James Connolly

[Trigger]

Re: James Connolly

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.

[Citizen's Nephew]

Re: James Connolly

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/incoming-connolly-back-permanent?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!

[dml1954]

Re: James Connolly

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.

[life on mars]

Re: James Connolly

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

[jon1959]

Re: James Connolly

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.

[Enoch Mort]

Re: James Connolly

That seems about right.

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

[Harry Paget Flashman]

Re: James Connolly

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.

[jon1959]

Re: James Connolly

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

:hehe:

[dml1954]

Re: James Connolly

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.

[Enoch Mort]

Re: James Connolly

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.

[TWGL1]

Re: James Connolly

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

[dml1954]

Re: James Connolly

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.