Kyle Joseph has been recalled from his loan at Cheltenham.
is he going to replace Laird at RWB?
Good to see him back , had lots of game time , another option for the boss .
Cheltenham fans will feel pretty hard done by, this is a blow for them.
I just hope they can see that Manchester United are to blame for this with the very unnecessary recall of Ethan Laird. They forced our hand.
Seems the most likely scenario
Excuse my dimness ,why would Wigan be upset
Just thinking back did not KJ play wingback when we played Plymouth
Misquoted his old club, corrected now. Thanks for pointing that out!
Not his natural position though. Would much prefer to see use him as a striker in a different formation.
Yes he did , he came on as sub against Reading in the first round to play right wingback .
He said he'd give unfamiliar position a go to help the team
Hope he's back as a striker
Garrick is more the WB for me, although Joseph is quick he's not really used to playing wide right
I think Garrick can be effective as a wide player with an eye for a goal , not sure if he has the discipline to be a WB .
I advocated a while back that we should use Garrick and Joseph as our wingbacks as have plenty of pace. If they can’t defend or lack discipline that should be addressed on the training ground. Both young, quick and will hopefully be inclined to push forward rather than sit back and have us on the front foot i.e. like the second half against Luton. Lets hope our boss has a think about it and gives it a go.
Unfortunately not available for the cup game .
It seems like Cheltenham Town were not given any indication that the Swans were planning to recall Kyle Joseph.
I presume this is because we weren't, until Ethan Laird was recalled by Man U.
You may say this is double standards, but I would expect a club recently relegated from the Premier League (ie us) to have the people and the experience to know to check in regularly with the parent club of our loan players. We do, after all, have a member of staff dedicated to Player Liaison and another one with the title HCE and Player Care. (I don't know what HCE stands for in this context - I suspect it is either something to do with Health Care or Highly Compensated Employees - the kind of concierge role that Liverpool first created back in the 1990s.) The website currently lists 70-odd employees.
I wouldn't expect a club recently promoted from the fourth tier, like Cheltenham Town, to have the capacity to do it. Their website lists 31 employees. Of course, if they had asked, they would presumably have been told everything in the garden was rosy and Kyle was staying til the end of the season, right up to the moment when he wasn't.
Glad though I am to have him back, this is another negative tick in our reputation column - a purely reactive move in response to our taking the eye off the ball over Laird.
I am surprised that posters who got really incensed about past own goals, like the Vorm transfer payments dispute, are relaxed about what's happening now.
That's some assumption there @Cadleigh . Communications may well have been in place (I'd be very surprised if they weren't) and all this may have been as a result of a speculative, or even a planned, approach from Bournemouth to Man Utd.
Seems to me that this is just another attempt to discredit the club without any evidence to substantiate your assumption.
Perhaps we were doing the necessary checks, and were told everything in the garden was rosy and that Laird was staying until the end of the season. Up until United found a better deal.
Not impressed with Manure
If they were so pleased with his progress with us, why move him?
If it ain't broke don't fix it
Are you referring to my assumption that we didn't give Cheltenham Town warning that we were thinking of calling Kyle Joseph back, @deekay? There is plenty of evidence that we did not:
Duff (Cheltenham manager) says they weren't expecting it and it came "really late in the day".
Or are you referring to my assumption that we took our eye off the ball with regard to Man U's satisfaction (or lack thereof) with Ethan Laird's loan spell with us? As I say, there's not much direct evidence with regard to Laird, but there is with regard to Rhys Williams. In November, when reports came out that Liverpool were unhappy with the amount of game time he was getting and thinking of recalling him and imposing a financial penalty on us, Martin was quoted as saying that “I don’t think they’ll be overly happy he’s not involved,” implying that he didn't actually know what they thought. (He added that someone from Liverpool had been down to watch Williams train, and but not when or how often.) Here's the story in case you think I am taking it out of context:
And then in December, Mark Allen said "we'll be speaking to Liverpool in the coming weeks with regards to Rhys [Williams]". The coming weeks - ie between then (13/12) and the end of the transfer window. Doesn't sound like proactive comms to me. Here's the link to the story so you can check I am not taking it out of context:
You could be right - maybe Bournemouth came in with a sneaky offer to poach Laird off us, and Man U had been assuring us daily that he was staying and they were ultra-happy. If you can provide any evidence of this that actually comes from the club (ie I am not interested in hearing from people with anonymous 'sources') then I am very willing to think again.
Personally I don't think a club like Man U, with an asset potentially worth millions like Ethan Laird, are going to turn around on a dime like that and suddenly change their strategy - I am willing to bet this was under discussion for weeks while Man U did their due diligence, and we were so confident that Laird would be staying we didn't ask the right questions.
I do, because our ability to borrow high quality players from other clubs and loan our own high-potential players out in future depends on our reputation for being a well-run club that doesn't end loans without warning because we lost someone unexpectedly when we should have seen it coming.
Clubs understand that loans get ended due to injury problems, illness (especially in a time of COVID) or because it wasn't working out and the player wasn't getting the development that was hoped for. None of those applied in the case of Kyle Joseph. He was benefitting, Cheltenham Town were benefitting, and it was exactly the loan he needed to be in at this stage of his career. He is coming back because we lost Ethan Laird. He is not a wing-back, he is a striker, and although he has played at wing-back on the odd occasion I don't think he is the solution for our needs in that position in the long term (by which I mean the rest of this season). It was a knee-****** response and it reflects badly on us.
Your post is the kind of thing I'd expect from a Cardiff or Millwall supporter. I expect better of the Swans.
I'm saying that it is perfectly possible that we didn't give Cheltenham any advance notice of a recall for Joseph and that's because we had no intention of recalling him until Man Utd recalled Laird unexpectedly and with no notice to us. Now I have no knowledge of this, just as you have no knowledge to the contrary. As I said, it is just speculation on your part.
Your reference to comments about the Rhys Williams situation and RM's comments are again, your interpretation of the context of selective parts of a wider discussion. Other interpretations are available.
I would repeat that you have again taken an incomplete and unsubstantiated situation and used it to knock the club. Imho, this is becoming very repetitive and very boring.
You are correct my comment was poor,in fact a knee ****** reaction .
I shall only survive as a visitor to this site by selecting the posts which I read.
No worries, we have all been there.
@deekay - I agree 100% with your first sentence - that is the point I was making.
I agree too that alternative interpretations of the Ethan Laird situation are possible, the main ones being:
Now, if I was basing my strategy for this season on wing-backs, and my recruitment strategy for the January window, on the basis that I had my first-choice right wing-back in place, I would sure as hell be checking that the people I loaned him from were happy.
But incredible though it is, of all the three scenarios the third one is actually the only one that makes sense in the real world.
Sorry if you find my posts repetitive and very boring. This site lives and dies on user-generated content. I share ideas, links and observations to generate debate and I welcome it when other people do too. If I see a poster I don't agree with (eg the recent anti-vaccine posts on here) I just scroll past. I find that works.
Most clubs have a recall clause in with the loans and how often have players been recalled from us in the past . Not great by any standard but it happens all the time . I bet you didn’t write a 1000 word essay when Gallagher was recalled by Chelsea and sent here ? Every team are aware that the players may be recalled in January so no good them moaning
Here's the story of Gallagher being pulled from Charlton. Delete Charlton and insert Swansea and this pretty much describes us. Struggling side, bright talent gets pulled and sent to a team on the way up.
So Bowyer didn't see that coming. Does that make it OK that both Bowyer and Martin didn't watch their backs with regard to loan players, when they should have been aware that being on the slide makes you more likely to lose players on loan?
I can't remember if Bowyer built his entire side around Gallagher - Martin sure as hell did around Laird.
As I said not great by any standard regardless of what team does it but that’s football for you