Scottish Mag 3 Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 PSV Eindhoven have pulled out of talks to sign Newcastle forward Albert Luque on loan until the end of the season. Luque was keen on the switch to Holland, according to the 28-year-old Newcastle outcast's representative. But it is understood Newcastle were not keen to release the Spanish star for the second half of the season, despite his struggle to settle on Tyneside. PSV technical director Stan Valckx told De Telegraaf newspaper: "In principle, we can forget that." The former Deportivo La Coruna player has struggled since joining the Magpies for £9.5m in 2005, and wants a move to resurrect his career. Luque has struggled to make even the bench this season at Newcastle despite a return to full fitness and the Magpies having major injury problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally 0 Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Oh for fucks sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 9577 Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 I don't understand this. It's really unlikely that he will play. At least reducing a bit of his enormous wages would be good as we won't get anything in return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 That's disgraceful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 42638 Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 How is it disgraceful? The dirty Dutchies were probably taking the piss on how much of his wages they should pay or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 How is it disgraceful? The dirty Dutchies were probably taking the piss on how much of his wages they should pay or something. Why are we not so keen on releasing someone who doesn't even make the bench? It's reminiscent sending Milner to Villa for talks on deadline day then saying "Oh hang about Jimmy, we couldn't sign that fat aussie bastard, back you come son." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 42638 Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 It's not even remotely like that. Couple more injuries and even Luque might get a game. Until we get replacements in we shouldn't be reducing the squad even further. And I couldn't give two fucks for Luque's feelings in all of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29491 Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 The only reason I can see for us not letting him go is that things are looking bleak on our search for a new striker and we're not willing to let him leave unless we know we've got a replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally 0 Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 How is it disgraceful? The dirty Dutchies were probably taking the piss on how much of his wages they should pay or something. Why are we not so keen on releasing someone who doesn't even make the bench? It's reminiscent sending Milner to Villa for talks on deadline day then saying "Oh hang about Jimmy, we couldn't sign that fat aussie bastard, back you come son." No its not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebellious 0 Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 It's not even remotely like that. Couple more injuries and even Luque might get a game. Until we get replacements in we shouldn't be reducing the squad even further. And I couldn't give two fucks for Luque's feelings in all of this. That was my thought, maybe if we don`t get anyone in and the whole reserve team plus the academy players all get wiped out in a freak accident whilst the whole first team is injured GR might need to use him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 The only reason I can see for us not letting him go is that things are looking bleak on our search for a new striker and we're not willing to let him leave unless we know we've got a replacement. Probably, although I'm hoping it was just then taking the piss about how much of his wage they'd pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 99 Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Well, Im sure we'd be keen on letting him go or it would have been a non starter from the word go. More than likely we can agree on the terms of the loan. As its been said he earns a fairly hefty wage and its also been said they'd prb want to us pay half. It sounds likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chip2388 0 Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Well, Im sure we'd be keen on letting him go or it would have been a non starter from the word go. More than likely we can agree on the terms of the loan. As its been said he earns a fairly hefty wage and its also been said they'd prb want to us pay half. It sounds likely. Finally someone who speaks sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Lazaru 0 Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 The only reason I can see for us not letting him go is that things are looking bleak on our search for a new striker and we're not willing to let him leave unless we know we've got a replacement. Sadly that is the way it is at the moment, we can't afford to let him go without having a striker lined up be it buying outright or on loan. Also i suspect they were going to pay too small a fraction of his wages for Fred to accept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now