Loic Damour - season long loan to Le Mans confirmed

[Gorgie Boot boy]

4 minutes ago, GavK1012 said:

Matey, I use to do this when I was 11 or 12...write silly wee numbers down and ask myself why X or Y wasn't happening....the fact you actually typed that someone would pay a fee for him, A FEE (!!!!), was enough for me 😆😅🤣😂🤪😝🤯🥸🤓🤡

 

You clearly have A LOT of time on your hands or are a child enjoying time off school....either or...

You clearly skipped over what i did say, in a few posts.

No idea what type of mind you have, seems you need to spend a LOT of time in the bin for being silly.

[been here before]

2 hours ago, i8hibsh said:

So what is the bottom line here?  How much will it cost us to offload?  

 

More money spunked against the wall by this disatererous regime.

 

None of it has came via you though so rest easy leech.

 

[GinRummy]

1 hour ago, A_A wehatethehibs said:

The sooner he finds himself a new club the better for all parties.  Makes you wonder if there’s any point giving new players long term deals at all.

 

Looks like we’ve now set 2 year maximum on contracts which is good. I hope that policy continues. All players good and bad signed by Neilson this season are only on 1 or 2 year deals, happy if it stays that way for the next few years. A 1-2 year deal on fair wages to attract players in, but we can’t dish out these 3 and 4 year deals - IMO just walk away from negotiations with players who demand it, it should be a red line it simply doesn’t suit our club. 

 

No player over the age of 22 or 23 should get anything more than a 2 year contract and thankfully that appears to be the Neilson policy.

I agree with the last paragraph. There may be rare exceptions but we’ve got our signing policy wrong for far too long. 

[CJGJ]

41 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

I agree with the last paragraph. There may be rare exceptions but we’ve got our signing policy wrong for far too long. 

Sorry but just wrong

 

It is the success of the player that matters.....Nisbet signs for Hibs on a 4 year deal and you think he should have been given 2 at max with us ?...madness

 

McGinn signed on a long term deal but following your logic he would never have been given such a deal with us...madness

 

It is the quality of the player that counts and some are worth long term deals

 

Now picking those is an art/skill and the club has not been good enough in that regard but the failures are what people focus on forgetting he successful deals 

[CJGJ]

Just now, CJGJ said:

Sorry but just wrong

 

It is the success of the player that matters.....Nisbet signs for Hibs on a 4 year deal and you think he should have been given 2 at max with us ?...madness

 

McGinn signed on a long term deal but following your logic he would never have been given such a deal with us...madness

 

It is the quality of the player that counts and some are worth long term deals

 

Now picking those is an art/skill and the club has not been good enough in that regard but the failures are what people focus on forgetting the successful deals 

 

[GinRummy]

8 minutes ago, CJGJ said:

Sorry but just wrong

 

It is the success of the player that matters.....Nisbet signs for Hibs on a 4 year deal and you think he should have been given 2 at max with us ?...madness

 

McGinn signed on a long term deal but following your logic he would never have been given such a deal with us...madness

 

It is the quality of the player that counts and some are worth long term deals

 

Now picking those is an art/skill and the club has not been good enough in that regard but the failures are what people focus on forgetting he successful deals 

I said clearly there would be rare exceptions. So following my logic and the two players you mentioned, it would be up to the club to decide, as it does now but often badly. To say I think all players should be given 1-2 year deals is incorrect but I do think it should and will become the norm at the club. 

[Jamboelite]

5 hours ago, Gorgie Boot boy said:

Will be happy for it to be sorted, Crazy situation for us and Loic. Even though he hasn't done it for us he doesn't deserve the bullshit said here.

Is becoming a scape goat for other people agenda's. I made a mistake he has played 21 games all in for us since 2019 , i feel for him not getting our support.

 

 

Wait based on the games he has played he has been poor(and thats polite) and so with that and injuries he is rightly being moved on and the opinion of most is he has been a poor buy.

 

Thats not being a scapegoat thats just based on what has been seen.

 

There maybe a player in there, he may have had things to deal with but in the 21 games he played he didnt play well and thats the truth of it.

[Perth to Paisley]

Hands up who thought he was a bad signing when he arrived .. not many, if any

Given his  cv he should have been better.

 

There are some things you cannot predict - presumably coaching was a factor. for his performance: but self motivation is paramount! 

[john thomas]

26 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

I said clearly there would be rare exceptions. So following my logic and the two players you mentioned, it would be up to the club to decide, as it does now but often badly. To say I think all players should be given 1-2 year deals is incorrect but I do think it should and will become the norm at the club. 

Logically shorter deals are being done at the moment because of which league we are in . Sometimes that may even be the players choice .

People seem to forget that players have a big say in these matters .

Whose decision do you think it was to make Kingsley's contract 1 year ?

[jr ewing]

16 minutes ago, Perth to Paisley said:

Hands up who thought he was a bad signing when he arrived .. not many, if any

Given his  cv he should have been better.

 

There are some things you cannot predict - presumably coaching was a factor. for his performance: but self motivation is paramount! 

✋ Never heard of him. Never seen him play, and management obviously never heard or saw him play either. 

[GinRummy]

13 minutes ago, john thomas said:

Logically shorter deals are being done at the moment because of which league we are in . Sometimes that may even be the players choice .

People seem to forget that players have a big say in these matters .

Whose decision do you think it was to make Kingsley's contract 1 year ?

That’s all fair comment. As for Kingsley, given his injury record, it could have been either party. 
 

Going forward my preference would be that 1-2 year deals are dished out as a matter of course and longer deals much more rarely. 

Edited December 30, 2020 by GinRummy

[A_A wehatethehibs]

1 hour ago, CJGJ said:

Sorry but just wrong

 

It is the success of the player that matters.....Nisbet signs for Hibs on a 4 year deal and you think he should have been given 2 at max with us ?...madness

 

McGinn signed on a long term deal but following your logic he would never have been given such a deal with us...madness

 

It is the quality of the player that counts and some are worth long term deals

 

Now picking those is an art/skill and the club has not been good enough in that regard but the failures are what people focus on forgetting he successful deals 

Just seen too many supposed “quality players” on paper come in unmotivated and not perform. Just at Hearts for a last payday. Sick of it. So if it means losing out on a Sammon or Cowie here or there, so be it. We need to go our own way in the market and stop dishing out 3-4 year deals to players who on the face of it look good signings on paper. Oshaniwa, Sammon, Martin, Damour. These guys looked quite good signings on paper before they came to the club. But in the end they were absolute wasters. Even the likes of Cowie, Berra, Naismith. Have they actually been that good value for money? Just players in decline and the team has been in decline over a 3 or 4 year period. So offer these type of guys 2 year deals at best, or tell them to jog on. Connor Washington type deals, he was more than happy to sign for 2 years because he knew he could perform and get a move elsewhere. When guys demand 3 or 4 years to me it’s actually a bit of a red flag. The club needs to be protected from having someone who will take wages and contribute nothing for 2 or 3 years. And as I said in the first post I’m talking mainly about players over the age of around 22-23, guys who are mid to late career, so your 2 example players do not fall into that bracket. Look at Roberts and Frear, can you imagine if we’d given them a 3 or 4 year deal. Even Halliday. 2 years is fine. At least worst case, we get promoted this season, Frear leaves, and Roberts is a squaddie next season then he’s away, that’s a better outcome than what we’ve got with Damour. So I fully support Robbies 1-2 year deals for most players with maybe a solitary 3 or 4 year deal if a good younger player with resale value comes along. 

[Greedy Jambo]

The proof is in the pudding. We over pay on shite time and time again. 

I'm not saying that Frear is over paid but when he signed, it was the least excited i've ever been at a new signing, and oh look, he's pish. 

[Sertse]

17 minutes ago, A_A wehatethehibs said:

Just seen too many supposed “quality players” on paper come in unmotivated and not perform. Just at Hearts for a last payday. Sick of it. So if it means losing out on a Sammon or Cowie here or there, so be it. We need to go our own way in the market and stop dishing out 3-4 year deals to players who on the face of it look good signings on paper. Oshaniwa, Sammon, Martin, Damour. These guys looked quite good signings on paper before they came to the club. But in the end they were absolute wasters. Even the likes of Cowie, Berra, Naismith. Have they actually been that good value for money? Just players in decline and the team has been in decline over a 3 or 4 year period. So offer these type of guys 2 year deals at best, or tell them to jog on. Connor Washington type deals, he was more than happy to sign for 2 years because he knew he could perform and get a move elsewhere. When guys demand 3 or 4 years to me it’s actually a bit of a red flag. The club needs to be protected from having someone who will take wages and contribute nothing for 2 or 3 years. And as I said in the first post I’m talking mainly about players over the age of around 22-23, guys who are mid to late career, so your 2 example players do not fall into that bracket. Look at Roberts and Frear, can you imagine if we’d given them a 3 or 4 year deal. Even Halliday. 2 years is fine. At least worst case, we get promoted this season, Frear leaves, and Roberts is a squaddie next season then he’s away, that’s a better outcome than what we’ve got with Damour. So I fully support Robbies 1-2 year deals for most players with maybe a solitary 3 or 4 year deal if a good younger player with resale value comes along. 

Agree with most of what you're saying with the exception of Naismith, this season more often than less he's the only player actually playing for the badge, motivating and fighting. Look at him last night.

If you asked me about him last season I would agree with you.

[jr ewing]

3 minutes ago, Greedy Jambo said:

The proof is in the pudding. We over pay on shite time and time again. 

I'm not saying that Frear is over paid but when he signed, it was the least excited i've ever been at a new signing, and oh look, he's pish. 

At least it's only one season. 

[john thomas]

1 hour ago, GinRummy said:

That’s all fair comment. As for Kingsley, given his injury record, it could have been either party. 
 

Going forward my preference would be that 1-2 year deals are dished out as a matter of course and longer deals much more rarely. 

One year deal . Player has a decent season . We are struggling to keep a hold of him

Two year deal .    "        "     "       "           "      .  "     "           "          "     "     "   "      "    "

If we really fancy a player he has to get 3 years if he will accept it

[GinRummy]

33 minutes ago, john thomas said:

One year deal . Player has a decent season . We are struggling to keep a hold of him

Two year deal .    "        "     "       "           "      .  "     "           "          "     "     "   "      "    "

If we really fancy a player he has to get 3 years if he will accept it

Sorry not for me. If he impresses during his time then by all means extend his contract. We’ve had too many duds on long contracts. 

[Kiwidoug]

It's galling really.  If he was as good as we were led to believe, he could have helped us win the Scottish Cup.

 

Instead, he is an expensive liability.

[JamboAl]

1 hour ago, john thomas said:

One year deal . Player has a decent season . We are struggling to keep a hold of him

Two year deal .    "        "     "       "           "      .  "     "           "          "     "     "   "      "    "

If we really fancy a player he has to get 3 years if he will accept it

The problem we have JT is we just don't know how they're going to perform for us when we make contract offers.

Looking at Damour, he had a good CV having played at a decent club level in France and was capped through the age groups for his country before playing for Cardiff in the top English division as well as the Championship.  I would have expected someone with that sort of record to make a real impact but it hasn't happened.  The same applied with Glenn Whelan who appeared over 100 times for RoI.  His record would suggest he should have strolled it with us but alas - and when you eventually realise they are shite, it is too late.

Edited December 30, 2020 by JamboAl

[john thomas]

21 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

Sorry not for me. If he impresses during his time then by all means extend his contract. We’ve had too many duds on long contracts. 

Not totally disagreeing but you are making the assumption the player will meekly sign on the dotted line !

If he impresses he is in the driving seat .

As fans I think we [all of us] take a far too simplistic view

[john thomas]

1 minute ago, JamboAl said:

The problem we have JT is we just don't know how they're going to perform for us when we make contract offers.

Looking at Damour, he had a good CV having played at a decent club level in France and was capped through the age groups for his country before playing for Cardiff in the top English division as well as the Championship.  I would have expected someone with that sort of record to make a real impact but it hasn't happened.  The same applied with Glenn Whelan who appeared over 100 times for RoI.  His record would suggest he shoulld have strolled it with us but alas - and when you eventually realise they are shite, it is too late.

Yes but , I think , you have to take the gamble [see previous post] .

Expected Damour to do well for us , shocked Whelan didn't .

Wtf do I know ?

[Sertse]

6 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

The problem we have JT is we just don't know how they're going to perform for us when we make contract offers.

Looking at Damour, he had a good CV having played at a decent club level in France and was capped through the age groups for his country before playing for Cardiff in the top English division as well as the Championship.  I would have expected someone with that sort of record to make a real impact but it hasn't happened.  The same applied with Glenn Whelan who appeared over 100 times for RoI.  His record would suggest he should have strolled it with us but alas - and when you eventually realise they are shite, it is too late.

Falls to scouting. It's something that really needs worked on under RN. 

[JamboAl]

1 minute ago, Sertse said:

Falls to scouting. It's something that really needs worked on under RN. 

With respect that's maybe a bit simplistic.

The scouts may never have been involved too much eg the N Irish signings were credited to MacPhee and CalPat may (or may not) have tipped the club of Damour's availability.  In any case I imagine the ultimate responsibilty lies with the manager who I hope should always have the final say.

[Sertse]

2 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

With respect that's maybe a bit simplistic.

The scouts may never have been involved too much eg the N Irish signings were credited to MacPhee and CalPat may (or may not) have tipped the club of Damour's availability.  In any case I imagine the ultimate responsibilty lies with the manager who I hope should always have the final say.

That's what I'm saying though, they need to improve scouting. Just going off what backroom staff say about them doesn't work. They need structured scouting processes like other clubs do. It's absolutely insane to me the club has handed out long expensive contracts to players based on what amounts to hearsay.

I get covid makes it difficult but moving forward it's an absolute necessity.

[Newton51]

He played really well the last derby of the previous season. Was hoping he would have kicked on. Did cost us sloppy goals last season but maybe playing too deep

[Biko]

Whelan looked like he just used us a training camp to try and get in keep in the NI squad.
 

No idea what is up with Damour but like a lot of players over the years once they get a long contract they don't seem to perform, Steve Fulton only ever seem to put in a performance in the last six months of any deal he was on and we saw the best of Djoum before he got his new deal.

[Newton51]

1 minute ago, Biko said:

Whelan looked like he just used us a training camp to try and get in keep in the NI squad.
 

No idea what is up with Damour but like a lot of players over the years once they get a long contract they don't seem to perform, Steve Fulton only ever seem to put in a performance in the last six months of any deal he was on and we saw the best of Djoum before he got his new deal.

It was the republic before anyone gets annoyed. Think he was quite open about it. Thought he was ok but part time training T the club was poor

[GinRummy]

27 minutes ago, john thomas said:

Not totally disagreeing but you are making the assumption the player will meekly sign on the dotted line !

If he impresses he is in the driving seat .

As fans I think we [all of us] take a far too simplistic view

Absolutely agree but we should not be offering so many long term deals. That’s basically all I’ve been saying. The norm should be 1-2 year deals. 

[JamboAl]

11 minutes ago, Sertse said:

That's what I'm saying though, they need to improve scouting. Just going off what backroom staff say about them doesn't work. They need structured scouting processes like other clubs do. It's absolutely insane to me the club has handed out long expensive contracts to players based on what amounts to hearsay.

I get covid makes it difficult but moving forward it's an absolute necessity.

I'm not saying we relied on backroom staff.  MacPhee was supposedly behind the Norn players, which may or may not be correct, but ultimately IMO the manager decides, or should.

Edited December 30, 2020 by JamboAl

[FJT]

We can blame whoever we like for the contract but he’s a professional with a decent cv.

Something very wrong if he’s still not getting anywhere near our first team. 
Offload asap 

 

[jr ewing]

1 hour ago, GinRummy said:

Absolutely agree but we should not be offering so many long term deals. That’s basically all I’ve been saying. The norm should be 1-2 year deals. 

1-2 years and maybe a 3rd season option. 

[Greedy Jambo]

Whelan was a good signing. 

 

[heartsfc_fan]

13 minutes ago, Greedy Jambo said:

Whelan was a good signing. 

 

Was...

For about 5 games. After that he was found out and was using Hearts as a kiddy on training camp and traveling home most of the time.

[JackLadd]

I liked Whelan also and keep an eye on Fleetwood's results, have faltered recently but might still make the plays offs. 

[Greedy Jambo]

18 minutes ago, heartsfc_fan said:

Was...

For about 5 games. After that he was found out and was using Hearts as a kiddy on training camp and traveling home most of the time.

 

I was being sarcastic. I wonder how much he was paid for his 5 games. Another desperation signing from the man that didn't bother to get involved in training. 

 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

2 hours ago, Greedy Jambo said:

Whelan was a good signing. 

 

 

Whelan was only in it for Whelan. Get game time to keep him in shape for NI. The contrast in attitude between Whelan and our other more senior players like Naismith, Berra and Smith, and recently the likes of Gordon and Halliday, is striking. The club allowed him to get away with it in terms of not doing press and not getting him involved more etc so are partly at fault. Stendel was quite right to call him out on his lack of leadership.

Edited December 31, 2020 by ToqueJambo

[Guest ToqueJambo]

1 hour ago, Greedy Jambo said:

 

I was being sarcastic. I wonder how much he was paid for his 5 games. Another desperation signing from the man that didn't bother to get involved in training. 

 

 

Whelan had quality. He was far from a bad signing. A senior pro like that shouldn't need coaching and should have done a lot more.

[spacerjoe]

11 hours ago, A_A wehatethehibs said:

Just seen too many supposed “quality players” on paper come in unmotivated and not perform. Just at Hearts for a last payday. Sick of it. So if it means losing out on a Sammon or Cowie here or there, so be it. We need to go our own way in the market and stop dishing out 3-4 year deals to players who on the face of it look good signings on paper. Oshaniwa, Sammon, Martin, Damour. These guys looked quite good signings on paper before they came to the club. But in the end they were absolute wasters. Even the likes of Cowie, Berra, Naismith. Have they actually been that good value for money? Just players in decline and the team has been in decline over a 3 or 4 year period. So offer these type of guys 2 year deals at best, or tell them to jog on. Connor Washington type deals, he was more than happy to sign for 2 years because he knew he could perform and get a move elsewhere. When guys demand 3 or 4 years to me it’s actually a bit of a red flag. The club needs to be protected from having someone who will take wages and contribute nothing for 2 or 3 years. And as I said in the first post I’m talking mainly about players over the age of around 22-23, guys who are mid to late career, so your 2 example players do not fall into that bracket. Look at Roberts and Frear, can you imagine if we’d given them a 3 or 4 year deal. Even Halliday. 2 years is fine. At least worst case, we get promoted this season, Frear leaves, and Roberts is a squaddie next season then he’s away, that’s a better outcome than what we’ve got with Damour. So I fully support Robbies 1-2 year deals for most players with maybe a solitary 3 or 4 year deal if a good younger player with resale value comes along. 

 

The issue there is we won't sign players with resale value, we have to sign players with resale potential. 

 

So every 3 or 4 year deal is a punt. Generally with punts, more fail than succeed. 

[Ribble]

7 hours ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Whelan had quality. He was far from a bad signing. A senior pro like that shouldn't need coaching and should have done a lot more.

 

With Whelan we needed him in training not to be coached but for him to amalgamate into the squad, he was a good player but not good enough that he could just pitch up and play

[john thomas]

13 hours ago, GinRummy said:

Absolutely agree but we should not be offering so many long term deals. That’s basically all I’ve been saying. The norm should be 1-2 year deals. 

and then miss out on keeping good players ?

[GinRummy]

4 minutes ago, john thomas said:

and then miss out on keeping good players ?

Potentially yes. It’s a balance between having to keep ‘bad’ players and failing to keep good ones. 

[JamboAl]

1 hour ago, GinRummy said:

Potentially yes. It’s a balance between having to keep ‘bad’ players and failing to keep good ones. 

So it's best to have a flexible policy?

[GinRummy]

Just now, JamboAl said:

So it's best to have a flexible policy?

I wasn’t arguing for a rigid policy. 

[JamboAl]

2 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

I wasn’t arguing for a rigid policy. 

But I don't think we have a rigid policy eg Frear and Kingsley are on 1 year deals while Damour is 4 years with others likely somewhere in between.  The skill is to work out IN ADVANCE the players who will succeed and/or not get injured.  I don't know any club who can consistently do that and any that do manage it carry a huge amount of good luck.

[Phage]

The John Sutton problem. Fires Motherwell into Europe. Final season with them, fires in 17 goals. Looks the exactly the type of player we need up front and with a better team around him you'd think the elusive 20+ striker is coming our way.

 

Knows the league.

Relatively successful at this level.

Scores goals.

Decent attitude.

 

I'd want him on a 3/4/5 deal if I was in charge. But we all know how that one ended.

 

It's too hard to judge. Nisbet could still flop at Hibs. No matter which way you look at it, with limited resources we need to reduce contract length. Or have extension clauses built in. Regardless of a players history they either gel and click at a new club or not. And we might miss out on the big transfer fees with shorter contracts however we probably gain by not paying Loic or Martin big cash for multiple years.

 

Wonder what the culture around Oriam is like for new players. And maybe the question we should be asking is why do so many decent footballer turn up and look like they have never kicked a ball before.

 

Still convinced something is rotting at the core of our long reigning backroom staff.

[GinRummy]

42 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

But I don't think we have a rigid policy eg Frear and Kingsley are on 1 year deals while Damour is 4 years with others likely somewhere in between.  The skill is to work out IN ADVANCE the players who will succeed and/or not get injured.  I don't know any club who can consistently do that and any that do manage it carry a huge amount of good luck.

Exactly my point. Don’t hand out 3-4 year deals except on very rare occasions. We’ve handed out too many longer term deals which have hampered us financially when players don’t work out. The fact that more recent signings have been given shorter term deals is a good thing and hopefully that’s going to become the norm. 

[NLTFTh]

Is he away yet? 

[ginger jambo98]

16 hours ago, Ribble said:

 

With Whelan we needed him in training not to be coached but for him to amalgamate into the squad, he was a good player but not good enough that he could just pitch up and play

Correct. I was on a flight to Manchester the day that Celtic got beat by Clyde. Roy Keane was on it, no luggage. Apparently flew up and down for games. Didn’t do much for the team bonding by all accounts.

[Tommy Brown]

10 hours ago, ginger jambo98 said:

Correct. I was on a flight to Manchester the day that Celtic got beat by Clyde. Roy Keane was on it, no luggage. Apparently flew up and down for games. Didn’t do much for the team bonding by all accounts.

Don't know if that is true, but I doubt it.

Clyde was his debut. A wonderful one at that.

But from the link. He stayed in an Edinburgh hotel. Taken from autobiography.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/punditarena.com/football/robredmond/roy-keane-celtic-embarrassed-5/%3famp

[JamboAl]

22 hours ago, GinRummy said:

Exactly my point. Don’t hand out 3-4 year deals except on very rare occasions. We’ve handed out too many longer term deals which have hampered us financially when players don’t work out. The fact that more recent signings have been given shorter term deals is a good thing and hopefully that’s going to become the norm. 

I think you're trying to be far too prescriptive based on a few bad (hindsight) examples and when/how do you decide who is the exception?  You would need to have Mystic Meg powers 10 times over to be anywhere near certain of their worth in a Hearts jersey.

As an example if we tried to sign say Caulker what length of contract and terms should he be offered and what if he insisted on a longer contract before agreeing to sign?  One answer is that we just don't sign him and make do with what we have or go down out list of the next best available - in other words dilute our ambitions.  What is the answer?