i personally think he will only get better with time, for a 19 year old its all about playing and having regular game time. i think you are right about mansfield probably wanting a considerable fee for him, but if discussions could be had where no more than 20k could be used to sign him. i think the gamble for a promising player of age would be worth the gamble.

we have had players with far more experience do absolutely nothing, but here is a player the right club could mould and bring the best out of. 

16 minutes ago, liampie said:

i personally think he will only get better with time, for a 19 year old its all about playing and having regular game time. i think you are right about mansfield probably wanting a considerable fee for him, but if discussions could be had where no more than 20k could be used to sign him. i think the gamble for a promising player of age would be worth the gamble.

we have had players with far more experience do absolutely nothing, but here is a player the right club could mould and bring the best out of. 

Which is why I wouldn't be against signing him permanently for free; he looks to have potential and could be moulded into a very good player.

However, we have Knowles on loan and if there's no path to a permanent signing, we are blooding a youngster who isn't ours and isn't good enough to be starting (yet). 

It's the exact same logic I applied to Wolfe; if he's not good enough now, why are we signing him to develop him for another clubs benefit (turns out we just gave him splinters mostly). 

It’s become pretty obvious Ardley signed loanees just for the fun of it. 

Ini sent back. Good decision.

Richardson (think that was his name?) sent back good decision.

Wolfe back due to injury. Not fit so won’t play. Cancel loan. Good decision.

 

Ellis, Knowles worth pursuing long term imo.

I’d send back golden as well. No need for him to be here at all.

Griffiths is the new lad. Not seen enough to judge yet.

 

 

20 hours ago, Super_Danny_Allsopp said:

It's the exact same logic I applied to Wolfe; if he's not good enough now, why are we signing him to develop him for another clubs benefit (turns out we just gave him splinters mostly). 

knowles can be a match winner, wolfe is not.

wolfe has been a disappointment and has not taken his chance with us, knowles has done okay. at times more than that but as a good upcoming player he has to start somewhere. i just feel these two players arent comparable and i do think knowles has looked worth the punt at times. i also think sometimes raw ability is enough to change a game, rather than someone with all the ability in the world but has no application i.e effiong.

2 hours ago, liampie said:

knowles can be a match winner, wolfe is not.

wolfe has been a disappointment and has not taken his chance with us, knowles has done okay. at times more than that but as a good upcoming player he has to start somewhere. i just feel these two players arent comparable and i do think knowles has looked worth the punt at times. i also think sometimes raw ability is enough to change a game, rather than someone with all the ability in the world but has no application i.e effiong.

We've barely seen Wolfe so I'm not sure you can draw that conclusion. We wouldn't have seen Knowles either if Thomas was still here and Roberts fit. They were both signed as emergency backup, Wolfe originally as 5th choice central midfielder (behind Doyle, Sloth, Reeves and O'Brien) and Knowles as 4th* choice striker (behind Wootton, Thomas, Sam, plus probably Roberts and Enzio). I don't agree with signing players on loan just as squad fillers/emergency backup. 

Effiong with all the ability in the world is a new one to me. I saw a striker that ran around and put himself about, but just wasn't particularly good. 

Inih Effiong could've worked, but he immensely disappointed me because I've seen him against us - where he played very well.

I'm also aware of his career, that he's a decent player at Non League and League Two level.

I can't speak much about where he played, although at times it seemed we had put him on the wing or out wide. He's the type of player that needed someone quick to do the leg work and allow him to be the powerhouse. Either way, it didn't work and it's for the best that he's gone back. I would rather welcome young talent on the up, than someone average on the way down (unless they're still quality).

I am sure Effiong could be one of many to depart, loans can be useful but they need to come with the right attitude.

In my opinion, loanees need to be in the first team (and improving it) or pushing hard for it. That way, we get a bit of quality we couldn't afford to sign permanently and the player gets match practice. But the way we've handled loanees this season has been a waste of everyone's time and effort. Wolfe caught The Lurgy while he was with us and it knocked him back a bit, but he didn't play or even make the bench after returning either.

23 hours ago, Chris said:

I would rather welcome young talent on the up, than someone average on the way down (unless they're still quality).

I couldn't agree more!