Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.

You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers Banter » OFFICIAL - Will Buckley Returns To Wanderers

OFFICIAL - Will Buckley Returns To Wanderers

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
Bolton Wanderers are pleased to announce that midfielder Will Buckley has re-signed for the club until the end of the season.

Buckley, 30, had already made five appearances for Wanderers so far this season, before his contract expired earlier this month.

The Oldham-born winger will be available for selection for tomorrow’s home Sky Bet League One clash against Bristol Rovers.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
So that's why he was on Amazon.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
Seems to me FV knows relegation is inevitable but still wants fans to keep coming to the games for the rest of the season so don't want the team to be on the end of a hammering every week, otherwise attendance will fall greatly.

So they have to get some more experienced players back into the team who will give us a chance to 'give it a bit of a go' to score a goal or two and maybe even win occasionally.

Buckley fits the criteria if he stays fit, at this level - and comes very cheaply.

Obviously FV aren't spending any money this window, so again you've got to question what the club says is Kenyon's reason for being here is, as he's clearly not been here from the time FV took over, as the clubs 'Director of Football' and the brains behind the '10 year plan' if all we achieve this transfer window is signing a sixteen year old Blackpool reject (or however old he now is), taking a punt on a seventh tier striker, an underachieving U23 from United's academy and the return of Buckley.

Hardly put many building blocks in place for Year II so far if that really is the case, has he?

Also it would seem a big U-turn on the part of Hill - who decided to let him go at the start of the window - or has he simply been over-ruled by those (Kenyon?) above him?

Or even visa-versa!



Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I'd rather have kept Chicksen than brickfeet.

wessy

wessy
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf
Just made me laugh and think of Bonce lol

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Just made me laugh and think of Bonce lol
Yes. Lost a front tooth, and now this. Still, I can look forward to a trip to the dentist next Monday.
Who knows, he might come back as a genius. Neutral

BoltonTillIDie

BoltonTillIDie
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I suspect we offered him much lower wages to Stay, he rejected the offer so we let him go. No one else was offering a decent wage so accepted our initial offer

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I suspect we offered him much lower wages to Stay, he rejected the offer so we let him go. No one else was offering a decent wage so accepted our initial offer
He'll die for the shirt.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I suspect we offered him much lower wages to Stay, he rejected the offer so we let him go. No one else was offering a decent wage so accepted our initial offer

He was on a fixed term contract which was not renewed.

Simple as that really.

On 4th January he seemed to be begging to stay -

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

but he was released on the 10th January with Hill saying this -

“He’s contract has run out and at this moment in time we’re unlikely to re-engage,” he said on Friday.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Nothing to do with us offering less or him seeking more elsewhere.

More likely to be a change on transfer policy internally at the club resulting in the U-turn - maybe they had earmarked another winger (perhaps on loan) but he went somewhere else at the last minute leaving us with Buckley as being the best and most attainable option left to us.

Or something along those lines.

Hope the bloke does well for us - third time lucky perhaps!

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Not quite sure I follow your logic Sluffy. Don't see any reason in what you say why it's not possible for him to come back on a contract of lesser value than the one that wasn't renewed.

And when Hill said "at this moment in time we're unlikely to re-engage" that probably was the truth - at that moment in time - so it's hardly a U-turn.

Nor can I see any firm evidence of a "change in transfer policy" - but I do agree that the club not getting their targets is a possible reason for his return.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Not quite sure I follow your logic Sluffy. Don't see any reason in what you say why it's not possible for him to come back on a contract of lesser value than the one that wasn't renewed.

And when Hill said "at this moment in time we're unlikely to re-engage" that probably was the truth - at that moment in time - so it's hardly a U-turn.

Nor can I see any firm evidence of a "change in transfer policy" - but I do agree that the club not getting their targets is a possible reason for his return.

Buckley signed for us the second time as one of the seven (or eight?) players we obtained on the last day of the summer transfer window, under the current embargo constraints, by Hill, under Sharon's financially limited new ownership.

It's highly unlikely then then that he was offered a lucrative contact at that time.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

He was let go at the end of his contract and resigned again two weeks later - that's a U-turn in anyone's eyes (apart from yours obviously).

The embargo places a £2,000 per week limit on wages - so if Buckley was supposedly asking for more then he couldn't have been on the maximum allowable wage when he joined us at that point - highly unlikely considering he had the summer to find a club offering him more - and everybody else who left the club at the end of last season got fixed up elsewhere to their satisfaction, including Wheater who many believed would give his right arm to stay with us but instead left for the money bags club of mighty Oldham Athletic who paid him more - so it seems highly unlikely to me that Buckley was chasing the money and was more likely not wishing to move himself or his family away from the area.

Alternatively if the club offered him a contract for less, then how much could we possibly be talking about - a few hundred pounds a week? We would be talking about something like say 10k to 15k over the length of his new contract to the end of season - are FV seriously that hard up to have to go to those lengths or alternatively such hard nosed business people to want to act that way if they could afford the deal as per the previous six months contract he just had?

If you had been treated like that and knew you could probably pick up the same deal (or likely better elsewhere - he was in talks with Bradford) would you go back to Bolton after all that?

I wouldn't.

If Buckley wanted more money he could easily have waited until the end of the window and probably have got one soon enough in the scramble before the window shut - or even sat on his hands as a free agent and joined a club after the window had shut.

We aren't talking about big wages here remember.

And you can't see any change in transfer policy can you not???

I think Hill for one has.

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Not quite sure I follow your logic Sluffy. Don't see any reason in what you say why it's not possible for him to come back on a contract of lesser value than the one that wasn't renewed.

And when Hill said "at this moment in time we're unlikely to re-engage" that probably was the truth - at that moment in time - so it's hardly a U-turn.

Nor can I see any firm evidence of a "change in transfer policy" - but I do agree that the club not getting their targets is a possible reason for his return.

Buckley signed for us the second time as one of the seven (or eight?) players we obtained on the last day of the summer transfer window, under the current embargo constraints, by Hill, under Sharon's financially limited new ownership.

It's highly unlikely then then that he was offered a lucrative contact at that time.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

He was let go at the end of his contract and resigned again two weeks later - that's a U-turn in anyone's eyes (apart from yours obviously).

The embargo places a £2,000 per week limit on wages - so if Buckley was supposedly asking for more then he couldn't have been on the maximum allowable wage when he joined us at that point - highly unlikely considering he had the summer to find a club offering him more - and everybody else who left the club at the end of last season got fixed up elsewhere to their satisfaction, including Wheater who many believed would give his right arm to stay with us but instead left for the money bags club of mighty Oldham Athletic who paid him more - so it seems highly unlikely to me that Buckley was chasing the money and was more likely not wishing to move himself or his family away from the area.

Alternatively if the club offered him a contract for less, then how much could we possibly be talking about - a few hundred pounds a week? We would be talking about something like say 10k to 15k over the length of his new contract to the end of season - are FV seriously that hard up to have to go to those lengths or alternatively such hard nosed business people to want to act that way if they could afford the deal as per the previous six months contract he just had?

If you had been treated like that and knew you could probably pick up the same deal (or likely better elsewhere - he was in talks with Bradford) would you go back to Bolton after all that?

I wouldn't.

If Buckley wanted more money he could easily have waited until the end of the window and probably have got one soon enough in the scramble before the window shut - or even sat on his hands as a free agent and joined a club after the window had shut.

We aren't talking about big wages here remember.

And you can't see any change in transfer policy can you not???

I think Hill for one has.
Fully appreciate this is your opinion and speculation, just saying that I don't see enough evidence for me to arrive at the same conclusions.
My conclusion is that we don't know what went on and that as circumstances change over time there is no problem with taking a different decision than one that was taken earlier.

BoltonTillIDie

BoltonTillIDie
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I bet he’s on less money than he was previously, that’s my opinion

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Only been on a couple of minutes and he's been carried off with what looks like a season ending injury.

BoltonTillIDie

BoltonTillIDie
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Has no luck with injuries, but that's the risk we took when we signed him

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Only been on a couple of minutes and he's been carried off with what looks like a season ending injury.
What are the chances of the ambulance crashing on the way to the hospital?

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
brickfeet and glass legs  Rolling Eyes

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Fractured his tibia

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

luckyPeterpiper

luckyPeterpiper
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
I'm not saying we're cursed but there's a rumour the "Ghost of Scottish Managers Past" has been seen on the centre spot carrying little male dolls dressed in BWFC kit in one hand and large needles in the other. Also, it's been suggested that some idiot has awakened the "Megsonius Horribilis" by saying "We were below Derby when I came in" 5 times in a row. 

I'm runing out of logical or rational explanations for our injury record over the last ten years so the above is beginning to look like it might actually be true. Sad

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I'm runing out of logical or rational explanations for our injury record over the last ten years so the above is beginning to look like it might actually be true. Sad

We don't help ourselves though do we.

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I thought it was a pretty poor tackle by modern standards.

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
If we are playing Moneyball his chances of injury clearly weren't taken into consideration.

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum