Tom Fellows

[Bob Fossil]

More cold than hot for me and I think Fellows will be even more relevant when Dike gets up to speed as he is more likely to beat a man and get a cross into the box.

Agree with this. He's exactly what we need, pacey and direct and delivers time and time again in terms of decent balls into the box. If he can add to his goals he'll be more valuable than Grady IMO.

Silly comparison really as they are totally different players. 

Compare Wallace/Phillips and Fellows as they are wingers

Grady with Swift as they are playmakers.

Sorry Pep.

Pep wouldn't compare Rodri to KDB 

I think the comparison is more in terms of value to the team than a direct like for like. That's my take anyway and, if we only had one of them come February I would prefer it to be Tom.

[Fido]

Given I'd pick him above Diangana I think we should tie him down.

A prospect we should be trying to tie down for sure. Pick him above Grady? Not for me. Grady can blow hot and cold but his goal contributions this season means he’s a must pick. He’s been in probably the best, most consistent form since he was loan here from West Ham.

More cold than hot for me and I think Fellows will be even more relevant when Dike gets up to speed as he is more likely to beat a man and get a cross into the box.

Agree with this. He's exactly what we need, pacey and direct and delivers time and time again in terms of decent balls into the box. If he can add to his goals he'll be more valuable than Grady IMO.

Silly comparison really as they are totally different players. 

Compare Wallace/Phillips and Fellows as they are wingers

Grady with Swift as they are playmakers.

Given they've played the large majority of their time as wingers, Grady especially, I think it's a worthwhile comparison. Fellows beats men and gets in a cross, Grady rarely does. I'd have Swift over Grady at #10 every day of the week and Mowatt and Okay behind him and I'd always play Wallace when fit on the right. I know we don't see eye-to-eye on this one, and I know Grady probably has better control in tight areas, but he just doesn't do it often enough. Frustrating as he has shown glimpses of what he can do but Fellows has shown more, for me.

[CA Baggie]

Fellows hasn't done anything of note in his time here to justify spunking a good wage on him. I actually believe the club are right not to throw silly contracts at youth prospects, all in the hope that they turn out to be good enough to attract a move to a Premier League club, and therefore to bargain for a healthy transfer fee.

I'd rather we use those funds (if they're available) on signing an established Championship player that will enhance our chances of promotion.

Of course, I'd love nothing more than to see Fellows, and numerous other academy prospects, earn their way into the first team and for the club to secure their long term services. But I do not want that to be at the detriment of the club.

---

Don't get me wrong, I've liked what I've seen of Fellows so far. He's shown promising glimpses. But they're just that - glimpses. Let's not go OTT here, and pretend we're letting the next Messi leave for free.

Here's the rub, by not offering the contracts and tying players down we find ourselves in these situations where potentially valuable players can leave under tribunal so we could potentially lose that big payday for a decent player.  We got robbed with Ferguson, on the other hand I think we gave Harper a reasonably good contract and it didn't work out.

There's a bit of skill and a bit of luck in spotting the right ones to nurture and offer the bigger contracts to and the ones to keep more short term.  There shouldn't just be a blanket policy on length/value of contract. 

We had a really good set-up, but were a bit short-sighted, tight and didn't show a big enough vision to keep key personnel happy.  This allowed that lot down the road to pick it up and change the colours to purple and blue and guess what, now they have a really good set-up!  There was some elements we possibly couldn't compete with financially, but I suspect more realistic is that we chose not to.

Another legacy of the Lai years.

[Lurker#3]

A prospect we should be trying to tie down for sure. Pick him above Grady? Not for me. Grady can blow hot and cold but his goal contributions this season means he’s a must pick. He’s been in probably the best, most consistent form since he was loan here from West Ham.

More cold than hot for me and I think Fellows will be even more relevant when Dike gets up to speed as he is more likely to beat a man and get a cross into the box.

Agree with this. He's exactly what we need, pacey and direct and delivers time and time again in terms of decent balls into the box. If he can add to his goals he'll be more valuable than Grady IMO.

Silly comparison really as they are totally different players. 

Compare Wallace/Phillips and Fellows as they are wingers

Grady with Swift as they are playmakers.

Given they've played the large majority of their time as wingers, Grady especially, I think it's a worthwhile comparison. Fellows beats men and gets in a cross, Grady rarely does. I'd have Swift over Grady at #10 every day of the week and Mowatt and Okay behind him and I'd always play Wallace when fit on the right. I know we don't see eye-to-eye on this one, and I know Grady probably has better control in tight areas, but he just doesn't do it often enough. Frustrating as he has shown glimpses of what he can do but Fellows has shown more, for me.

They do play in similar areas of the pitch, but tactically they are completely different. We only have 2 playmakers in the squad, that's Grady and Swift, and both of those are completely different. So I would put them in a different group that Phillips, Wallace and Fellows. 

However right now we only have 2 fit, out and out wingers, so we are short in that area anyway. So I would fully expect us to strengthen there. This would free up Grady to play in that second striker role, and share the load with Swifty.

[Malcolm Tucker]

If a decent offer comes in we need the money.
No matter what I feel the club's future is more important.
It's the Lai and who ever else is pi55ing about with buying the club's fault.
I must admit I've lost faith with them all.
We have to accept selling is part and parcel of the business.

I think the fact we've now entered into negotiations with Fellows means the sale of the club is all but done. I think we are very close to the new owners coming in personally.

But the fact we have left it this late is shocking. Who is the loans manager? Is it still Brunty? I just wonder what reports were coming back from his time at Crawley last season. He looks to have come on leaps and bounds this season. If he didn't pull up tree's last season then it was probably difficult this summer to offer him new terms. Is his huge recent progression simply down to working with Carlos? If so then that should tell the player he needs to stick with us.

It's very reminiscent of Ferguson under Bilic. Seemingly got plucked from nowhere when Bilic took a shine to him but he was also in the last year of his deal and we all know how that ended up.

Hopefully Tom signs up so we'll get paid. That's all I really care about tbh. I hate losing good kids for nothing.

I know Leicester have already enquired about him.
Transfer talk, agents, parents they all startt getting involved we've seen far to many times already.
Simply the club sale should have gone through weeks ago.
It just doesn't feel right, alarm bells should be ringing.

Economist and now Corporate Finance expert, eh?

[Remi_Moses]

If a decent offer comes in we need the money.
No matter what I feel the club's future is more important.
It's the Lai and who ever else is pi55ing about with buying the club's fault.
I must admit I've lost faith with them all.
We have to accept selling is part and parcel of the business.

I think the fact we've now entered into negotiations with Fellows means the sale of the club is all but done. I think we are very close to the new owners coming in personally.

But the fact we have left it this late is shocking. Who is the loans manager? Is it still Brunty? I just wonder what reports were coming back from his time at Crawley last season. He looks to have come on leaps and bounds this season. If he didn't pull up tree's last season then it was probably difficult this summer to offer him new terms. Is his huge recent progression simply down to working with Carlos? If so then that should tell the player he needs to stick with us.

It's very reminiscent of Ferguson under Bilic. Seemingly got plucked from nowhere when Bilic took a shine to him but he was also in the last year of his deal and we all know how that ended up.

Hopefully Tom signs up so we'll get paid. That's all I really care about tbh. I hate losing good kids for nothing.

I know Leicester have already enquired about him.
Transfer talk, agents, parents they all startt getting involved we've seen far to many times already.
Simply the club sale should have gone through weeks ago.
It just doesn't feel right, alarm bells should be ringing.

Economist and now Corporate Finance expert, eh?

I like the sound of that thanks

[Gzbaggy]

Fellows hasn't done anything of note in his time here to justify spunking a good wage on him. I actually believe the club are right not to throw silly contracts at youth prospects, all in the hope that they turn out to be good enough to attract a move to a Premier League club, and therefore to bargain for a healthy transfer fee.

I'd rather we use those funds (if they're available) on signing an established Championship player that will enhance our chances of promotion.

Of course, I'd love nothing more than to see Fellows, and numerous other academy prospects, earn their way into the first team and for the club to secure their long term services. But I do not want that to be at the detriment of the club.

---

Don't get me wrong, I've liked what I've seen of Fellows so far. He's shown promising glimpses. But they're just that - glimpses. Let's not go OTT here, and pretend we're letting the next Messi leave for free.

Here's the rub, by not offering the contracts and tying players down we find ourselves in these situations where potentially valuable players can leave under tribunal so we could potentially lose that big payday for a decent player.  We got robbed with Ferguson, on the other hand I think we gave Harper a reasonably good contract and it didn't work out.

There's a bit of skill and a bit of luck in spotting the right ones to nurture and offer the bigger contracts to and the ones to keep more short term.  There shouldn't just be a blanket policy on length/value of contract. 

We had a really good set-up, but were a bit short-sighted, tight and didn't show a big enough vision to keep key personnel happy.  This allowed that lot down the road to pick it up and change the colours to purple and blue and guess what, now they have a really good set-up!  There was some elements we possibly couldn't compete with financially, but I suspect more realistic is that we chose not to.

Another legacy of the Lai years.

A well argued piece. I agree about the "skill and a bit of luck" but we have hardly helped ourselves with some woeful 
decisions.

When we last got promoted we were strong favourites for relegation, which unfortunately happened. A worst case financial scenario at the time of promotion would show
Year 1 Premier money
Years 2 & 3 parachute payments from Premier league
Year 4 on, no parachute payments, forecast turnover under£30 million per annum.

So what did we do, we gave Grant a six year contract, knowing for 3 of those years we might have no Premier payments. Reach and Kelly 1 year of no premier payments. The argument they were cheap is rubbish as they have no
resale value, they should have been given contracts up to the period we ran out of parachute payments with the club having an option, we did that with Anichebe and wisely did not take it up.

I suspect skullduggery to put it mildly in the Kelly case he should probably have been given a contract until Xmas 2022 to prove his fitness. What payments were made to agents in this deal?

A legacy of this is that we are now having to sell our good young players for small fees. O'Shea has gone and I suspect Fellows will go as well. I have visions of Fellows playing for us next season, but as a loan player from Leicester!

[Remi_Moses]

Fellows hasn't done anything of note in his time here to justify spunking a good wage on him. I actually believe the club are right not to throw silly contracts at youth prospects, all in the hope that they turn out to be good enough to attract a move to a Premier League club, and therefore to bargain for a healthy transfer fee.

I'd rather we use those funds (if they're available) on signing an established Championship player that will enhance our chances of promotion.

Of course, I'd love nothing more than to see Fellows, and numerous other academy prospects, earn their way into the first team and for the club to secure their long term services. But I do not want that to be at the detriment of the club.

---

Don't get me wrong, I've liked what I've seen of Fellows so far. He's shown promising glimpses. But they're just that - glimpses. Let's not go OTT here, and pretend we're letting the next Messi leave for free.

Here's the rub, by not offering the contracts and tying players down we find ourselves in these situations where potentially valuable players can leave under tribunal so we could potentially lose that big payday for a decent player.  We got robbed with Ferguson, on the other hand I think we gave Harper a reasonably good contract and it didn't work out.

There's a bit of skill and a bit of luck in spotting the right ones to nurture and offer the bigger contracts to and the ones to keep more short term.  There shouldn't just be a blanket policy on length/value of contract. 

We had a really good set-up, but were a bit short-sighted, tight and didn't show a big enough vision to keep key personnel happy.  This allowed that lot down the road to pick it up and change the colours to purple and blue and guess what, now they have a really good set-up!  There was some elements we possibly couldn't compete with financially, but I suspect more realistic is that we chose not to.

Another legacy of the Lai years.

A well argued piece. I agree about the "skill and a bit of luck" but we have hardly helped ourselves with some woeful 
decisions.

When we last got promoted we were strong favourites for relegation, which unfortunately happened. A worst case financial scenario at the time of promotion would show
Year 1 Premier money
Years 2 & 3 parachute payments from Premier league
Year 4 on, no parachute payments, forecast turnover under£30 million per annum.

So what did we do, we gave Grant a six year contract, knowing for 3 of those years we might have no Premier payments. Reach and Kelly 1 year of no premier payments. The argument they were cheap is rubbish as they have no
resale value, they should have been given contracts up to the period we ran out of parachute payments with the club having an option, we did that with Anichebe and wisely did not take it up.

I suspect skullduggery to put it mildly in the Kelly case he should probably have been given a contract until Xmas 2022 to prove his fitness. What payments were made to agents in this deal?

A legacy of this is that we are now having to sell our good young players for small fees. O'Shea has gone and I suspect Fellows will go as well. I have visions of Fellows playing for us next season, but as a loan player from Leicester!

This

I believe Fellows won't be the only player to have to leave.
The continued reduction in our wage bill is still needed although we have reduced it by 20% this season  More urgent is the needs to get cash in to keep us afloat.
Ideally £15m may last us until the end of the season.
IMO we appear to think a fat yank is going to turn up and pay Lai off, clear all the debts and slap £20m in the bank and say carry on lads.
I honestly don't believe we will be sold just yet. Even after the DD has been completed we have to get past the offer and counter offer brinkmanship.
We maybe someway to the end game but these things take time that we no longer have.

[aj21]

Tom Fellows has looked very raw and ordinary so far, that is too be expected due to his age…he played well against Swansea and Aldershot and suddenly we should be worried about losing him? All seems a bit bizarre, if he wants to progress as a player he signs a contract, if he wants to regress he leaves for a Premier League team and gets lost like so many others.

[Pragmatist]

Fellows hasn't done anything of note in his time here to justify spunking a good wage on him. I actually believe the club are right not to throw silly contracts at youth prospects, all in the hope that they turn out to be good enough to attract a move to a Premier League club, and therefore to bargain for a healthy transfer fee.

I'd rather we use those funds (if they're available) on signing an established Championship player that will enhance our chances of promotion.

Of course, I'd love nothing more than to see Fellows, and numerous other academy prospects, earn their way into the first team and for the club to secure their long term services. But I do not want that to be at the detriment of the club.

---

Don't get me wrong, I've liked what I've seen of Fellows so far. He's shown promising glimpses. But they're just that - glimpses. Let's not go OTT here, and pretend we're letting the next Messi leave for free.

Here's the rub, by not offering the contracts and tying players down we find ourselves in these situations where potentially valuable players can leave under tribunal so we could potentially lose that big payday for a decent player.  We got robbed with Ferguson, on the other hand I think we gave Harper a reasonably good contract and it didn't work out.

There's a bit of skill and a bit of luck in spotting the right ones to nurture and offer the bigger contracts to and the ones to keep more short term.  There shouldn't just be a blanket policy on length/value of contract. 

We had a really good set-up, but were a bit short-sighted, tight and didn't show a big enough vision to keep key personnel happy.  This allowed that lot down the road to pick it up and change the colours to purple and blue and guess what, now they have a really good set-up!  There was some elements we possibly couldn't compete with financially, but I suspect more realistic is that we chose not to.

Another legacy of the Lai years.

A well argued piece. I agree about the "skill and a bit of luck" but we have hardly helped ourselves with some woeful 
decisions.

When we last got promoted we were strong favourites for relegation, which unfortunately happened. A worst case financial scenario at the time of promotion would show
Year 1 Premier money
Years 2 & 3 parachute payments from Premier league
Year 4 on, no parachute payments, forecast turnover under£30 million per annum.

So what did we do, we gave Grant a six year contract, knowing for 3 of those years we might have no Premier payments. Reach and Kelly 1 year of no premier payments. The argument they were cheap is rubbish as they have no
resale value, they should have been given contracts up to the period we ran out of parachute payments with the club having an option, we did that with Anichebe and wisely did not take it up.

I suspect skullduggery to put it mildly in the Kelly case he should probably have been given a contract until Xmas 2022 to prove his fitness. What payments were made to agents in this deal?

A legacy of this is that we are now having to sell our good young players for small fees. O'Shea has gone and I suspect Fellows will go as well. I have visions of Fellows playing for us next season, but as a loan player from Leicester!

This

I believe Fellows won't be the only player to have to leave.
The continued reduction in our wage bill is still needed although we have reduced it by 20% this season  More urgent is the needs to get cash in to keep us afloat.
Ideally £15m may last us until the end of the season.
IMO we appear to think a fat yank is going to turn up and pay Lai off, clear all the debts and slap £20m in the bank and say carry on lads.
I honestly don't believe we will be sold just yet. Even after the DD has been completed we have to get past the offer and counter offer brinkmanship.
We maybe someway to the end game but these things take time that we no longer have.

The DD is done after the terms have been offered and accepted, not before!   Obviously if the DD discovers material issues there might be an attempt to reduce the price, but nobody spends money on doing a DD exercise until they know that they’ve got a deal.

---

Fellows hasn't done anything of note in his time here to justify spunking a good wage on him. I actually believe the club are right not to throw silly contracts at youth prospects, all in the hope that they turn out to be good enough to attract a move to a Premier League club, and therefore to bargain for a healthy transfer fee.

I'd rather we use those funds (if they're available) on signing an established Championship player that will enhance our chances of promotion.

Of course, I'd love nothing more than to see Fellows, and numerous other academy prospects, earn their way into the first team and for the club to secure their long term services. But I do not want that to be at the detriment of the club.

---

Don't get me wrong, I've liked what I've seen of Fellows so far. He's shown promising glimpses. But they're just that - glimpses. Let's not go OTT here, and pretend we're letting the next Messi leave for free.

Here's the rub, by not offering the contracts and tying players down we find ourselves in these situations where potentially valuable players can leave under tribunal so we could potentially lose that big payday for a decent player.  We got robbed with Ferguson, on the other hand I think we gave Harper a reasonably good contract and it didn't work out.

There's a bit of skill and a bit of luck in spotting the right ones to nurture and offer the bigger contracts to and the ones to keep more short term.  There shouldn't just be a blanket policy on length/value of contract. 

We had a really good set-up, but were a bit short-sighted, tight and didn't show a big enough vision to keep key personnel happy.  This allowed that lot down the road to pick it up and change the colours to purple and blue and guess what, now they have a really good set-up!  There was some elements we possibly couldn't compete with financially, but I suspect more realistic is that we chose not to.

Another legacy of the Lai years.

A well argued piece. I agree about the "skill and a bit of luck" but we have hardly helped ourselves with some woeful 
decisions.

When we last got promoted we were strong favourites for relegation, which unfortunately happened. A worst case financial scenario at the time of promotion would show
Year 1 Premier money
Years 2 & 3 parachute payments from Premier league
Year 4 on, no parachute payments, forecast turnover under£30 million per annum.

So what did we do, we gave Grant a six year contract, knowing for 3 of those years we might have no Premier payments. Reach and Kelly 1 year of no premier payments. The argument they were cheap is rubbish as they have no
resale value, they should have been given contracts up to the period we ran out of parachute payments with the club having an option, we did that with Anichebe and wisely did not take it up.

I suspect skullduggery to put it mildly in the Kelly case he should probably have been given a contract until Xmas 2022 to prove his fitness. What payments were made to agents in this deal?

A legacy of this is that we are now having to sell our good young players for small fees. O'Shea has gone and I suspect Fellows will go as well. I have visions of Fellows playing for us next season, but as a loan player from Leicester!

Players of the ages of Reach and Kelly simply don’t come on very short-term contracts.  They get the longest contract that they can secure.  Whether either of them should have been signed is a different matter.  Both are utility players covering several positions so I can see why we signed them (putting the length of contract to one side).   Kelly at the time I thought was a decent signing based on what he offered, and of course he went out on loan to Wigan, did well, and then picked up a bad injury.  We’ll probably never know what job he could have done for us had he not got injured.  

There can never be justification for the Grant signing, both in terms of fee or length of contract. A massive millstone around the club’s neck for years.  At around £7m on a 4-year contract it would have been about right - just about.  Utterly reckless by all those responsible.