James Connolly

Gone Bristol Rovers - didn't see that coming??

Undisclosed fee apparently.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/...ansfer-7253639

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninian opinian

Undisclosed fee apparently.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/...ansfer-7253639

---

Six figure release clause

That seems a very strange decision - one of our most promising 'out on loan' players.......who has show he can 'cut it' in a tough league.

I guess maybe they thought we didn't realistically have scope to bring him and Denham through at the same time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nobody's Rep

Gone Bristol Rovers - didn't see that coming??

---

I didn’t either. Quite a surprise. I felt certain he’d be brought into the first team picture after his performances for Rovers last season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

I didn’t either. Quite a surprise. I felt certain he’d be brought into the first team picture after his performances for Rovers last season.

---

My boy is in Glastonbury so text him and his immediate reply was "a loan" and when I said perm he was gutted as he thought the same as you

Six figure transfer fee and a 3 year deal, they obviously rate him.

Can’t say ever seen him play but their fans are absolutely buzzing, so hope this doesn’t come back to bits us.

Let’s hope we’ve backed the right horse in Denham.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J R Hartley

Six figure transfer fee and a 3 year deal, they obviously rate him.

Can’t say ever seen him play but their fans are absolutely buzzing, so hope this doesn’t come back to bits us.

Let’s hope we’ve backed the right horse in Denham.

---

I’m assuming there is a sell-on clause. I suppose if the club get a few hundred grand for a few academy players per season then at least it pays for itself.

When was the last time the club sold a player without actually making a first team appearance , Matondo?

For all we know we may have offered him new terms and he declined so they got what they could now. I think more likely he thought Denham had a better chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2b2bdoo

For all we know we may have offered him new terms and he declined so they got what they could now. I think more likely he thought Denham had a better chance.

---

I tend to think this is what happened. Pleased we’ve got a fee. He’s also found a club he enjoys playing at with a manager he enjoys playing for. Hard to blame him

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

Six figure release clause

---

That’ll probably be £100,000

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kitman

That’ll probably be £100,000

---

£150,000 over several seasons and full amount dependent on appearances and promotion - according to this:

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/...ff-fee-7254378

I was a bit suprised by this one given the rave reviews he was getting at Rovers and the fact that he was on our retained list.

Rovers fans delighted and not expecting the signing at all

https://gaschat.co.uk/thread/19806/i...rmanent?page=2

"Quality signing, Cardiff obviously never watched him"

Are we that well blessed with central defender resources ? He's got more league games under his belt than Oliver Denham. Does Morison therefore rate Denham more highly ? Was it a financial decision to allow us the squeeze the pips to pay for signings ready to play ?

Good luck to the boy, he's Welsh so let's hope he develops but I hope it's not a decision we come to regret.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninian opinian

Undisclosed fee apparently.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/...ansfer-7253639

---

Just £150,000 fee and a 3-yr contract according to one Bristol paper. That seems a ridiculously low fee for someone who was rated so highly and played so well last season.

StT.
<><

Given he was on our retained list I'm inclined to think it was a move he wanted. Obviously enjoyed it there, now in league 1, wouldn't have been an immediate first teamer this season here, likely another loan.

Fee is a bit weird, can only hope we are adventurous with the add ons in terms of sell on fee, maybe a buy back option (although maybe that's only real Madrid and barcelona :hehe:)

Would have been more typical of us to have just released him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch Mort

I was a bit suprised by this one given the rave reviews he was getting at Rovers and the fact that he was on our retained list.

Rovers fans delighted and not expecting the signing at all

https://gaschat.co.uk/thread/19806/i...rmanent?page=2

"Quality signing, Cardiff obviously never watched him"

Are we that well blessed with central defender resources ? He's got more league games under his belt than Oliver Denham. Does Morison therefore rate Denham more highly ? Was it a financial decision to allow us the squeeze the pips to pay for signings ready to play ?

Good luck to the boy, he's Welsh so let's hope he develops but I hope it's not a decision we come to regret.

---

Agree with you here. He's done well there under Barton and the promotion will have helped. Depending on Barton (if he can keep his head together) then I can see Rovers making the playoffs in L1 with these kind of signings. That game they played against Scunthorpe to win 7 nil and gain automatic on the last day was mental!

Look, almost certainly what happened here is that Connolly’s contract was due to expire but City triggered the extra year option, otherwise Connolly could have walked away and signed for Bristol or any other club on a free and not been transferred for a fee, as he was. Having triggered the option it is then very possible that City would have offered him a new longer deal but without a guarantee of games here next season (as they obviously did not consider that he was ready yet for the Championship), it is unlikely that he would have agreed to that as he wants to play and had he stayed on his existing deal or signed a new one, he would most likely have gone out on loan again, probably to Rovers. On his existing extended deal, that would have wound down next season and he would have been able to walk out on a free at the end. From City's point of view therefore the best (or only really) course of action would have been to sell him now for a fee, rather than lose him for nothing in 10 months time. Makes sense to me anyway. He very likely will eventually become a good Championship level player and it is unfortunate that it wont be here but that doesn't mean that City don't rate him and wanted rid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dml1954

Look, almost certainly what happened here is that Connolly’s contract was due to expire but City triggered the extra year option, otherwise Connolly could have walked away and signed for Bristol or any other club on a free and not been transferred for a fee, as he was. Having triggered the option it is then very possible that City would have offered him a new longer deal but without a guarantee of games here next season (as they obviously did not consider that he was ready yet for the Championship), it is unlikely that he would have agreed to that as he wants to play and had he stayed on his existing deal or signed a new one, he would most likely have gone out on loan again, probably to Rovers. On his existing extended deal, that would have wound down next season and he would have been able to walk out on a free at the end. From City's point of view therefore the best (or only really) course of action would have been to sell him now for a fee, rather than lose him for nothing in 10 months time. Makes sense to me anyway. He very likely will eventually become a good Championship level player and it is unfortunate that it wont be here but that doesn't mean that City don't rate him and wanted rid.

---

Seems a fair assessment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dml1954

Look, almost certainly what happened here is that Connolly’s contract was due to expire but City triggered the extra year option, otherwise Connolly could have walked away and signed for Bristol or any other club on a free and not been transferred for a fee, as he was. Having triggered the option it is then very possible that City would have offered him a new longer deal but without a guarantee of games here next season (as they obviously did not consider that he was ready yet for the Championship), it is unlikely that he would have agreed to that as he wants to play and had he stayed on his existing deal or signed a new one, he would most likely have gone out on loan again, probably to Rovers. On his existing extended deal, that would have wound down next season and he would have been able to walk out on a free at the end. From City's point of view therefore the best (or only really) course of action would have been to sell him now for a fee, rather than lose him for nothing in 10 months time. Makes sense to me anyway. He very likely will eventually become a good Championship level player and it is unfortunate that it wont be here but that doesn't mean that City don't rate him and wanted rid.

---

That seems about right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

That seems about right.

---

I agree a fair assessment. Interesting use of the word “Look” in his post though. Putting us in our place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dml1954

Look, almost certainly what happened here is that Connolly’s contract was due to expire but City triggered the extra year option, otherwise Connolly could have walked away and signed for Bristol or any other club on a free and not been transferred for a fee, as he was. Having triggered the option it is then very possible that City would have offered him a new longer deal but without a guarantee of games here next season (as they obviously did not consider that he was ready yet for the Championship), it is unlikely that he would have agreed to that as he wants to play and had he stayed on his existing deal or signed a new one, he would most likely have gone out on loan again, probably to Rovers. On his existing extended deal, that would have wound down next season and he would have been able to walk out on a free at the end. From City's point of view therefore the best (or only really) course of action would have been to sell him now for a fee, rather than lose him for nothing in 10 months time. Makes sense to me anyway. He very likely will eventually become a good Championship level player and it is unfortunate that it wont be here but that doesn't mean that City don't rate him and wanted rid.

---

Stop talking sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch Mort

I agree a fair assessment. Interesting use of the word “Look” in his post though. Putting us in our place.

---

:hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch Mort

I agree a fair assessment. Interesting use of the word “Look” in his post though. Putting us in our place.

---

Interesting and not surprising that you would take it that way but really it was me trying to get my head around the situation and make sense of it and hopefully get it down correctly. It is quite a complicated scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dml1954

Interesting and not surprising that you would take it that way but really it was me trying to get my head around the situation and make sense of it and hopefully get it down correctly. It is quite a complicated scenario.

---

Well, I did give you credit for your summing up of the situation. I find it interesting that you would say “not surprising” as being didactic is a default position for many posters on this board. I will accept that you were being analytical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dml1954

Look, almost certainly what happened here is that Connolly’s contract was due to expire but City triggered the extra year option, otherwise Connolly could have walked away and signed for Bristol or any other club on a free and not been transferred for a fee, as he was. Having triggered the option it is then very possible that City would have offered him a new longer deal but without a guarantee of games here next season (as they obviously did not consider that he was ready yet for the Championship), it is unlikely that he would have agreed to that as he wants to play and had he stayed on his existing deal or signed a new one, he would most likely have gone out on loan again, probably to Rovers. On his existing extended deal, that would have wound down next season and he would have been able to walk out on a free at the end. From City's point of view therefore the best (or only really) course of action would have been to sell him now for a fee, rather than lose him for nothing in 10 months time. Makes sense to me anyway. He very likely will eventually become a good Championship level player and it is unfortunate that it wont be here but that doesn't mean that City don't rate him and wanted rid.

---

Pretty obvious that was the case to most but thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

Pretty obvious that was the case to most but thanks

---

That's ok. There were other people on this thread of a similar opinion to me but also others just thinking that the club might have deliberately got rid of a young player for no reason other than the manager didn't rate him, which i don't think is the case. Perhaps it would be nice if you thanked the other similar contributors as well, as I wouldn't want to think that I was being particularly singled out for (back handed) praise.