Transfers, 2024-25 season

[PaddockLad 17124]

1 minute ago, The Fish said:

Oh I go further than that, I'll BCC someone into an email chain. Hell, I'll wait until I'm on a call with someone, then say "Oh, I'll just see if [Senior Manager] is free." and add them to the call as an ambush.

 

 

 in a way, I admire that level of cuntishness

[The Fish 10775]

1 minute ago, PaddockLad said:

 in a way, I admire that level of cuntishness

 

Oh, that isn't even the half of it. Sometimes text has an invisible character in it, it looks like a space, but it's not. It's a 'nbsp' or nonbreaking space. So when that character is in SQL or Excel codes or formula it won't work. And unless you know it's there you can waste hours or your day trying to work out why your code or formula won't work.

This is a space -> <-

This is a nbsp -> <-

 

 

[RobinRobin 11158]

Thanks for explaining 

[The Fish 10775]

1 hour ago, RobinRobin said:

Thanks for explaining 

I like dropping nbsp's into other people's code. Because Fuck you Roel and your leaving early on a Friday ass, meaning I get all your bullshit work. That's Why!

[strawb 4187]

Roel isn’t a name

[LongTimeAdmirer 1248]

3 hours ago, The Fish said:

 

You calling @LongTimeAdmirer a big girls blouse?

 

 

Im officially off the stats, xG and excel team, youre on your own now. 

 

[The Fish 10775]

56 minutes ago, strawb said:

Roel isn’t a name

Roel - Wiktionary

 

Oh, yes it is

[The Fish 10775]

37 minutes ago, LongTimeAdmirer said:

 

 

Im officially off the stats, xG and excel team, youre on your own now. 

 

Darling, I've always ploughed a lonely furrow. 

[Alex 34904]

1 hour ago, strawb said:

Roel isn’t a name

What about Roel Fox? 

[Alex 34904]

2 hours ago, The Fish said:

I like dropping nbsp's into other people's code. 

[The Fish 10775]

13 minutes ago, Alex said:

What about Roel Fox? 

Sausage Roel.

[Meenzer 15428]

16 minutes ago, Alex said:

Roel Fox

 

3 minutes ago, The Fish said:

Sausage Roel

 

Come on England, give us a goal!

[OTF 7280]

4 hours ago, Alex said:

What about Roel Fox? 

Roel Dahl

[Polarboy 2311]

According to the Evening Standard we're at the head of the queue for Gallagher come the summer market. There's some rule that means that it's better financially to sell homegrown players so Chelsea are set to clear out players like Gallagher, Loftus-Cheek etc. so they can go on yet another spending binge. I know the majority on here would prefer Maddison, but I honestly think Gallagher, who's four years younger, is potentially of a similar level to Maddison and has a better all round game given he's much better at the defensive side of the game. I'd love to see how much Howe could improve him, again given he's relatively young. Obviously getting both would be the ideal, but I can't see us spunking 80 odd million on two fairly similar players. 

Edited February 2, 2023 by Polarboy

[Dr Gloom 21846]

If you go for Gallagher you’re buying potential. Nothing wrong with that and it fits the profile of recent signings. He’s not as good technically as Maddison now though. Maddison would be the statement signing because he’s coming into his prime years. 

[strawb 4187]

They are completely different players. Also isn’t Gallagher 24? Hardly a kid.

 

Would be happy with either for different reasons.

[Dr Gloom 21846]

12 minutes ago, strawb said:

They are completely different players. Also isn’t Gallagher 24? Hardly a kid.

 

Would be happy with either for different reasons.

He’s 22. Maddison is 26

[Polarboy 2311]

18 minutes ago, strawb said:

They are completely different players. Also isn’t Gallagher 24? Hardly a kid.

 

Would be happy with either for different reasons.

 

He's 22 and Maddison is 26. Also they're not completely different in the sense that Gallagher can also score and create depending on where you deploy him. They're different in the sense that Maddison can also play wide and can't play in a more defensive role like Gallagher, but I think for our squad's needs Gallagher probably fits a little better if it's a choice of one over the other. 

 

19 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

If you go for Gallagher you’re buying potential. Nothing wrong with that and it fits the profile of recent signings. He’s not as good technically as Maddison now though. Maddison would be the statement signing because he’s coming into his prime years. 

 

I'd be delighted with Maddison given as you say he's coming into his prime years, but I think Gallagher has the potential to fit our team ethic and set up more given, as I've already said, he's a better presser of the ball and arguably a better runner, athlete than Maddison. Any deficiencies in technical skill in comparison I believe would be compensated by the other parts of his game. And again given his age he may yet go up a level technically under Howe's tutelage. 

Edited February 2, 2023 by Polarboy

[toonotl 2959]

I agree with all of that, Polarboy. I can see the argument for both. I suppose it's a matter of to what degree we're short in attacking/goalscoring output from one of those more advanced central midfielder positions. Maddison is proven and will likely provide better attacking output than what we have and than Gallagher. Gallagher will likely work harder and better fit the profile of the side. It's interesting to consider where Howe might land on this one (if indeed it is an option of one or the other come the summer transfer window) as he does seem to value the balance of the side first and foremost. It obviously depends on other factors -- price, the player's desire to come, etc. I can't see myself being too disappointed should it eventuate one or the other as either way I can see the argument for each of them. I actually don't know who I'd prefer myself -- probably Maddison tbh, but it is closer than I would've otherwise thought upon first reflection.

 

Edited February 2, 2023 by toonotl

[Dr Gloom 21846]

Maddison for me, and it’s not even close.

 

[trophyshy 7073]

Catts?

[RobinRobin 11158]

It will probably depend on whether we get an out and out defensive midfielder which would allow Bruno to play further forward, in which case that probably negates the argument for Gallagher and improves the argument for Maddison.

[Kitman 2204]

I wouldn’t assume that Gallagher wants to join us. Maddison sounds keener from what I’ve read but Leicester will want silly money for him. It sounds like their owner is propping them up.

[RobinRobin 11158]

2 hours ago, Kitman said:

I wouldn’t assume that Gallagher wants to join us. Maddison sounds keener from what I’ve read but Leicester will want silly money for him. It sounds like their owner is propping them up.

With Maddison, he either signs a new contract or they sell.  If he won't, they won't get anything at the end of next year, so they pretty much have to sell and unless there is an auction with more than one club after him, they don't have a hope for silly money.

If Gallagher doesn't want to come, good luck to him, but I won't lose sleep.  He may prefer to be the main man at Palace and stay in London.  Meh.

[Kitman 2204]

19 minutes ago, RobinRobin said:

With Maddison, he either signs a new contract or they sell.  If he won't, they won't get anything at the end of next year, so they pretty much have to sell and unless there is an auction with more than one club after him, they don't have a hope for silly money.

If Gallagher doesn't want to come, good luck to him, but I won't lose sleep.  He may prefer to be the main man at Palace and stay in London.  Meh.

I can see Maddison going a similar way to Gordon. Club asks for silly money until they have to sell for something more reasonable.