Signing of probably shoite players just to appease fans

https://www.hartlepoolunited.co.uk/news ... r-on-loan/

This will please the fans NOT . Moaning about Bates negative tactics and he goes and signs an 18 year old defender on loan ( yeah Kenton my heart bleeds for you ) on the basis of coincidently seeing him play for Kidsgrove v Workington and the subsequent game v Us.

What about Luke Charman


FFS!

Who knows, he could be another Jack Baldwin who we signed at that age which would be no bad thing.

Send him back.
I'm basing this opinion on this thread, he's rubbish.

The usual bullshit replies. Yeah he could be the next Vincent Kompany, but probably not, otherwise why hasn't no one else signed him?. We have seen this all before, FFS! it happens every season, the first acts of a manager who invariably will be sacked around March/April 2019. FFS! If this player is that good he will start on Saturday, bet he doesn't.

They usually are thought PaulL , especially in the case of loan signings. Bates only stumbled on this gem as a result of us drawing Kidsgrove in the cup.

And breathe !

Err... because the article says he's cup tied? And I think you mean 'inevitably' (as Pools haven't sacked any other managers in March/April 2019). HTH.

Cup tied ? well that's a heap of good then. As for the sackings, sure Neale Cooper was sacked in April, though I agree we should sack managers earlier than March or April LOL !

I'm going to try watching the lad play for Pools before I judge him and Bates' decision to sign him.

I'll probably get burned at the stake for such an outrageous idea mind.

Agreed, let’s give the kid a chance - if we are going spend real money (ooh me ribs) then I would rather see it outlaid on a creative midfielder to complement Noble AND (or more likely OR) a fabled beast that is a natural goal scorer in this division the like of which we have not seen at the Vic for 10+ years. Apart that is from loanees such as Hugill etc whose goascoring feats enabled the club to eke out its wretched FL existence for a few months longer. But then again - who of this ilk would want to come to Pools?

So, back in the real world it is a concern that mumbler Bates is quoted on the Hartlepool Fail site as ‘We can only sign players who are put to us’ (?!?). This presumably means that our esteemed (and doubtless highly paid DOF is not doing is job? Whatever happened to targeting your man and going and getting him? Oh sorry I forgot, the age of austerity is not dead.

Don't be daft, I hope it works out well for the lad and us , but lets get real, Stoke value this player so highly they have already loaned him out this season, not to Shrewsbury or Port Vale or even Tranmere, no bloody Kidsgrove , how may leagues below us ?.

Its a right kick in the teeth for Kitching, Richardson and Anderson. Clearly if there is/was any unrest last weekend, it centres around these players imo and Bates has brought in a player no other club wanted, to freshen things up, but more than likely will fuel any unrest.


No doubt like Dinanga there will be clause in loan deal stipulating he must play at least a minute every game.

So yet another manager looking to score goals by talking and saying he wants to get a striker? And yet we get a Defender who is cup tied.

A kid is signed on loan. And.....?
It really is nothing news.
Move along please, nothing to see here.

"He had a good game against us" - I'd have a good game at centre half against us - our strikers are hardly ever in the box.
We have a young centre half out on loan ( who MB says he rates ) , so we sign a young centre half on loan - the logic is beyond me.

Arguably Pools' best signing of the summer was Peter Kioso, an 18 year old who was on MK Dons books before getting his chance at the mighty Dunstable Town, who play in exactly the same tier of semi-pro football as Kidsgrove. Who's to say James Butler isn't as good a prospect?

If he's likely to be a free agent in the summer, where's the harm in adding him to the group and having a proper look at him? I'll be surprised if he goes straight into the first team at anyone's expense.

It's quite obvious really ...

... err, no it's not.

You seriously think because Pools have signed this kid on loan for 2 months they won't be signing a striker? Watch this space.

give the lad a chance. not what most were hopeing for but you never know.

If he isnt going straight into first team, whats the point of signing him? its same old same old, seen it all before, players signed who know one else wants in an attempt to keep the restless natives happy.

'Here we go again'

Agree entirely, we sign a player on loan for no fee and the usual bunker members are in uproar.

Only in Hartlepool.

Bunker has been really quiet recently, and another 4 or 5 members disappeared.

I wonder why.

Dunno Tree, the other board is livelier and their favourite topic is manager musical chairs. And right on cue we get Hat>Ring - couple of pages at least for that one!

Worst thread in bunker history this.

"If he isnt going straight into first team, whats the point of signing him? its same old same old, seen it all before, players signed who know one else wants in an attempt to keep the restless natives happy."

I'm going to stick my neck right out and say that there is a possibility that the point of signing him was that the manager liked the look of him and found out that he could get a short term loan for no or virtually no outlay. At no risk to Pools he gets to work with the lad for a couple of months. depending on what he sees he might decide to sign him in the hope he can develop into a decent player become a first team regular and maybe be sold on for a decent fee. That would also fit with the model that the Director of Football talked about being the best way to operate at our level or even a division or two above.

Signing a proven striker as a quick fix to our goal scoring issues is a totally different thing.