Sibierski to get two year extension

[manc-mag 1]

None of that is a reason to extend Antoine Sibierski's (ANTOINE SIBIERSKI FFS) contract by 2 years (TWO YEARS FFS).

 

 

[Dr Gloom 21951]

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.

 

i'm sure we spent more than them but not that much more. didn't bolton cain £8m on anelka? they've got more money knocking about than they used to, that's for sure.

[Guest alex]

It's the same with O'Neill tbh, he's spent around £17million, Roeder's spent around £16million (I think). Difference is, O'Neill has brought in a few players who've strengthened the squad in the right areas. Roeder has basically pissed it away on two players (one of whom was essential, one of whom was superfluous to our needs). Now, while I think Roeder has done ok under the circumstances, I don't think you can say on one hand we have no money, then defend the purchase of Duff on the other.

[TheMoog 0]

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.

 

And leaving the squad thinner than it already is?

 

Sibs was a good player prior to moving to Man City, he just didn't click there as happens sometimes with players. The fact that he can play as a forward or midfielder just makes him that more useable in a squad, especially one as weak as ours. We should be concentrating on getting players in rather than out.

Edited February 6, 2007 by Armchair Pundit

[sniffer 0]

Shows the difference in mentality between a proper club and the Toon.

 

Robert Pires, for example, shown the door when he's ten times the player sibierski is. When you see decisions like this, with the agent and roeder taking everybody for an idiot, it makes your piss boil and you really wonder why you bother.

[sniffer 0]

Has the fact escaped you that he's not much good in either position escaped you armchair?

[Gemmill 44947]

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.

 

And leaving the squad thinner than it already is?

 

Sibs was a good player prior to moving to Man City, he just didn't click there as happens sometimes with players. The fact that he can play as a forward or midfielder just make him that more useable in a squad, especially one as weak as ours. We should be concentrating on getting players in rather than out.

 

He was a good player before he joined Man City, was he? Well he wasn't very good there, and he doesn't look much cop here either (sorry, but he's mediocre, had a nice run when he first got here). Yes, we should be concentrating on getting players in, but not mediocre ones. This lad was a stop gap and we are about to extend his stay to THREE YEARS man. I can't believe people are rationalising this as a good move. It's a shambles.

 

As for leaving the squad thinner than it is - no, you have 3 months in the summer to remedy that. I'm not talking about spending megabucks, but keeping bad players at the club is not the answer either.

[Baggio 0]

Shows the difference in mentality between a proper club and the Toon.

 

Leazes Mag will cross you off his list of good posters for that comment, Sniffer.

[TheMoog 0]

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.

 

And leaving the squad thinner than it already is?

 

Sibs was a good player prior to moving to Man City, he just didn't click there as happens sometimes with players. The fact that he can play as a forward or midfielder just make him that more useable in a squad, especially one as weak as ours. We should be concentrating on getting players in rather than out.

 

He was a good player before he joined Man City, was he? Well he wasn't very good there, and he doesn't look much cop here either (sorry, but he's mediocre, had a nice run when he first got here). Yes, we should be concentrating on getting players in, but not mediocre ones. This lad was a stop gap and we are about to extend his stay to THREE YEARS man. I can't believe people are rationalising this as a good move. It's a shambles.

 

As for leaving the squad thinner than it is - no, you have 3 months in the summer to remedy that. I'm not talking about spending megabucks, but keeping bad players at the club is not the answer either.

 

Don't get me wrong, I can see where you're coming from, I'd love to see better players brought in but from what we've seen it's unlikely that the club has either adequate funds or the wanting to spend. Players like Sib fill in the gaps in the team where depth is needed, and be fair, he's not as bad as some of you are making out. For the time being, with the state the club is in and the cloud of takeovers hanging over any buying decisions it's a cheaper option to keep someone you've already got on your books and it's probable that Sib's not being paid much either. He makes up the numbers, we are a very bare bones team so I don't see the problem with keeping hold of a player like him until we're sorted out - and lets face it do you honestly see that happening in thenext 2 years? Unless a miracle happens we're a mid table team as much as I hate to admit it and beggars can't be choosers - IF we could get rid of Fat Fred and bring in a decent manager then we might get somewhere...

Edited February 6, 2007 by Armchair Pundit

[Isegrim 9798]

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.

 

And leaving the squad thinner than it already is?

 

Sibs was a good player prior to moving to Man City, he just didn't click there as happens sometimes with players. The fact that he can play as a forward or midfielder just make him that more useable in a squad, especially one as weak as ours. We should be concentrating on getting players in rather than out.

 

He was a good player before he joined Man City, was he? Well he wasn't very good there, and he doesn't look much cop here either (sorry, but he's mediocre, had a nice run when he first got here). Yes, we should be concentrating on getting players in, but not mediocre ones. This lad was a stop gap and we are about to extend his stay to THREE YEARS man. I can't believe people are rationalising this as a good move. It's a shambles.

 

As for leaving the squad thinner than it is - no, you have 3 months in the summer to remedy that. I'm not talking about spending megabucks, but keeping bad players at the club is not the answer either.

 

Don't get me wrong, I can see where you're coming from, I'd love to see better players brought in but from what we've seen it's unlikely that the club has either adequate funds or the wanting to spend. Players like Sib fill in the gaps in the team where depth is needed, and be fair, he's not as bad as some of you are making out. For the time being, with the state the club is in and the cloud of takeovers hanging over any buying decisions it's a cheaper option to keep someone you've already got on your books and it's probable that Sib's not being paid much either. He makes up the numbers, we are a very bare bones team so I don't see the problem with keeping hold of a player like him until we're sorted out - and lets face it do you honestly see that happening in thenext 2 years? Unless a miracle happens we're a mid table team as much as I hate to admit it and beggars can't be choosers - IF we could get rid of Fat Fred and bring in a decent manager then we might get somewhere...

But, don't you think we should first assess, if there are any better players available on the market, before we hand him a new contract? We have a couple of months until the summer where we can look at players whose contract runs out, who are looking for a change etc. and might be available for decent money. I don't consider Le Sib as that kind of an important player where we under pressure to sign him up, before someone else does. If we are in June and haven't found anyone, then we can still think about giving him another one-year contract, but definitely not give him a new two-year contract yet.

[Bombadil 0]

Those defending Roeder over this one fail to understand the following: There is nothing wrong with having a number of back-up players in the squad, i.e. players who can come in, do a job and who won't complain when they're not playing. The point is that there are probably literally dozens of (younger) players who could fill that role better than Sibierski.

 

I also agree with the poster who pointed out that giving Sibierski a two-year contract leading up to his retirement is not exactly an incentive for him to try as hard as possible to impress. There is an argument for saying that Sibierski's purple patch probably had a lot to do with the fact that he was playing for what is left of his footballing career.

[Optimistic Nut 154]

Can't believe this really. If we're after a big striker as cheap back-up, go to Fulham in the summer with a million quid and get McBride in for a season.

[MattM4 0]

See what I mean about there being serious trust issues. Sib has merited a one year extension... pretty obvious no?

 

But Roeder can't even get that right

[Baggio 0]

It must be a kick in the teeth for a young striker like Andy Carroll trying to break through.

[luckyluke 2]

IF we couldn't get another striker AND there was no one coming through the ranks come the end of the season then it could be worth giving him another year. But giving him two years NOW is stupid.

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

he'll make a decent super sub if he keeps himself fit. I don't think he's one of those players that needs a run of games to find his shooting boots, and I think he'll still be motivated to do the business given a limited oppurtunity

 

That, and for the reason he'll be on buttons compared to the rest of the squad, I say keep him

 

I am of course only looking at the deal on it's own, as analysing any decision in a wider context when it comes to NUFC has become an exercise in futility

[Fop 1]

It's the same with O'Neill tbh, he's spent around £17million, Roeder's spent around £16million (I think). Difference is, O'Neill has brought in a few players who've strengthened the squad in the right areas. Roeder has basically pissed it away on two players (one of whom was essential, one of whom was superfluous to our needs). Now, while I think Roeder has done ok under the circumstances, I don't think you can say on one hand we have no money, then defend the purchase of Duff on the other.

 

 

I dunno Martins has been worth his money, and we'd likely still be in the religation zone if we'd not signed him.

 

Duff is a different kettle of fish, but I kinda think Sheperd had a lot more to do with that (personally I'm still hoping Duff can regain some old form, and not just become a new Carr for us).

 

 

Mind you, a 2 year extentsion for Sib is just silly, 1 year might be a good idea.... although if this is just agent talk then there might be only that on the table and he's just trying to talk things up.

[sammynb 3359]

"....did I mention that no one commands more respect in the changing rooms than first choice right back Stephen Carr?"

That's only because his other job is being madam lash!

[sammynb 3359]

How come a shitty club like citeh can get away with players agreeing to pay as you play deals and yet we find it necessary to pay over the odds for transfers and wages.

If the sib is good enough let him earn his wage because he is being selected not because he's contracted and doing nowt.

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

"....did I mention that no one commands more respect in the changing rooms than first choice right back Stephen Carr?"

That's only because his other job is being madam lash!

 

nah he's the tuck shop monitor

[Guest alex]

It's the same with O'Neill tbh, he's spent around £17million, Roeder's spent around £16million (I think). Difference is, O'Neill has brought in a few players who've strengthened the squad in the right areas. Roeder has basically pissed it away on two players (one of whom was essential, one of whom was superfluous to our needs). Now, while I think Roeder has done ok under the circumstances, I don't think you can say on one hand we have no money, then defend the purchase of Duff on the other.

 

I dunno Martins has been worth his money, and we'd likely still be in the religation zone if we'd not signed him.

Duff is a different kettle of fish, but I kinda think Sheperd had a lot more to do with that (personally I'm still hoping Duff can regain some old form, and not just become a new Carr for us).

 

 

Mind you, a 2 year extentsion for Sib is just silly, 1 year might be a good idea.... although if this is just agent talk then there might be only that on the table and he's just trying to talk things up.

That's why I said one of whom was essential. Btw, I don't go along with giving Roeder the credit for the good signings and blaming Shepherd for the bad ones. If Roeder lets Shepherd manipulate him that way he's a joke anyway and so can't be defended whichever way you look at it imo.