers reason rather than a playing reason.

We've got plenty of those atm though. May be a case of keeping hold of him until the close of the window in case some of the home grown defenders get injured?

[CitizenYank]

I think we are asking the wrong question: Why give him to a team
who can take points away from us?

That thought process would ban all same-league transfers. Or we could flog him to Exeter I guess.

You should be thinking about us winning games not teams taking points off us - glass half full and all that.

In any case it's open to question whether they are more likely to take any points of us with Nervous Ned included. Check out the Dippers' equaliser at Anfield, and the Scum game..............................

Hold on! My point is not banning all same-league transfers, Unless losing him will hurt us in the new 'homegrown' rule--more power to the agents! If Nervous Ned wants the Stadium of Tiny Lights, more power too him. But just don't want us to sell him for less than a profit. Teams are probably looking to take us to the cleaners now that we have a premium of available talent.

[CityGer]

I think we are asking the wrong question: Why give him to a team
who can take points away from us?

That thought process would ban all same-league transfers. Or we could flog him to Exeter I guess.

You should be thinking about us winning games not teams taking points off us - glass half full and all that.

In any case it's open to question whether they are more likely to take any points of us with Nervous Ned included. Check out the Dippers' equaliser at Anfield, and the Scum game..............................

Hold on! My point is not banning all same-league transfers, Unless losing him will hurt us in the new 'homegrown' rule--more power to the agents! If Nervous Ned wants the Stadium of Tiny Lights, more power too him. But just don't want us to sell him for less than a profit. Teams are probably looking to take us to the cleaners now that we have a premium of available talent.

Hold on! You didn't mention profits in your initial post. What you did say was that he shouldn't be sold to a team who can take points of us - That is every team in the Premier league. It's ridiculous and completely unrealistic stand point.

[CitizenYank]

I think we are asking the wrong question: Why give him to a team
who can take points away from us?

That thought process would ban all same-league transfers. Or we could flog him to Exeter I guess.

You should be thinking about us winning games not teams taking points off us - glass half full and all that.

In any case it's open to question whether they are more likely to take any points of us with Nervous Ned included. Check out the Dippers' equaliser at Anfield, and the Scum game..............................

Hold on! My point is not banning all same-league transfers, Unless losing him will hurt us in the new 'homegrown' rule--more power to the agents! If Nervous Ned wants the Stadium of Tiny Lights, more power too him. But just don't want us to sell him for less than a profit. Teams are probably looking to take us to the cleaners now that we have a premium of available talent.

Hold on! You didn't mention profits in your initial post. What you did say was that he shouldn't be sold to a team who can take points of us - That is every team in the Premier league. It's ridiculous and completely unrealistic stand point.

Sorry, my bad. Well just put those two posts together and you have my reply. How's that.

[MaineRoadMemories]

Maybe we are keeping him for the homegrown from the club player rule?

Quite a few pundits predicted players will be refused moves they would have got previously because they were trained at the club are are needed for a numbers reason rather than a playing reason.

We've got plenty of those atm though. May be a case of keeping hold of him until the close of the window in case some of the home grown defenders get injured?

I mis-understood the 8 locally trained player rule. I thought these had to be academy players but on further inspection they do not as locally trained players include the association trained players anyway.

Ned's probably going to Villa then.

18.08 No club may have more than 25 players on List A during the season. As a
minimum, places 18 to 25 on List A (eight places) are reserved exclusively
for “locally trained players” and no club may have more than four
“association-trained players” listed in places 18 to 25 on List A. List A must
specify the eight players who qualify as being “locally trained”, as well as
whether they are “club-trained” or “association-trained”. The possible
combinations that enable clubs to comply with the List A requirements are
set out in Annex VIII.

18.09 A “locally trained player” is either a “club-trained player” or an “associationtrained
player”.

18.10 A “club-trained player” is a player who, between the age of 15 (or the start of
the season during which he turns 15) and 21 (or the end of the season during
which he turns 21), and irrespective of his nationality and age, has been
registered with his current club for a period, continuous or not, of three entire
seasons (i.e. a period starting with the first official match of the relevant
national championship and ending with the last official match of that relevant
national championship) or of 36 months.

18.11 An “association-trained player” is a player who, between the age of 15 (or the
start of the season during which the player turns 15) and 21 (or the end of
the season during which the player turns 21), and irrespective of his
nationality and age, has been registered with a club or with other clubs
affiliated to the same national association as that of his current club for a
period, continuous or not, of three entire seasons or of 36 months.

18.12 If a club has fewer than eight locally trained players in its squad (i.e. in places
18 to 25 on List A), then the maximum number of players on List A is
reduced accordingly.

[Ted Hughes]

Ned doesn't seem as if he's departing judging from his comments when the official team turd just interviewed him on the pitch.

[brite blu sky]

Ned doesn't seem as if he's departing judging from his comments when the official team turd just interviewed him on the pitch.

was thinking the same thing.. did you hear him say something about tomorrow? right at the end..

[CitizenYank]

God the legalize for the Homegrown Rule takes more time to ponder through than to roll one out.