Jak McCourt

[TeenageGull]

Highly rated amongst Leicester fans and the current youth team and I have a friend who is a die hard Leicester fan and he says he has a bright future

[ferrarilover]

He was their best player on Monday, apparently. I don't know what game that was, but at least he wasn't shit.

Matt.

[CP Gull]

I'm fairly certain that both Knill and Craig would love for him to go out on loan and get regular football somewhere else but there has got to be someone interested and after a couple of weeks or so of having his name circulated, so far it appears there have been no takers.

That said, I don't think he should go and play for a "pub" team as quite frankly that won't prove anything and is not the sort of level he should be aiming at if he wants to get a pro contract with a League club next season (highly unlikely to be at TUFC you would imagine). Anything at or above Conference South/North level would be OK, but nothing doing at the moment it seems. From the club's point of view you would also expect the borrowing club to at least come up with a reasonable percentage of his wages too, otherwise what is in it for us, he might just as well stay here making up the numbers in reserve matches and Devon Bowl games!

[AustrianAndyGull]

So why don' we pay them up and say see ya! no point being here if Knill won't use them when we are desperate.

Exactly.

I welcome the addition of McCourt and initially I was going to do what I usually do and wade in with a post saying how stupid this was blah blah blah but I've tried to think it through and I think this...........

We are desperate for central defenders with O'Connor missing this week and Pearce looking like he will start tomorrow but most of us holding our breaths and crossing our fingers that he is going to come through ok never mind trying to keep Wycombe at bay. So you would think that Knill adding a midfielder to cover Harding when we already have Craig and Lathrope would be insanity and most certainly not a priority.

That said, it is just one game. If Pearce comes through ok regardless of result then he gets back in the groove ready for next week and also O'Connor will be back meaning the centre half crisis becomes not so much of one. Should Pearce have to come off sub or O'Connor gets injured on international duty then we're back in the sh*t which would make Knills decision to bring in McCourt and f*cking stupid one. These are the margins we're dealing with here and only time will tell if Knill's gamble has paid off or it ends up leaving us even more in the sh*t and left with about 36 midfielders and 2 defenders.

The thing I can't quite understand is that if he is affording Pearce a start to see if he is going to be ok then perhaps he is not too bothered should we lose at Wycombe. Most of us seem to think circumstances have just conspired against us too much. So why sign a new loanee midfielder now? Surely it was better to wait a few games to see what happens with Pearce and deploy Lathrope in the middle for a very short term fix? If both work out we didn't need to sign anyone in the first place.

I do find the signing of McCourt very odd indeed at this moment in time especially as we have a few options as cover for Harding and I also feel we could use Hutchings at the back if totally desperate. If we spending cash on these loanees then is it really necessary? If Azeez doesn't start tomorrow then i will finally give up trying to work out what AK is doing but i hope this all works out for his sake as well as ours. We're making staff redundant yet we're bringing in players we don't need because he doesn't want to use his squad? The clubs of McCourt, Azeez and O'Connor must be paying their wages and other expenses then i take it?

[AustrianAndyGull]

Obviously if our loanees are completely free of charge all round then well done Alan.

[CP Gull]

Not sure what everyone is getting up in arms about over our recent loan signings, they all make perfect sense to me!

Quite simply, from a couple of weeks back when we had a fully fit squad (bar Poke and McKenzie) we have simply swapped ....

A striker for a striker (Azeez for Ball)
A centre mid for an injured centre mid (McCourt for Harding)
A centre half for an injured centre half (O'Connor for Downes)

All makes sense to me!

I think the point some are missing is that usually when players are brought in on loan it is on the proviso that the player will be getting a reasonable amount of game time and say what you like about him but I would suggest that Alan Knill has built himself a decent reputation amongst other League Managers in doing just that. If we brought in another centre half this morning, he would probably have played against Wycombe but then what? Either O'Connor returns or he ends up back on the bench, or A N Other does ... either way, for one of them it will have been a waste of time (well all bar 90 minutes of action v York and Wycombe respectively) for the parent club who are expecting their promising young player(s) to be getting League action.

As for bringing in someone to "cover" for Pearce, why? He is back training (since Monday) and has been declared fit to play. Of course, like ANY other player he could get injured in training or even on Saturday and have to come off, but that is the risk you take with all players.

[AustrianAndyGull]

First of all, are these loanees free?

Secondly we should have signed Azeez INSTEAD of Ball at the very beginning and we have enough strikers anyway that aren't being used by Knill WITHOUT Ball.

Thirdly, McCourt for Harding makes sense but not when you have a few other squad players available. It all comes down to if the loanee is free or not.

Fourthly, O'Connor for Downes, perfect sense.

[AustrianAndyGull]

I'm sure if we signed that German youngster Gerhard Daxter we could put him alongside Jak and we'd have Jak & Daxter!

[CP Gull]

I don't know anything about McCourt, but I do understand that we are paying very little, if indeed anything at all for either Azeez or O 'Connor.

As for bringing Azeez in instead of Ball, not sure what you mean in all honesty. Azeez quite simply only became available a couple of weeks ago, we (along with several other clubs it seems) expressed our interest in taking him, in the full knowledge that Callum Ball would still be around for a couple more games before he was sent back. The decision to send Ball back was taken after the Newport game, when Azeez came in and made, by all accounts, a very encouraging debut. Quite simply if we had waited for Ball to go back to Derby, before bringing Azeez in from Charlton, he wouldn't be here now he would be somewhere else.

[Jerry]

Not sure what everyone is getting up in arms about over our recent loan signings, they all make perfect sense to me!

It's because we lost the last couple of games CP.

If we'd beaten Newport and York and the exact same set of circumstances existed with injuries and loan players not one person would have complained (well probably Hector would have found something to moan about ). It's the way of the modern football fan I'm afraid.

[Scott Brehaut]

So what Knill is basically saying is that he rates an 18 year old that has never played for us over two players that have been with us for a few seasons and should be perfectly adequate cover for an injured player.

I just can't see that they are THAT crap that they are incapable of covering for a month!!

[Jerry]

So what Knill is basically saying is that he rates an 18 year old that has never played for us over two players that have been with us for a few seasons and should be perfectly adequate cover for an injured player.

I just can't see that they are THAT crap that they are incapable of covering for a month!!

Not "that crap" but Knill clearly thinks McCourt is better. Surely we want the best players we can get here and not just those that are "capable of covering"?

[AustrianAndyGull]

I don't know anything about McCourt, but I do understand that we are paying very little, if indeed anything at all for either Azeez or O 'Connor.

As for bringing Azeez in instead of Ball, not sure what you mean in all honesty. Azeez quite simply only became available a couple of weeks ago, we (along with several other clubs it seems) expressed our interest in taking him, in the full knowledge that Callum Ball would still be around for a couple more games before he was sent back. The decision to send Ball back was taken after the Newport game, when Azeez came in and made, by all accounts, a very encouraging debut. Quite simply if we had waited for Ball to go back to Derby, before bringing Azeez in from Charlton, he wouldn't be here now he would be somewhere else.

Apologies CP Gull, you misunderstand me. I meant we shouldn't really have brought in Ball at all IMO as it turned out and if we could have got someone like Azeez earlier on if they were available then they may have had more of an impact. Hindsight is a wonderful thing though.

I have no problems in Knill adding players if they aren't costing us anything but i don't particularly like it if we are paying for players (like McCourt) who we don't really need as a matter of urgency yet some folk won't be going to work this week. If we've no cash then we've no cash, they can't have it both ways. It's not right.

[royalgull]

Not "that crap" but Knill clearly thinks McCourt is better. Surely we want the best players we can get here and not just those that are "capable of covering"?

Totally agree, so why is Tom Cruise starting at centre half tomorrow for the 3rd game in a row?

[Jerry]

I have no problems in Knill adding players if they aren't costing us anything but i don't particularly like it if we are paying for players (like McCourt) who we don't really need as a matter of urgency yet some folk won't be going to work this week. If we've no cash then we've no cash, they can't have it both ways. It's not right.

Redundancies aren't just about a lack of cash though. Sometimes it's a reorganisation, changing roles to prioritise expenditure in different areas. Or are you saying that when someone is made redundant the company can't employ anyone else in any position for x amount of months because they've "got no cash"?