Forest now playing hardball over adomah

Forest haven’t yet let adomah stay on loan to us past 30th June at the moment..

With us now sneaking into the play offs I believe forest don’t want adomah to stay.

To be honest I don’t think it would be a massive miss we’ve got Mendez fit again and Murphy also back very soon.

Seems a nice guy but just doesn’t offer that much I don’t think

I wouldnt blame them and would expect us to do the same.

He wouldnt really be missed in the starting 11 as we have Mendez back but he has done very well since he has been here and would be a blow to the squad strength overall

I wouldnt blame them and would expect us to do the same.

He wouldnt really be missed in the starting 11 as we have Mendez back but he has done very well since he has been here and would be a blow to the squad strength overall

Yup I agree

If that's going to be the case I'd definitely start him on Tuesday

Forest will drop out of the play-offs, overtaken by Snowflake County.

Unc' has had a fantastic impact in the changing room, a top pro. I would want him to stay as he's not a flashy winger any more but his decision making is very good. Personally I would agree a deal for a transfer at the end of the season. I know he's a bit older but he's got the nous to play and is really good in away games when you need to be smarter on the ball.

Forest haven’t yet let adomah stay on loan to us past 30th June at the moment..

With us now sneaking into the play offs I believe forest don’t want adomah to stay.

To be honest I don’t think it would be a massive miss we’ve got Mendez fit again and Murphy also back very soon.

Seems a nice guy but just doesn’t offer that much I don’t think

Totally agree does nothing for me Mendez Lang murphy and whyte are far more exciting players and they get up and at them has you say he seems a nice guy but that’s has far has it goes we have let better players go in the past

Hardly in the spirit of the game, if he's not allowed to finish the job; but then again this is Nottigham we are talking about and they'll have their own (scabby) agenda just like last time...!

Hardly in the spirit of the game, if he's not allowed to finish the job; but then again this is Nottigham we are talking about and they'll have their own (scabby) agenda just like last time...!

If we had loaned Glatzel out to forest and he had scored 15 goals this season would you extend the loan given the league positions currently ?

It could easily be the difference between them going up and us

Hardly in the spirit of the game, if he's not allowed to finish the job; but then again this is Nottigham we are talking about and they'll have their own (scabby) agenda just like last time...!

If we had loaned Glatzel out to forest and he had scored 15 goals this season would you extend the loan given the league positions currently ?

It could easily be the difference between them going up and us

Perhaps you could argue that they were happy to loan him to us in January for the remainder of the season and the season won't end for another seven games (and hopefully more). Are they effectively breaching the terms of the loan agreement by wanting him back earlier than the end of the season?

Probably not as the loan agreement probably only ran until 30th June but it depends what the agreement was I suppose.

Absolutely was a championship level wide forward but massively on the downgrade.

He works hard and covers well, but goals and assists are his metric and i don't see any successes. TBH I am unsure if he is better than Whyte at this moment. He added much needed cover when NML was "out for the season" but with him back with Murphy he is number 4 wide forward.

He is a forest player and has another year on his contract so he must do as they want. But they like us will be trying to shed high earning squad players and probably want a more permanent transfer agreed as part of the extension.

Great if we can keep him another month with no strings, but no massive loss if forest want him back

Hardly in the spirit of the game, if he's not allowed to finish the job; but then again this is Nottigham we are talking about and they'll have their own (scabby) agenda just like last time...!

I sing scabby Nottingham too... but the { unpopular } truth is their union had a ballot.. which Arthur jags didnt

Hardly in the spirit of the game, if he's not allowed to finish the job; but then again this is Nottigham we are talking about and they'll have their own (scabby) agenda just like last time...!

If we had loaned Glatzel out to forest and he had scored 15 goals this season would you extend the loan given the league positions currently ?

It could easily be the difference between them going up and us

ill be shocked if they just allow us to keep him... maybe the EFL will step in..?
but if this was a Cardiff player on loan and starting for them id be wanting him back yesterday...

Hardly in the spirit of the game, if he's not allowed to finish the job; but then again this is Nottigham we are talking about and they'll have their own (scabby) agenda just like last time...!

If we had loaned Glatzel out to forest and he had scored 15 goals this season would you extend the loan given the league positions currently ?

It could easily be the difference between them going up and us

Perhaps you could argue that they were happy to loan him to us in January for the remainder of the season and the season won't end for another seven games (and hopefully more). Are they effectively breaching the terms of the loan agreement by wanting him back earlier than the end of the season?

Probably not as the loan agreement probably only ran until 30th June but it depends what the agreement was I suppose.

^^^^THIS^^^^

Hardly in the spirit of the game, if he's not allowed to finish the job; but then again this is Nottigham we are talking about and they'll have their own (scabby) agenda just like last time...!

If we had loaned Glatzel out to forest and he had scored 15 goals this season would you extend the loan given the league positions currently ?

It could easily be the difference between them going up and us

Perhaps you could argue that they were happy to loan him to us in January for the remainder of the season and the season won't end for another seven games (and hopefully more). Are they effectively breaching the terms of the loan agreement by wanting him back earlier than the end of the season?

Probably not as the loan agreement probably only ran until 30th June but it depends what the agreement was I suppose.

^^^^THIS^^^^

I wouldn't think they are breaching any agreement. Loans are agreed on amount of time ( date to date ) not amount of matches and his loan would have been until june 30th as stated. It's not forests fault the season has run over and they would be within there rights to have him back.

Hardly in the spirit of the game, if he's not allowed to finish the job; but then again this is Nottigham we are talking about and they'll have their own (scabby) agenda just like last time...!

If we had loaned Glatzel out to forest and he had scored 15 goals this season would you extend the loan given the league positions currently ?

It could easily be the difference between them going up and us

Perhaps you could argue that they were happy to loan him to us in January for the remainder of the season and the season won't end for another seven games (and hopefully more). Are they effectively breaching the terms of the loan agreement by wanting him back earlier than the end of the season?

Probably not as the loan agreement probably only ran until 30th June but it depends what the agreement was I suppose.

^^^^THIS^^^^

no ifs here or breaching contracts... its an issue for a reason...NH hasn't sat up all night thinking up non existent problems..