Harps and Little released by Sheff Utd

[Hoop Blah]

I like a lot of the angles Howard tries to create with his passing, and the runs they encourage, and think he's a very capable Championship midfielder. Something about him doesn't quite work for me, but he's more than adequate for us really.

Harper is a totally different player and potentially one that would work quite well alongside Howard. As for his passes being easier and only out to the fullbacks etc etc, do you not recognise that a massive strength of our team used to be getting the ball out wide, especially to Shorey and Murty and having them add depth and creativity to our attackinf play.

Harper always used to make him self available to take the ball and switch the play, and could very easily play long raking passes over a full back or accurately down a channell.

Although I'm a big fan of Harpers I'm still not sure I'd want him back, but his role in the team was crucial, even if it wasn't the most spetacular.

[Wax Jacket]

Full-backs pushing up as part of our system doesn't mean that it was any harder for Harper to find them. agree with what you say that he could work well with Howard though. I think the main thing that puts me off is that he's a nobhead of the highest order

[Hoop Blah]

Full-backs pushing up as part of our system doesn't mean that it was any harder for Harper to find them. agree with what you say that he could work well with Howard though. I think the main thing that puts me off is that he's a nobhead of the highest order

The pass to them isn't harder no, that's not what I meant, but it's very important and something that so many midfielders don't do often enough because they think they have to be passing forwards to be making a telling contribution.

The making himself available and never hiding from taking possession was what really made Harper important, and it was, IMO, also a bit of a myth that he never made many forward passes.

[Ian Royal]

Spot on Hoop Blah.

[Negative_Jeff]

The attributes Hoop Blah talks about are habits acquired from Harper`s development at Arsenal. All Wenger`s players are encouraged to receive the ball in tight situations and pass and move. The key though is to receive the ball and see the next pass while being on the move and although I liked Harps in many ways his technique was not up to this.

[Platypuss]

Am I right in saying that we received a fee for Harper, however small? Bit of a surprise he's been released.

We received a fee for his season long loan, yes. Same type of deal took Rosenior to Ipswich as well.

The loan was made a permanent transfer in January.

[Sun Tzu]

The making himself available and never hiding from taking possession was what really made Harper important, and it was, IMO, also a bit of a myth that he never made many forward passes.

Up there with the myth that he couldn't defend !

[KC Royal]

Good posts as always HB. I'm another one who remains to be convinced by Howard, though in fairness i've not seen him a massive amount. He was excellent in the Donny televised game but hasn't really stood out in any of other games I've seen.

Not that surprised by Blakey being released but very surprised about Harper given that the deal was made permanent in Jan, as PP says, and he was a first team regular too. I'm a Harper fan but can't see him returning. Wages would be a problem and even if we offloaded players like Marek and Cisse to make way for him,he'd struggle to get into the team, the reasons we let him go in the 1st place.

Oh, and i'll prepare to be dodded but don't think its been mentioned anywhere else, Murty's been released by the Saints. Retirement looming perhaps?

[Victor Meldrew]

The deal for James was only until the end of the season when he would be free to leave and it was always unlikely that he would stay there.
Expect a new deal at a decent club before the summer is out.

[KC Royal]

The deal for James was only until the end of the season when he would be free to leave and it was always unlikely that he would stay there.
Expect a new deal at a decent club before the summer is out.

If that is the case why did they make the deal permanent in Jan when surely a fee would have been involved? And i assumed that by signing permanently his contract would have been beyond the end of the season too. Still doesnt make much sense to me when he made 34 appearances. I'm actually starting to wonder now whether whether there was a problem behind the scenes..

[Ian Royal]

The deal for James was only until the end of the season when he would be free to leave and it was always unlikely that he would stay there.
Expect a new deal at a decent club before the summer is out.

If that is the case why did they make the deal permanent in Jan when surely a fee would have been involved? And i assumed that by signing permanently his contract would have been beyond the end of the season too. Still doesnt make much sense to me when he made 34 appearances. I'm actually starting to wonder now whether whether there was a problem behind the scenes..

They'd already paid us a fee for the loan. No other fee needed.

[Sun Tzu]

The deal for James was only until the end of the season when he would be free to leave and it was always unlikely that he would stay there.
Expect a new deal at a decent club before the summer is out.

If that is the case why did they make the deal permanent in Jan when surely a fee would have been involved? And i assumed that by signing permanently his contract would have been beyond the end of the season too. Still doesnt make much sense to me when he made 34 appearances. I'm actually starting to wonder now whether whether there was a problem behind the scenes..

There's no reason a fee should have been involved, and his contract could have either just been a 6 month deal or a longer one with a break clause.
Could be all sorts of reasons why it was made permanent - we could have told them it was that or they sent him back, he could have wanted it for some reason (and might have told them if they didn;t give him a deal he would end the loan)
Who knows, we probably never will ! It could be as simple as the fact that Harps was never keen on moving away from his family and simply told them he wanted to move back south so they let him go (and it suited them to do so....)

[Wycombe Royal]

The deal for James was only until the end of the season when he would be free to leave and it was always unlikely that he would stay there.
Expect a new deal at a decent club before the summer is out.

If that is the case why did they make the deal permanent in Jan when surely a fee would have been involved? And i assumed that by signing permanently his contract would have been beyond the end of the season too. Still doesnt make much sense to me when he made 34 appearances. I'm actually starting to wonder now whether whether there was a problem behind the scenes..

There's no reason a fee should have been involved, and his contract could have either just been a 6 month deal or a longer one with a break clause.
Could be all sorts of reasons why it was made permanent - we could have told them it was that or they sent him back, he could have wanted it for some reason (and might have told them if they didn;t give him a deal he would end the loan)
Who knows, we probably never will ! It could be as simple as the fact that Harps was never keen on moving away from his family and simply told them he wanted to move back south so they let him go (and it suited them to do so....)

Wasn't the deal supposed to be permanent from the outset but it didn'#t get completed in time and therefore a loan deal was rushed throough. It was then made permanent in January (the fee was still received when the loan deal was completed). I would guess they were only ever going to take on his remaining contract with us as they couldn't afford to commit to his level of wages past the end of the season (unless they went up).

[Ian Royal]

Was originally a loan deal for both him and Howard, we rushed through Howard's perm deal they didn't with Harper.

[Hoop Blah]

Was originally a loan deal for both him and Howard, we rushed through Howard's perm deal they didn't with Harper.

But it was probably only a loan in the first place to get it all signed off quickly and then they made it perm in January. We just put a bit more effort in to get Howards done in time during the original window.

There may have been a need to make it perm as opposed to loan for legal reasons, or perhaps to free up another loan spot in the Utd squad in case they needed it later in the season.

[Ian Royal]

Was originally a loan deal for both him and Howard, we rushed through Howard's perm deal they didn't with Harper.

But it was probably only a loan in the first place to get it all signed off quickly and then they made it perm in January. We just put a bit more effort in to get Howards done in time during the original window.

There may have been a need to make it perm as opposed to loan for legal reasons, or perhaps to free up another loan spot in the Utd squad in case they needed it later in the season.

The point was it was intended to be a loan for both, the only rushing was us trying to put the paperwork through to make Howard permanent when we found we had money we couldn't spend on Smith anymore.

The actual exchange of players was not a rushed job.

[No Hoops]

Well said.......

But why sihn him on a perm in Jan.......... Poss be able to sell him..................but then release him


all the w's.imconfused.com

[Ian Royal]

Well said.......

But why sihn him on a perm in Jan.......... Poss be able to sell him..................but then release him


all the w's.imconfused.com

Possibly part of the changed deal that they couldn't put together in time for the summer deadline.

[Jerry St Clair]

I'd imagine Sidwell will have the necessary hunger after 3 years of not making it in the Prem.

The 50k a week he's been getting for sitting on the bench may have sated his hunger.