Guest alex Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 "....did I mention that no one commands more respect in the changing rooms than first choice right back Stephen Carr?" Aye but to be fair Glenn was just talking about Carr's enormous penis. Remember this is only Mc Kay talking at the minute, should the club decide to only give him a one year contract there isn't much he can do as he's unlikey to have any better offers on the table, I'd be absolutely amazed if we offered him two years. I think he meant 'demands' rather than 'commands'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 9798 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 "Planning" or better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asteroidblitz 12 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 The player's agent Willie McKay confirmed talks were ongoing over a new deal for the former Lens man. "I have spoken to Glenn Roeder regarding Antoine's contract and he is very keen to keep him," McKay told skysports.com Now there's the reason why... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMoog 0 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Most teams tend to work on strength in depth, Sibs has done enough this season to warrant being back up. I don't see the problem, if we didn't keep him we'd just have to sign someone else as cover and with him being at the back end of his career he's probably a lot cheaper for a club with no money like ours to fill in when needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asprilla 96 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Most teams tend to work on strength in depth, Sibs has done enough this season to warrant being back up. I don't see the problem, if we didn't keep him we'd just have to sign someone else as cover and with him being at the back end of his career he's probably a lot cheaper for a club with no money like ours to fill in when needed. Yes, but your post makes sense....you want to watch that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44938 Posted February 6, 2007 Author Share Posted February 6, 2007 Most teams tend to work on strength in depth, Sibs has done enough this season to warrant being back up. I don't see the problem, if we didn't keep him we'd just have to sign someone else as cover and with him being at the back end of his career he's probably a lot cheaper for a club with no money like ours to fill in when needed. Having Sibierski on the bench is not strength in depth. We should be disposing of players that aren't good enough - especially a player like this who we can let walk away for free secure in the knowledge that his value in the transfer market is negligible anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44938 Posted February 6, 2007 Author Share Posted February 6, 2007 Most teams tend to work on strength in depth, Sibs has done enough this season to warrant being back up. I don't see the problem, if we didn't keep him we'd just have to sign someone else as cover and with him being at the back end of his career he's probably a lot cheaper for a club with no money like ours to fill in when needed. Yes, but your post makes sense....you want to watch that. You're just content with whatever the club do, aren't you? Getting Sibierski in in the first place was a shocker, but he happens to have had a run where he excelled himself. Now we're talking about extending his deal. He should NEVER have been anything other than a short term option as a stopgap. He shouldn't be becoming a permanent member of the squad. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottish Mag 3 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Most teams tend to work on strength in depth, Sibs has done enough this season to warrant being back up. I don't see the problem, if we didn't keep him we'd just have to sign someone else as cover and with him being at the back end of his career he's probably a lot cheaper for a club with no money like ours to fill in when needed. Yes, but your post makes sense....you want to watch that. To be honest I do not see it as a move that makes sense. I think we are in agreement that in the next transfer window we will be attempting to sign another striker with more of a physical prescence. That would then leave us with a pool of strikers of Owen, Martins, New striker, Ameobi and Dyer (?). Surely rather than pay wages to a player who isn't really good enough or needed, the money would be better spent on another area of the team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinofbeans 91 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 surely ewerk you mean inverted.. this is a strange move. i'd actually start a pay as you play scheme for someone like le sib.... that way you'll get the most out of his limited capabilities. we need him to the summer at least however, as we are so short of striking/ bald options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asprilla 96 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 (edited) Most teams tend to work on strength in depth, Sibs has done enough this season to warrant being back up. I don't see the problem, if we didn't keep him we'd just have to sign someone else as cover and with him being at the back end of his career he's probably a lot cheaper for a club with no money like ours to fill in when needed. Yes, but your post makes sense....you want to watch that. You're just content with whatever the club do, aren't you? Getting Sibierski in in the first place was a shocker, but he happens to have had a run where he excelled himself. Now we're talking about extending his deal. He should NEVER have been anything other than a short term option as a stopgap. He shouldn't be becoming a permanent member of the squad. Simple as that. I think Sibierski is a decent enough player to hang on to....the back four are clearly the priority. Having a quiet guy who's competent enough and not disruptive is a good temporary answer IMO. We do have Sherla and Owen to come back up front. Sibierski is there in the same way that Kevin Gallacher used to be. Just a half decent pro who'll fill a gap while we concentrate on the real problem areas. I bet he's not on very big money. Edited February 6, 2007 by Asprilla's foreskin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patrokles Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 A year would be reasonable. Two is pushing it a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21636 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Most teams tend to work on strength in depth, Sibs has done enough this season to warrant being back up. I don't see the problem, if we didn't keep him we'd just have to sign someone else as cover and with him being at the back end of his career he's probably a lot cheaper for a club with no money like ours to fill in when needed. Yes, but your post makes sense....you want to watch that. You're just content with whatever the club do, aren't you? Getting Sibierski in in the first place was a shocker, but he happens to have had a run where he excelled himself. Now we're talking about extending his deal. He should NEVER have been anything other than a short term option as a stopgap. He shouldn't be becoming a permanent member of the squad. Simple as that. I think Sibierski is a decent enough player to hang on to....the back four are clearly the priority. Having a quiet guy who's competent enough and not disruptive is a good temporary answer IMO. We do have Sherla and Owen to come back up front. Sibierski is there in the same way that Kevin Gallacher used to be. Just a half decent pro who'll fill a gap while we concentrate on the real problem areas. I bet he's not on very big money. You're not suggesting Sibierski is the same quailty as Gallacher are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Most teams tend to work on strength in depth, Sibs has done enough this season to warrant being back up. I don't see the problem, if we didn't keep him we'd just have to sign someone else as cover and with him being at the back end of his career he's probably a lot cheaper for a club with no money like ours to fill in when needed. Yes, but your post makes sense....you want to watch that. You're just content with whatever the club do, aren't you? Getting Sibierski in in the first place was a shocker, but he happens to have had a run where he excelled himself. Now we're talking about extending his deal. He should NEVER have been anything other than a short term option as a stopgap. He shouldn't be becoming a permanent member of the squad. Simple as that. I think Sibierski is a decent enough player to hang on to....the back four are clearly the priority. Having a quiet guy who's competent enough and not disruptive is a good temporary answer IMO. We do have Sherla and Owen to come back up front. Sibierski is there in the same way that Kevin Gallacher used to be. Just a half decent pro who'll fill a gap while we concentrate on the real problem areas. I bet he's not on very big money. One year was temporary. Three years (as it will end up) is anything but. My theory is that Roeder is waxing it cos he's effectively been laughed at by players during the transfer windows and has got nowhere. Out of his depth with that side of things and bricking it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44938 Posted February 6, 2007 Author Share Posted February 6, 2007 Aye, was just about to say like, big difference between Gallacher as a squad player and Sibierski. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44938 Posted February 6, 2007 Author Share Posted February 6, 2007 This is a bloke considered not good enough to warm the bench at Manchester City ffs. We're about to offer him a two year deal. I don't care how you want to package it up "strength in depth" (errr...no), good backup (errr..no), "a good temporary answer" (nope). We should be shaking his hand, thanking him for his efforts, and showing him the door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 As manc-mag points out. 3 years! COAB! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 This is a bloke considered not good enough to warm the bench at Manchester City ffs. We're about to offer him a two year deal. I don't care how you want to package it up "strength in depth" (errr...no), good backup (errr..no), "a good temporary answer" (nope). We should be shaking his hand, thanking him for his efforts, and showing him the door. Roeder is an absolute loon I'm sure of it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asprilla 96 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 This is a bloke considered not good enough to warm the bench at Manchester City ffs. We're about to offer him a two year deal. I don't care how you want to package it up "strength in depth" (errr...no), good backup (errr..no), "a good temporary answer" (nope). We should be shaking his hand, thanking him for his efforts, and showing him the door. Yes...we SHOULD...in fact we should never have had to sign him. I think we just disagree about how big a fuck up the gung-ho Souness/Shepherd season was. I'm of the opinion that we're massively fucked...and Roeder is doing a low-key, honest John, fix-er upper job. We need to stay in the Premiership (obviously) and any European qualification/cup runs will be a bonus. We're not going to attract Mourinho or Big Phil Scolari because we don't have anything like a well oiled machine to run. Allardyce and O'Neill would be no better IMO. I do think Shepherd realises this (very belatedly) and is trying to steady the ship with a bloke who won't demand much and won't cost much. Another big ego at the club with the state it's in and a huge transfer budget we don't really have could sink us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44938 Posted February 6, 2007 Author Share Posted February 6, 2007 None of that is a reason to extend Antoine Sibierski's (ANTOINE SIBIERSKI FFS) contract by 2 years (TWO YEARS FFS). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 This is a bloke considered not good enough to warm the bench at Manchester City ffs. We're about to offer him a two year deal. I don't care how you want to package it up "strength in depth" (errr...no), good backup (errr..no), "a good temporary answer" (nope). We should be shaking his hand, thanking him for his efforts, and showing him the door. Yes...we SHOULD...in fact we should never have had to sign him. I think we just disagree about how big a fuck up the gung-ho Souness/Shepherd season was. I'm of the opinion that we're massively fucked...and Roeder is doing a low-key, honest John, fix-er upper job. We need to stay in the Premiership (obviously) and any European qualification/cup runs will be a bonus. We're not going to attract Mourinho or Big Phil Scolari because we don't have anything like a well oiled machine to run. Allardyce and O'Neill would be no better IMO. I do think Shepherd realises this (very belatedly) and is trying to steady the ship with a bloke who won't demand much and won't cost much. Another big ego at the club with the state it's in and a huge transfer budget we don't really have could sink us. Agree with most of that. Apart from thinking both Allardyce and MON would do a better job here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21636 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 This is a bloke considered not good enough to warm the bench at Manchester City ffs. We're about to offer him a two year deal. I don't care how you want to package it up "strength in depth" (errr...no), good backup (errr..no), "a good temporary answer" (nope). We should be shaking his hand, thanking him for his efforts, and showing him the door. Yes...we SHOULD...in fact we should never have had to sign him. I think we just disagree about how big a fuck up the gung-ho Souness/Shepherd season was. I'm of the opinion that we're massively fucked...and Roeder is doing a low-key, honest John, fix-er upper job. We need to stay in the Premiership (obviously) and any European qualification/cup runs will be a bonus. We're not going to attract Mourinho or Big Phil Scolari because we don't have anything like a well oiled machine to run. Allardyce and O'Neill would be no better IMO. I do think Shepherd realises this (very belatedly) and is trying to steady the ship with a bloke who won't demand much and won't cost much. Another big ego at the club with the state it's in and a huge transfer budget we don't really have could sink us. Agree with most of that. Apart from thinking both Allardyce and MON would do a better job here. Expectations are well truly lowered like. Sibierski ffs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottish Mag 3 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 This is a bloke considered not good enough to warm the bench at Manchester City ffs. We're about to offer him a two year deal. I don't care how you want to package it up "strength in depth" (errr...no), good backup (errr..no), "a good temporary answer" (nope). We should be shaking his hand, thanking him for his efforts, and showing him the door. Yes...we SHOULD...in fact we should never have had to sign him. I think we just disagree about how big a fuck up the gung-ho Souness/Shepherd season was. I'm of the opinion that we're massively fucked...and Roeder is doing a low-key, honest John, fix-er upper job. We need to stay in the Premiership (obviously) and any European qualification/cup runs will be a bonus. We're not going to attract Mourinho or Big Phil Scolari because we don't have anything like a well oiled machine to run. Allardyce and O'Neill would be no better IMO. I do think Shepherd realises this (very belatedly) and is trying to steady the ship with a bloke who won't demand much and won't cost much. Another big ego at the club with the state it's in and a huge transfer budget we don't really have could sink us. Disagree on Allardyce. Whilst there will always be arguments on the style of football his teams play, he would do a better job through both his man management in getting the best out of players (luque?) and with what seems to be a worrying time for us financially he has a proven record of working on a budget and I am sure would have strengthened the team considerably in the transfer market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asprilla 96 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 I don't think Allardyce would fancy joining us if there was less to spend than he gets at Bolton though....why would he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21636 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 (edited) I don't think Allardyce would fancy joining us if there was less to spend than he gets at Bolton though....why would he? Has Roeder spent less than Allerdyce this year? Serious question, I don't know, but I wouldn't have though so. Edited February 6, 2007 by Renton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@yourservice 67 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 I don't think Allardyce would fancy joining us if there was less to spend than he gets at Bolton though....why would he? Someone will come back in for a take over,i hope so anyway,as it seems like the only way out of the shit 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