Only 1,400 minutes at all levels in 18 months is the definition of in the stands. He wasn't playing matches, hence he was sitting in the stands.
I400 minute is not sitting in the stands. He had some niggling injuries, which caused him to miss games. They were nothing major, but because of that they were careful with his handling. After Ole was appointed, he was training with the first team, and was later basically promoted to the first team. When given a chance he was poor and did not look ready, hence the lack of game time. If he was good enough, he would have got more time.
He was dominating u23s matches throughout 18/19 and was most certainly ready to make a further step. He's missed at most a few weeks with injuries in that time, that doesn't explain the pitiful amount of football he's played.
He was not dominating matches, just looked very good at that level, but not like he was taking the piss at that level. Still, because of his good performances he was promoted to the first team. He just could not produce the same for the first team. The goal was probably to have him train with the first team and eventually to makes the step up and adjust to the men's game. Unfortunately it did not happen for him.
Hence why he organized a loan.
Hence he was wrong, as he was not ready for a loan back then.
It does not take 18 months to evaluate him. Exactly, loaning him to a poor club won't help. Something we do on the regular.
It does in Gomes's case. He was well used to u23s level without being exceptional, but not yet ready for first team level.
We don't loan players to poor clubs, but there are no guarantees that loans work out everytime. It is the same for all clubs, not just us, there are no guarantees. Some clubs have partnership's with other clubs, but that does not automatically mean good development for the player.
He was too good for the u23s 18 months ago, the next step is senior football. That just shows his reps understand basic progression.
He was not too good for the u23s 18 months ago, which is why his reps are wrong. He was very good, but not to the level that he had outgrown it completely. There are plenty of players who look good for the u23s, but then fail to make that step up to first team level.
So we don't loan players out in case they do too good and ask for better compensation. But rather sit them in the stands so we can force them into lower wages? Wow.
No, we won't loan players who are running out of contract and have only a few months left, as even a decent loan would then give his reps to put ridiculous demands.
He was not ready to be loaned out 18 months ago, hence his reps are wrong. We did not loan him back then as he was not ready for a loan back then. We should have loaned him in January when he still was poor and we brought Bruno. But by then he was running out of contract.
If he had signed he would have been loaned out by now. And no, he was not sitting in the stands. He was promoted to the first team and training with them, given a chance to break through to the first team. He just was not good enough to force his way through.
Except they have.
They never said that, so you've made that up.
They were expecting big offers, they just never came. That was in the papers, I am just saying the things that were in it. Nothing made up by me. It is why many in this thread were surprised when no news was coming of who he signed for, as the papers were really painting it as a big loss for us for a coveted player.
We have little track record to support being able to do that. And no loan we sort will suit his development as well as any loan to a related club.
We have as much track record as most clubs. Some loans work, some don't. No, a loan to a related club does not mean that it is a better loan, that is just your misconception. Even if the owner is the same, it does not mean that the team he is going to will be suited to his development.
Here you go again just making stuff up.
The fact you think clubs shouldn't loan players in case they do too good and want raises shows you have no understanding of how to care for development anyway.
I am not making anything up, there were reports in the papers that they were expecting clubs like Barcelona to be interested in him, but later it was reported they were only interested in signing him for the B team.
No, I am saying that he was not ready 18 months ago, but he should have been loaned in January when we got Bruno, as he was still not good enough for the first team. With only six months left in his contract, we were not going to loan him then
Owners which run a club around developing young players and have purchased Boavista with the sole purpose of further player development. Owners which have a DoF which this forum has wanked itself silly over for years now. A club with a CEO with roots in Barcelona. It'll suit him just grand.
Neither the owners or a DOF can guarantee his development. All of what you mentioned is irrelevant, as we have just as much reputation developing talent, yet that is also irrelevant as every player is unique, and what they need to develop, is also different for every individual.
Guess it is good he left a "top team" to get playing time then.
He would have got a loan here as well, in the end the result is not that different. Just that he would have bigger wages here probably.