Teasy

Wow, that says a lot! It says that we relied far too much on a very limited player. Or that he is a very underrated player. He isn't underrated in though, everyone knows he's very good at what he does, and very limited in most other areas. Everyone should also realise that if your team cant win games without Kevin Nolan, then you need a new team, not to simply focus on keeping him at all costs. Eh? What's so hard to understand? Are you seriously telling me your happy with your side relying so heavily on a player like Nolan that they cant win without him? The solution isn't to sell him though it's to add to the squad and gradually reduce that dependency. Which means giving a player your looking to remove from the team a new 4 year £50k+ contract, is that a good move? He's got time left on his contract man, and the fee ain't gonna be much anyway so no I wouldn't give him a new four year deal but would have kept the player. Ok here's another question, do you think Nolan would be ok with just staying without signing a new deal? Because I don't think his actions suggest that at all. It seems to me that he either wanted a new four year contract or wanted to go somewhere were he'd get that contract. Wouldn't have been an issue because then he's either playing for a new deal or putting himself in the shop window for another club. I think it is quite an issue to him, otherwise he wouldn't have been so adamant to discuss a new deal two years before his contract runs out. I think he's looking for security now.

Wow, that says a lot! It says that we relied far too much on a very limited player. Or that he is a very underrated player. He isn't underrated in though, everyone knows he's very good at what he does, and very limited in most other areas. Everyone should also realise that if your team cant win games without Kevin Nolan, then you need a new team, not to simply focus on keeping him at all costs. Eh? What's so hard to understand? Are you seriously telling me your happy with your side relying so heavily on a player like Nolan that they cant win without him? The solution isn't to sell him though it's to add to the squad and gradually reduce that dependency. Which means giving a player your looking to remove from the team a new 4 year £50k+ contract, is that a good move? He's got time left on his contract man, and the fee ain't gonna be much anyway so no I wouldn't give him a new four year deal but would have kept the player. Ok here's another question, do you think Nolan would be ok with just staying without signing a new deal? Because I don't think his actions suggest that at all. It seems to me that he either wanted a new four year contract or wanted to go somewhere were he'd get that contract.

Wow, that says a lot! It says that we relied far too much on a very limited player. Or that he is a very underrated player. He isn't underrated in though, everyone knows he's very good at what he does, and very limited in most other areas. Everyone should also realise that if your team cant win games without Kevin Nolan, then you need a new team, not to simply focus on keeping him at all costs. Eh? What's so hard to understand? Are you seriously telling me your happy with your side relying so heavily on a player like Nolan that they cant win without him? The solution isn't to sell him though it's to add to the squad and gradually reduce that dependency. Which means giving a player your looking to remove from the team a new 4 year £50k+ contract, is that a good move? Yes Nolan has 2 years left on his contract, but he's obviously not happy to let that contract run down. He wants security because next season he'll be 30 and no doubt he realises that very soon nobody will give him the kind of contract he's after now.

Wow, that says a lot! It says that we relied far too much on a very limited player. Or that he is a very underrated player. He isn't underrated in though, everyone knows he's very good at what he does, and very limited in most other areas. Everyone should also realise that if your team cant win games without Kevin Nolan, then you need a new team, not to simply focus on keeping him at all costs. Eh? What's so hard to understand? Are you seriously telling me your happy with your side relying so heavily on a player like Nolan that they cant win without him?

Wow, that says a lot! It says that we relied far too much on a very limited player. Or that he is a very underrated player. He isn't underrated though, everyone knows he's very good at what he does and not so good at much else. Everyone should also realise that if your team cant win games without Kevin Nolan, then you need a new team. He's 29 now and wanting a contract that keeps him here on big wages until he's 33. We obviously need to change the way we play so that we don't rely so heavily on an ageing limited player like Nolan. So do we do that this season and let him go or give him a new four year contract and do it next season?, at which time we'll be left with a good motivational speaker who doesn't get near the first team on £50k a week until he's 33. Some people will probably say, well he's got a two year contract so just keep him and sell him next season. But the question is would Nolan be prepared to do that?

Wow, that says a lot! It says that we relied far too much on a very limited player.

A transfer fee plus £10-11m over the next 4 years in wages (that's what he was looking for in a new contract). IF we saw Nolan as a first team starter for next season then we should have just kept him and let his contract run out. But I doubt we see him as a starter next season, we certainly shouldn't anyway. I'm not happy to see him leave, but I'll wait until August to decide if it was a bad decision or not.

Wiki, says 51 league games and 22 goals. Why they wrong like? EDIT: The main bit at the side says that, but the table at the bottom says 54 league games and 23 goals.. so not sure which is correct.

Could you ask your friends how they explain him scoring 22 goals in 51 games for them and being voted their player of the year the season before last if he's such a bad player? I mean I know nothing about the lad, but there seems to be something amiss here

What's with his inflated price tag then if he's s****? I think Psg paid 10m or so for him, and he has had a few ok games but he is certainly not top class, when you pay 10m you aren't going to let him go for 3 or 4. I have seen a few Psg games but friends of mine who are season ticket holders say they would drive him here. The sort of player who could have an open goal from 3 yards out but you wouldn't get out of your seat till you had checked the videprinter to confirm a goal. Yet he's averaged a goal every 2.3 games for PSG. How many open goal chances do they create??

We've just had to put up with Ameobi and Lovenkrands as our main strikers and we've got people on here turning their noses up at the prospect of Erding and Ba.. fucking amazing!

Bollocks, what do you know, you can't even walk up stairs!

Always the least likely transfer of the lot and also the one I cared least about, lets get Rondon-aldo instead.

£5m for Nolan, no way, but £5m for Nolan and Smith... now I'm tempted

Sounds like the agent is name dropping to me, we'll find out soon enough if they're really interested though. EDIT: Letting our key players leave? Fucking hell Colocho get a grip

Ridiculous isn't it.. Anyway, I'd honestly be wary of giving Nolan even 4 years never mind 5. IMO for him to get 4 years he'd have to take a pay cut, or at least make the final year of the deal heavily performance based.

How much piss will you drink if we do?

£8m now is it?... sounds like bull.

Cabaye to Gamiero = goals

They always do that kind of thing, Holloway quoted £15m for Adam in January. I know, but £20m for Long really is the worst example I've seen by a long way!

Shane Long = £20m? That goes down as the most ridiculous valuation of a player I've ever seen!

In that case I wish that club the best of luck.. they'll need it.

You can see someone paying good money for both Nolan and Barton and giving them three to four year contracts on £50k+? I can't.

It would be nice to be able to sign a blank cheque to keep everyone on long extended contracts and buy lots more expensive players at the same time. Unfortunately that doesn't happen anywhere without arab/russian billionaire owners. If there's a limit on the spending how do you propose we recruit new players at the same time as handing out long contracts to the likes of Nolan and Barton? Don't bid for Gervinho and bid for someone £4m cheaper so we can hand that money to the players already here? Why is there a limit on spending when we've just sold the family silver for £35m? Keeping your main first team players and buying new ones doesn't happen anywhere else? Righto. So you're happy to blow the money we got for Carroll on long term deals for Nolan and Barton? How are we supposed to progress doing that? Fucking hell, how much are we planning on paying them? I don't think we give them it all in one lump sum btw. Not sure, so correct me if I'm wrong. As someone pointed out 4 years is worth £10.4 million, so presuming both were on £50k per week then to give them both a 2 year extension that is what it will cost us. As for paying it all at once, I haven't suggested we were, it was you who brought up the Carroll money in relation to us having a limit on spending. If the club wants to move forward then it will need better than these two and we can't afford squad players to be sat on the bench earning £50k per week. We've afforded Smith and Xisco for long enough. Who signed those clowns? What's your point? You asked me this before. Do I even have to have one? But generally, the point is the hypocrisy and stupid, reckless decision-making of the club. Despite numerous incidents of clueless behaviour, so many expect them to become footballing geniuses when it comes to replacing our best players, trading up and paying less every time. It baffles me. I was just wondering if it really was just a cheap shot or if I'd missed the point

It would be nice to be able to sign a blank cheque to keep everyone on long extended contracts and buy lots more expensive players at the same time. Unfortunately that doesn't happen anywhere without arab/russian billionaire owners. If there's a limit on the spending how do you propose we recruit new players at the same time as handing out long contracts to the likes of Nolan and Barton? Don't bid for Gervinho and bid for someone £4m cheaper so we can hand that money to the players already here? Why is there a limit on spending when we've just sold the family silver for £35m? Keeping your main first team players and buying new ones doesn't happen anywhere else? Righto. So you're happy to blow the money we got for Carroll on long term deals for Nolan and Barton? How are we supposed to progress doing that? Fucking hell, how much are we planning on paying them? I don't think we give them it all in one lump sum btw. Not sure, so correct me if I'm wrong. As someone pointed out 4 years is worth £10.4 million, so presuming both were on £50k per week then to give them both a 2 year extension that is what it will cost us. As for paying it all at once, I haven't suggested we were, it was you who brought up the Carroll money in relation to us having a limit on spending. If the club wants to move forward then it will need better than these two and we can't afford squad players to be sat on the bench earning £50k per week. We've afforded Smith and Xisco for long enough. Who signed those clowns? What's your point? If we're moving forward then we shouldn't be offering Smith and Xisco new deals either.