Purely a rumour but....

[Guest alex]

The Smoggies did go for Huth earlier but he failed the medical we tried to hijack the deal 2nd time around. Apparently Viduka was never available according to Keith Lamb. In any case he would have been a panic buy. As for Milner, I'm sure he feels he's been messed around and many would agree. As for the mistakes Souness made last summer, by putting our eggs all in one basket with Martins, haven't we made the same mistakes again? Albeit with less money to play with this time (which in a way makes it worse imo).

[LeazesMag 0]

The Smoggies did go for Huth earlier but he failed the medical we tried to hijack the deal 2nd time around. Apparently Viduka was never available according to Keith Lamb. In any case he would have been a panic buy. As for Milner, I'm sure he feels he's been messed around and many would agree. As for the mistakes Souness made last summer, by putting our eggs all in one basket with Martins, haven't we made the same mistakes again? Albeit with less money to play with this time (which in a way makes it worse imo).

 

I have said that I am worried that putting all our eggs in the basket ref Martins bothers me, however if he is a success it is money well spent, any signing who is a success is money well spent. We needed forwards. However we had less eggs than last year, and quality is paramount. It comes down to judgement at the end of the day.

 

For "panic buy" I would say "short term" buy. It is the situation we are in, there is nothing wrong with short term buys, sometimes they are necessary if you have a bigger target in your sights who may be available later and/or money is tight. I suppose it really depends on the depth of the gamble, and by that I mean the price. I wouldn't consider a small fee for a short term buy a panic buy at all.

 

Milner may well feel unwanted at the club now, but that happens everywhere to players. If he is a good pro he will roll up his sleeves and set about proving people wrong. I do feel sorry for him if he is unhappy, but the ball is in his court. Make the club change their mind.

[Asprilla 96]

AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

[LeazesMag 0]

I think it's wrong to criticise the board for getting Owen. It's gone to shit but the two injuries he got were unbelievably unlucky. Surely Duff (while an opportunity) was a bad move if it stopped us signing other players we needed though. Even if you ignore the defence, someone like Nugent for the same money would have been a better idea. Obviously he might not have come here and I do like Duff as a player.

 

Fair comment. Having 3 players going for 2 wide positions though ie Solano, Zoggy and Duff isn't exactly overstretching your options though is it ? And Duff has played up front too.

[Guest alex]

The Smoggies did go for Huth earlier but he failed the medical we tried to hijack the deal 2nd time around. Apparently Viduka was never available according to Keith Lamb. In any case he would have been a panic buy. As for Milner, I'm sure he feels he's been messed around and many would agree. As for the mistakes Souness made last summer, by putting our eggs all in one basket with Martins, haven't we made the same mistakes again? Albeit with less money to play with this time (which in a way makes it worse imo).

 

I have said that I am worried that putting all our eggs in the basket ref Martins bothers me, however if he is a success it is money well spent, any signing who is a success is money well spent. We needed forwards. However we had less eggs than last year, and quality is paramount. It comes down to judgement at the end of the day.

 

For "panic buy" I would say "short term" buy. It is the situation we are in, there is nothing wrong with short term buys, sometimes they are necessary if you have a bigger target in your sights who may be available later and/or money is tight. I suppose it really depends on the depth of the gamble, and by that I mean the price. I wouldn't consider a small fee for a short term buy a panic buy at all.

 

Milner may well feel unwanted at the club now, but that happens everywhere to players. If he is a good pro he will roll up his sleeves and set about proving people wrong. I do feel sorry for him if he is unhappy, but the ball is in his court. Make the club change their mind.

I take your points but I feel it would have been a panic buy mainly because it was last minute and (as far as I can tell, we were never in for him until the last days of the window). It also goes against what Roeder said re: not wanting 'fat cats' or words to that effect. I just don't think we were as smart as we could have been in the transfer window. Players we could/should have signed for very little include players like Sorin (there's your left-back), Trabelsi (right-back and on pay-as-you-play at Man City), Campbell and Hasselbaink. We could have still probably signed who we signed on top of that. We only seemed to go for players other teams had already approached (Martins apart) which makes me worry about what sort of transfer policy we were employing and what our scouting network is like.

[Shearergol 0]

Just been talking to a mate who has a friend that bumped into (literally) Solano on Saturday night, they got talking and he asked why he wasnt playing on Saturday to which Nobby ranted for ten minutes about Roeder and how he hasnt got a clue what hes doing, crux of the matter is (allegedly) that the foreign players are being blamed by Roeder and Fat Fred for everything that goes wrong and seemingly there are 5 of them with transfer requests in.

 

Nobby, Charlie, Luque, Emre & Babba.

 

Like I say, not sure at all on the source and only time will tell if thats true but it seems plausible and a worrying thought which sadly, fits in with Freddys vision for a Geordie (or at least English) team.

 

Hmmmm IF it was true and we had "little Englander (Geordielander??)" mentality running rampant, why would they have spent another 10 mill on another foreigner ?????????????

 

Because we had 9 other bids for English strikers turned down?

 

IE, desperation, not planning.

 

Michael Owen wasn't planning ?

 

Duff isn't planning ?

 

Parker wasn't planning ?

 

New contract for Given isn't planning ?

 

Do you think the club should have went into the season with only Ameobi and Luque or not ? Do you not consider bidding for 9 English players a serious attempt to improve the team ? What do you think they should have then done, bid more money and paid more than they think a player is worth - again ?

 

Owen was available - we were alerted to that. Reactional, rather than planning.

 

Damien Duff was signed only after we heard Spurs wanted him. Reactional, rather than planning.

 

Same could probably be said for Parker.

 

Luque was bought despite the fact that the manager was desperate to sign Boa Morte. I don't see that as planning either.

 

We tried to sign Huth AFTER he'd agreed to sign for Boro. Good planning?

 

The whole thing is a fucking shambles. I agree that we shouldn't be shafted for price, but I'm tired of pointing out to you just who we could have signed in this transfer market for less than what we spent, and had a much better squad for it.

 

All signings are "reactional" if that is how you look at it. You can only buy them if the club is prepared to sell and you offer the asking price. That is why our "bids for 9 English players" were turned down. Do you accept or do you not accept the fact the club was attempting to "show planning" when bidding for 9 English players that were turned down.

 

I am tired of pointing to people like you that we can't sign every player you want the club to sign. You wanted Luque and Faye, you got them. Thats not too bad. Not many clubs could have shelled out 11m quid on 2 players on top of all the rest. Parker - and Emre - were actuall long term targets of the the scottish fuckpig [yes even he can't get everything wrong], that is planning. Owen and Duff were opportunites. If we had not bought them, someone else would have done. Sorry Gol but if you can't see this then you obviously have an obsession with slating the club whatever they do and need to see the bigger and more realistic picture.

 

 

So if Owen and Duff weren't made available first, we wouldn't have gone for them? Who else would we have signed at the end of a transfer window other than Owen by the way?

 

Spending £15m on Duff and Martins, rather than £14m on Huth and Anelka isn't the best decision in the world IMO (Roeder's fault by the way, before you start).

 

We needed a striker, 2 fullbacks and a centreback, even before selling Boumsong. We ended up with an unproven striker (AGAIN), a left winger, an attacking midfielder and a left back who wasn't good enough for Southampton. We could have signed Campbell, Malbranque, Anelka, Woodgate, Huth and Bridge if we'd tried (and yes, we COULD have signed them all, don't even try to deny that).

 

Damien Duff, in my opinion, was bought because this club are obsessed with thinking that the fans will be happy with a big name signing. I'd rather just have players who will improve all areas of the team which need improving. If Duff had gone somewhere else; so what?

[Lazarus 0]

i'd agree that spending 5m on duff couldve been better spent on a defender in the short term.

 

but what about long term?

 

how long will it take the club to recoup that 5m in merchandising?

who will our left sided midfielder next season and the season after that?

how long would huth have lasted before the fans were on his back (a la bramble)?

 

Spending 5m now on a great midfielder may mean that next season we can send more on a better defender (than say huth at 5m). say next season, how much would a player of duffs ability cost? 10m? 15m?

[Tom 14011]

i'd agree that spending 5m on duff couldve been better spent on a defender in the short term.

 

but what about long term?

 

how long will it take the club to recoup that 5m in merchandising?

who will our left sided midfielder next season and the season after that?

how long would huth have lasted before the fans were on his back (a la bramble)?

 

Spending 5m now on a great midfielder may mean that next season we can send more on a better defender (than say huth at 5m). say next season, how much would a player of duffs ability cost? 10m? 15m?

 

 

 

With club shop prices not fucking long...

[Missed Sticks 0]

i'd agree that spending 5m on duff couldve been better spent on a defender in the short term.

 

but what about long term?

 

how long will it take the club to recoup that 5m in merchandising?

who will our left sided midfielder next season and the season after that?

how long would huth have lasted before the fans were on his back (a la bramble)?

 

Spending 5m now on a great midfielder may mean that next season we can send more on a better defender (than say huth at 5m). say next season, how much would a player of duffs ability cost? 10m? 15m?

 

 

 

With club shop prices not fucking long...

 

T_Keith.

Completely off topic, i'm guessing you're a fan of Keef Richards?

Mate of mine has an office next to a guy who does guitar/amp repairs and servicing, he sometimes does the Stones gear. My mate is a big Keef fan so this guy told him to come round and try an amp he had in (belongs to Keef), it was a Watkins 30w. I think it was a class a amp. Rock your boat at all?

[Tom 14011]

i'd agree that spending 5m on duff couldve been better spent on a defender in the short term.

 

but what about long term?

 

how long will it take the club to recoup that 5m in merchandising?

who will our left sided midfielder next season and the season after that?

how long would huth have lasted before the fans were on his back (a la bramble)?

 

Spending 5m now on a great midfielder may mean that next season we can send more on a better defender (than say huth at 5m). say next season, how much would a player of duffs ability cost? 10m? 15m?

 

 

 

With club shop prices not fucking long...

 

T_Keith.

Completely off topic, i'm guessing you're a fan of Keef Richards?

Mate of mine has an office next to a guy who does guitar/amp repairs and servicing, he sometimes does the Stones gear. My mate is a big Keef fan so this guy told him to come round and try an amp he had in (belongs to Keef), it was a Watkins 30w. I think it was a class a amp. Rock your boat at all?

 

Yeh a bit

 

but thats talking more money than i have

[Dr Gloom 21760]

sibierski - great planning

 

rossi - great planning

 

no new centre half - great planning

 

duff was a good buy, but it was hardly a problem position. we bought him because he became available at a good price.

 

good planning would have been to buy campbell and not to wait until the last week of the window to go for huth and woodgate and then panic buying the likes of siberski, rossi and bernard. that for me is BAD planning.

 

SHEPHERD OUT

[Shearergol 0]

i'd agree that spending 5m on duff couldve been better spent on a defender in the short term.

 

but what about long term?

 

how long will it take the club to recoup that 5m in merchandising?

who will our left sided midfielder next season and the season after that?

how long would huth have lasted before the fans were on his back (a la bramble)?

 

Spending 5m now on a great midfielder may mean that next season we can send more on a better defender (than say huth at 5m). say next season, how much would a player of duffs ability cost? 10m? 15m?

 

Planning for long term would mean planning to stay in the Premiership, planning on getting into a european place. Spending £5m now on a great midfielder instead of strengthening our defence (3 players for FREE by the way) means that we're more than likely going to miss out on a European spot; thus meaning we'll have LESS to spend on defenders next season.

[Missed Sticks 0]

i'd agree that spending 5m on duff couldve been better spent on a defender in the short term.

 

but what about long term?

 

how long will it take the club to recoup that 5m in merchandising?

who will our left sided midfielder next season and the season after that?

how long would huth have lasted before the fans were on his back (a la bramble)?

 

Spending 5m now on a great midfielder may mean that next season we can send more on a better defender (than say huth at 5m). say next season, how much would a player of duffs ability cost? 10m? 15m?

 

 

 

With club shop prices not fucking long...

 

T_Keith.

Completely off topic, i'm guessing you're a fan of Keef Richards?

Mate of mine has an office next to a guy who does guitar/amp repairs and servicing, he sometimes does the Stones gear. My mate is a big Keef fan so this guy told him to come round and try an amp he had in (belongs to Keef), it was a Watkins 30w. I think it was a class a amp. Rock your boat at all?

 

Yeh a bit

 

but thats talking more money than i have

 

Don't know what a Watkins amp will cost tbh. Anyway, if you spent less on replica shirts you'd be loaded i reckon

[LeazesMag 0]

sibierski - great planning

 

rossi - great planning

 

no new centre half - great planning

 

duff was a good buy, but it was hardly a problem position. we bought him because he became available at a good price.

 

good planning would have been to buy campbell and not to wait until the last week of the window to go for huth and woodgate and then panic buying the likes of siberski, rossi and bernard. that for me is BAD planning.

 

SHEPHERD OUT

 

you don't see it do you ? You can't accept the need for one or two short term stop gap players in the real world.

 

You're so thick, you expect the board to find 50m quid every summer, buy half a team every year....yet you think they are shite ........

 

 

Lost irony or what. Priceless.

[LeazesMag 0]

Just been talking to a mate who has a friend that bumped into (literally) Solano on Saturday night, they got talking and he asked why he wasnt playing on Saturday to which Nobby ranted for ten minutes about Roeder and how he hasnt got a clue what hes doing, crux of the matter is (allegedly) that the foreign players are being blamed by Roeder and Fat Fred for everything that goes wrong and seemingly there are 5 of them with transfer requests in.

 

Nobby, Charlie, Luque, Emre & Babba.

 

Like I say, not sure at all on the source and only time will tell if thats true but it seems plausible and a worrying thought which sadly, fits in with Freddys vision for a Geordie (or at least English) team.

 

Hmmmm IF it was true and we had "little Englander (Geordielander??)" mentality running rampant, why would they have spent another 10 mill on another foreigner ?????????????

 

Because we had 9 other bids for English strikers turned down?

 

IE, desperation, not planning.

 

Michael Owen wasn't planning ?

 

Duff isn't planning ?

 

Parker wasn't planning ?

 

New contract for Given isn't planning ?

 

Do you think the club should have went into the season with only Ameobi and Luque or not ? Do you not consider bidding for 9 English players a serious attempt to improve the team ? What do you think they should have then done, bid more money and paid more than they think a player is worth - again ?

 

Owen was available - we were alerted to that. Reactional, rather than planning.

 

Damien Duff was signed only after we heard Spurs wanted him. Reactional, rather than planning.

 

Same could probably be said for Parker.

 

Luque was bought despite the fact that the manager was desperate to sign Boa Morte. I don't see that as planning either.

 

We tried to sign Huth AFTER he'd agreed to sign for Boro. Good planning?

 

The whole thing is a fucking shambles. I agree that we shouldn't be shafted for price, but I'm tired of pointing out to you just who we could have signed in this transfer market for less than what we spent, and had a much better squad for it.

 

All signings are "reactional" if that is how you look at it. You can only buy them if the club is prepared to sell and you offer the asking price. That is why our "bids for 9 English players" were turned down. Do you accept or do you not accept the fact the club was attempting to "show planning" when bidding for 9 English players that were turned down.

 

I am tired of pointing to people like you that we can't sign every player you want the club to sign. You wanted Luque and Faye, you got them. Thats not too bad. Not many clubs could have shelled out 11m quid on 2 players on top of all the rest. Parker - and Emre - were actuall long term targets of the the scottish fuckpig [yes even he can't get everything wrong], that is planning. Owen and Duff were opportunites. If we had not bought them, someone else would have done. Sorry Gol but if you can't see this then you obviously have an obsession with slating the club whatever they do and need to see the bigger and more realistic picture.

 

 

So if Owen and Duff weren't made available first, we wouldn't have gone for them? Who else would we have signed at the end of a transfer window other than Owen by the way?

 

Spending £15m on Duff and Martins, rather than £14m on Huth and Anelka isn't the best decision in the world IMO (Roeder's fault by the way, before you start).

 

We needed a striker, 2 fullbacks and a centreback, even before selling Boumsong. We ended up with an unproven striker (AGAIN), a left winger, an attacking midfielder and a left back who wasn't good enough for Southampton. We could have signed Campbell, Malbranque, Anelka, Woodgate, Huth and Bridge if we'd tried (and yes, we COULD have signed them all, don't even try to deny that).

 

Damien Duff, in my opinion, was bought because this club are obsessed with thinking that the fans will be happy with a big name signing. I'd rather just have players who will improve all areas of the team which need improving. If Duff had gone somewhere else; so what?

 

you won't get 4 quality players for 15m quid max. Its time you woke up. And as for Anelka, I wouldn't touch him with yours

 

If you don't want to see quality players at the club, like Duff, wtf are you complaining about when they sign players who AREN'T "big names" .... classic case again of criticising whatever they do. You don't know what you want really, do you ?

 

As Solano is [reportedly] injured, I think you may find signing Duff was a good idea after all, or do you not understand that going through the season with only Solano and Zoggy as wide players [the only 2 good enough] isn't really a good idea.

[Shearergol 0]

Just been talking to a mate who has a friend that bumped into (literally) Solano on Saturday night, they got talking and he asked why he wasnt playing on Saturday to which Nobby ranted for ten minutes about Roeder and how he hasnt got a clue what hes doing, crux of the matter is (allegedly) that the foreign players are being blamed by Roeder and Fat Fred for everything that goes wrong and seemingly there are 5 of them with transfer requests in.

 

Nobby, Charlie, Luque, Emre & Babba.

 

Like I say, not sure at all on the source and only time will tell if thats true but it seems plausible and a worrying thought which sadly, fits in with Freddys vision for a Geordie (or at least English) team.

 

Hmmmm IF it was true and we had "little Englander (Geordielander??)" mentality running rampant, why would they have spent another 10 mill on another foreigner ?????????????

 

Because we had 9 other bids for English strikers turned down?

 

IE, desperation, not planning.

 

Michael Owen wasn't planning ?

 

Duff isn't planning ?

 

Parker wasn't planning ?

 

New contract for Given isn't planning ?

 

Do you think the club should have went into the season with only Ameobi and Luque or not ? Do you not consider bidding for 9 English players a serious attempt to improve the team ? What do you think they should have then done, bid more money and paid more than they think a player is worth - again ?

 

Owen was available - we were alerted to that. Reactional, rather than planning.

 

Damien Duff was signed only after we heard Spurs wanted him. Reactional, rather than planning.

 

Same could probably be said for Parker.

 

Luque was bought despite the fact that the manager was desperate to sign Boa Morte. I don't see that as planning either.

 

We tried to sign Huth AFTER he'd agreed to sign for Boro. Good planning?

 

The whole thing is a fucking shambles. I agree that we shouldn't be shafted for price, but I'm tired of pointing out to you just who we could have signed in this transfer market for less than what we spent, and had a much better squad for it.

 

All signings are "reactional" if that is how you look at it. You can only buy them if the club is prepared to sell and you offer the asking price. That is why our "bids for 9 English players" were turned down. Do you accept or do you not accept the fact the club was attempting to "show planning" when bidding for 9 English players that were turned down.

 

I am tired of pointing to people like you that we can't sign every player you want the club to sign. You wanted Luque and Faye, you got them. Thats not too bad. Not many clubs could have shelled out 11m quid on 2 players on top of all the rest. Parker - and Emre - were actuall long term targets of the the scottish fuckpig [yes even he can't get everything wrong], that is planning. Owen and Duff were opportunites. If we had not bought them, someone else would have done. Sorry Gol but if you can't see this then you obviously have an obsession with slating the club whatever they do and need to see the bigger and more realistic picture.

 

 

So if Owen and Duff weren't made available first, we wouldn't have gone for them? Who else would we have signed at the end of a transfer window other than Owen by the way?

 

Spending £15m on Duff and Martins, rather than £14m on Huth and Anelka isn't the best decision in the world IMO (Roeder's fault by the way, before you start).

 

We needed a striker, 2 fullbacks and a centreback, even before selling Boumsong. We ended up with an unproven striker (AGAIN), a left winger, an attacking midfielder and a left back who wasn't good enough for Southampton. We could have signed Campbell, Malbranque, Anelka, Woodgate, Huth and Bridge if we'd tried (and yes, we COULD have signed them all, don't even try to deny that).

 

Damien Duff, in my opinion, was bought because this club are obsessed with thinking that the fans will be happy with a big name signing. I'd rather just have players who will improve all areas of the team which need improving. If Duff had gone somewhere else; so what?

 

you won't get 4 quality players for 15m quid max. Its time you woke up. And as for Anelka, I wouldn't touch him with yours

 

If you don't want to see quality players at the club, like Duff, wtf are you complaining about when they sign players who AREN'T "big names" .... classic case again of criticising whatever they do. You don't know what you want really, do you ?

 

As Solano is [reportedly] injured, I think you may find signing Duff was a good idea after all, or do you not understand that going through the season with only Solano and Zoggy as wide players [the only 2 good enough] isn't really a good idea.

 

Campbell, JFH, Woodgate, Johnsen, Trabelsi, Anelka, Bridge - under £15m FACT

 

Do you not understand going through the season with only Taylor and Moore as defenders (the only 2 good enough) isn't really a good idea?

 

Anelka > Martins btw

[LeazesMag 0]

Just been talking to a mate who has a friend that bumped into (literally) Solano on Saturday night, they got talking and he asked why he wasnt playing on Saturday to which Nobby ranted for ten minutes about Roeder and how he hasnt got a clue what hes doing, crux of the matter is (allegedly) that the foreign players are being blamed by Roeder and Fat Fred for everything that goes wrong and seemingly there are 5 of them with transfer requests in.

 

Nobby, Charlie, Luque, Emre & Babba.

 

Like I say, not sure at all on the source and only time will tell if thats true but it seems plausible and a worrying thought which sadly, fits in with Freddys vision for a Geordie (or at least English) team.

 

Hmmmm IF it was true and we had "little Englander (Geordielander??)" mentality running rampant, why would they have spent another 10 mill on another foreigner ?????????????

 

Because we had 9 other bids for English strikers turned down?

 

IE, desperation, not planning.

 

Michael Owen wasn't planning ?

 

Duff isn't planning ?

 

Parker wasn't planning ?

 

New contract for Given isn't planning ?

 

Do you think the club should have went into the season with only Ameobi and Luque or not ? Do you not consider bidding for 9 English players a serious attempt to improve the team ? What do you think they should have then done, bid more money and paid more than they think a player is worth - again ?

 

Owen was available - we were alerted to that. Reactional, rather than planning.

 

Damien Duff was signed only after we heard Spurs wanted him. Reactional, rather than planning.

 

Same could probably be said for Parker.

 

Luque was bought despite the fact that the manager was desperate to sign Boa Morte. I don't see that as planning either.

 

We tried to sign Huth AFTER he'd agreed to sign for Boro. Good planning?

 

The whole thing is a fucking shambles. I agree that we shouldn't be shafted for price, but I'm tired of pointing out to you just who we could have signed in this transfer market for less than what we spent, and had a much better squad for it.

 

All signings are "reactional" if that is how you look at it. You can only buy them if the club is prepared to sell and you offer the asking price. That is why our "bids for 9 English players" were turned down. Do you accept or do you not accept the fact the club was attempting to "show planning" when bidding for 9 English players that were turned down.

 

I am tired of pointing to people like you that we can't sign every player you want the club to sign. You wanted Luque and Faye, you got them. Thats not too bad. Not many clubs could have shelled out 11m quid on 2 players on top of all the rest. Parker - and Emre - were actuall long term targets of the the scottish fuckpig [yes even he can't get everything wrong], that is planning. Owen and Duff were opportunites. If we had not bought them, someone else would have done. Sorry Gol but if you can't see this then you obviously have an obsession with slating the club whatever they do and need to see the bigger and more realistic picture.

 

 

So if Owen and Duff weren't made available first, we wouldn't have gone for them? Who else would we have signed at the end of a transfer window other than Owen by the way?

 

Spending £15m on Duff and Martins, rather than £14m on Huth and Anelka isn't the best decision in the world IMO (Roeder's fault by the way, before you start).

 

We needed a striker, 2 fullbacks and a centreback, even before selling Boumsong. We ended up with an unproven striker (AGAIN), a left winger, an attacking midfielder and a left back who wasn't good enough for Southampton. We could have signed Campbell, Malbranque, Anelka, Woodgate, Huth and Bridge if we'd tried (and yes, we COULD have signed them all, don't even try to deny that).

 

Damien Duff, in my opinion, was bought because this club are obsessed with thinking that the fans will be happy with a big name signing. I'd rather just have players who will improve all areas of the team which need improving. If Duff had gone somewhere else; so what?

 

you won't get 4 quality players for 15m quid max. Its time you woke up. And as for Anelka, I wouldn't touch him with yours

 

If you don't want to see quality players at the club, like Duff, wtf are you complaining about when they sign players who AREN'T "big names" .... classic case again of criticising whatever they do. You don't know what you want really, do you ?

 

As Solano is [reportedly] injured, I think you may find signing Duff was a good idea after all, or do you not understand that going through the season with only Solano and Zoggy as wide players [the only 2 good enough] isn't really a good idea.

 

Campbell, JFH, Woodgate, Johnsen, Trabelsi, Anelka, Bridge - under £15m FACT

 

Do you not understand going through the season with only Taylor and Moore as defenders (the only 2 good enough) isn't really a good idea?

 

Anelka > Martins btw

 

the club had one or two choices to go for.

 

a. They could have bought 2 good defenders and brought in 2 forwards for nowt ie short term or loan.

 

b They could have bought 2 good forward players and brought in a defender or two for nowt or on loan.

 

c. They could have bought 1 good forward, 1 good defender and brought in a couple of players for nowt ie short term or on loan.

 

The choices of direction the club take in this situation will be pretty much dictated by players available that the manager wants, who they think will want to play for the club, price, terms etc

 

The fact is - whichever of those options they did, you [and others] would have criticised. You have to get real. There was probably no money left for Bridge, if he was available. Campbell and Anelka comes down to judgement, and personally I don;t think either of those players would have been very committed to the club. I think Anelka blows hot and cold, and Campbell is only looking for a last pay day. Huth chose to go to the smoggies, why I don't know, Woodgate too - to play for his hometown team although signing him on anything other than a pay as you play deal would have been a bad mistake, we already have 2 players that are always out that cost big wages.

 

We could indeed have had Johnson instead of Martins. The manager has made his choice, its his decision. You have to learn to live with these things. If Martins flops he will take the rap, if he succeeds he will take the credit and nobody even you, will be too bothered about buying defenders because it means during the next window we can look on it [ie the forward area] as a problem area solved and focus completely on defenders. This is the only thing that matters when you buy players, its getting it right.

 

I DO agree that JFH would have been a good option, as would Jason Roberts as I have said so, but if the club doesn't buy players you like, then your beef is with the manager who thinks differently, no one else can tell you why he chose the players he did, but if they succeed then thats all that matters. Basically, he was given his budget and chose where he wanted to spend it, and for me he has done one of a few options which were limited due to being dealt a shit pack of cards by his predecessor.

Edited September 12, 2006 by LeazesMag

[Shearergol 0]

I'm blaming Roeder by the way, I think I mentioned that earlier.

[Lazarus 0]

Campbell, JFH, Woodgate, Johnsen, Trabelsi, Anelka, Bridge - under £15m FACT

 

Do you not understand going through the season with only Taylor and Moore as defenders (the only 2 good enough) isn't really a good idea?

 

Maybe all those players simply didnt want to come to the toon.

[LeazesMag 0]

I'm blaming Roeder by the way, I think I mentioned that earlier.

 

As I have said elsewhere, Roeder is the one who chose his players and how to spend his money. I have also said that if he is struggling, and Shearer comes in and also struggles, then it will indeed be time for the board to be held accountable for too many wrong appointments. Thats football, and no board survives too many wrong appointments, they can say they backed their managers and hand over a good business to someone else who might make better choices, and if this happens I only hope their successors ARE better - if someone actually wants to run the club and can run it better - because they might not be, its far from automatic.

[LeazesMag 0]

Campbell, JFH, Woodgate, Johnsen, Trabelsi, Anelka, Bridge - under £15m FACT

 

Do you not understand going through the season with only Taylor and Moore as defenders (the only 2 good enough) isn't really a good idea?

 

Maybe all those players simply didnt want to come to the toon.

 

I'd be highly surprised if that were the case mate

[Shearergol 0]

I'm blaming Roeder by the way, I think I mentioned that earlier.

 

As I have said elsewhere, Roeder is the one who chose his players and how to spend his money. I have also said that if he is struggling, and Shearer comes in and also struggles, then it will indeed be time for the board to be held accountable for too many wrong appointments. Thats football, and no board survives too many wrong appointments, they can say they backed their managers and hand over a good business to someone else who might make better choices, and if this happens I only hope their successors ARE better - if someone actually wants to run the club and can run it better - because they might not be, its far from automatic.

 

You know what, I completely agree with that post.

 

Oh, and Laz, they would ALL have jumped at the chance, as would Malbranque who I missed off the list.

[Lazarus 0]

Oh, and Laz, they would ALL have jumped at the chance, as would Malbranque who I missed off the list.

 

maybe they would have - but i'm not convinvced

[Guest Patrokles]

I'm blaming Roeder by the way, I think I mentioned that earlier.

 

As I have said elsewhere, Roeder is the one who chose his players and how to spend his money. I have also said that if he is struggling, and Shearer comes in and also struggles, then it will indeed be time for the board to be held accountable for too many wrong appointments. Thats football, and no board survives too many wrong appointments, they can say they backed their managers and hand over a good business to someone else who might make better choices, and if this happens I only hope their successors ARE better - if someone actually wants to run the club and can run it better - because they might not be, its far from automatic.

 

You know what, I completely agree with that post.

 

Oh, and Laz, they would ALL have jumped at the chance, as would Malbranque who I missed off the list.

 

If we'd signed Malbranque and not Duff I think people would have been less than happy.

[Bombadil 0]

Re: the rumours in this thread: depressing if they're true. If we lose N'Zogbia to fucking Spurs, I will be livid.