Dr Venkman

I know what you mean, [b[i just don't see why everything positive has to have a massive caveat tagged onto the end.[/b] Ba is a good signing, he's better than all our other strikers. Let's judge the other business on its own merits. it doesn't, but it absolutely must be judged with reference to selling a player for 35m and then promising to invest that money into the squad publicly ian, i'm sorry like but it fucking does Fair enough. I just think Ba is a good signing and there's no reason to be down on it because he didn't cost £20m. aaaaaargh which part of "criticising the Ba deal is stupid 'cause it makes good sense on every level" is me being down on the ba signing? Sorry, I didn't see you say that and I wasn't really talking about you solely anyway. My personal view is that the Ba deal is a good deal. It won't become a bad deal even if we fail to make other signings. That's it really. i'm very surprised you don't see each individual incoming and outgoing deal as part of a bigger outlook the club has now. signings have to be looked at in this context now imo because we know that 1. the club are looking to take advantage of release clauses/free transfers rather than scouting a player and paying what he's worth (this is the reason i dont think we'll get n'zogbia) 2. we'll sell for big money even if it immediately hampers us on the pitch Each deal is part of the whole deal imo and it's the whole deal that I care about ultimately. With respect, you are talking shite TBF. I get the whole "big picture" thing but if you can't judge the signing of Demba Ba on whether we sign another striker or not. IF we sign Ba he will judged on his own merits out on the pitch. IF we sign another striker (which i think we will), he will be judged in the same way. If want to preserve collective judgement, save it for the management team on september 1st. i'm not going to decide he's a bad player if he does it on the pitch for us, i'm just trying to say i'll reserve judgement on whether it's a good deal for the club when we see the squad come the first day of the season. the reason being that it's another signing based on getting a deal rather than getting the best player (form and fitness) we possibly can with the resources available.

What if the knee goes bang of the striker that's almost certain to bang them in, like it did with Owen? Realistically there is only so much you can prepare for and I'd be amazed if we went out and bought 3 strikers, we've also seen this season in the league with Rooney, Drogba and Torres that there are no certainties in front of goal. fair question, but let me ask you one. It's a given that we need to operate the club within reason and not pay out ridiculous wages to everyone like we have in the past, but every signing is a balance between what they'll offer us on the pitch and what we have to pay out as a club. Given our recent signings and the sale of Carroll, does it look to you like the main consideration is money or ability? As far as i'm concerned it's 100% money, and that's from a club who've just received an enormous transfer fee. You have to play the percentages and at the moment we're not playing them in favour of fitness record or ability (Ba, Gosling, Neil Taylor) we're doing it solely based on how much we can save. At some point the attitude has to change if we want to go anywhere.

I know what you mean, [b[i just don't see why everything positive has to have a massive caveat tagged onto the end.[/b] Ba is a good signing, he's better than all our other strikers. Let's judge the other business on its own merits. it doesn't, but it absolutely must be judged with reference to selling a player for 35m and then promising to invest that money into the squad publicly ian, i'm sorry like but it fucking does Fair enough. I just think Ba is a good signing and there's no reason to be down on it because he didn't cost £20m. aaaaaargh which part of "criticising the Ba deal is stupid 'cause it makes good sense on every level" is me being down on the ba signing? Sorry, I didn't see you say that and I wasn't really talking about you solely anyway. My personal view is that the Ba deal is a good deal. It won't become a bad deal even if we fail to make other signings. That's it really. i'm very surprised you don't see each individual incoming and outgoing deal as part of a bigger outlook the club has now. signings have to be looked at in this context now imo because we know that 1. the club are looking to take advantage of release clauses/free transfers rather than scouting a player and paying what he's worth (this is the reason i dont think we'll get n'zogbia) 2. we'll sell for big money even if it immediately hampers us on the pitch Each deal is part of the whole deal imo and it's the whole deal that I care about ultimately.

Or have better options and won't come like Gervinho and Gameiro. we did have a pretty good looking striker here til january like and he cost nowt, a pay rise would have kept him here.

I know what you mean, I just don't see why everything positive has to have a massive caveat tagged onto the end. i shouldnt even have to answer that, we've been let down so many times by these lot it's natural to temper enthusiasm at this point well, no. I'll judge the squad as a whole on the first day of the season. If Ba is accompanied by other strikers of his quality he's a good signing, if he's not it's a bad signing because they THINK its enough and it's another signing made for financial reasons first and football second.

the way i look at it of we bring ba and erdinc and that's it in it's almost certainly an upgrade on what we have but it's worrying for a few reasons. 1. Ba's knee 2. Erdinc is somewhat out of form and a confidence player by some accounts 3. It looks likely we're going for a 4-3-3 with not many goals likely from midfield. If Ben Arfa isnt the player he was or takes ages to get back to it who's gonna score if Erdinc doesnt settle and Ba's in the treatment room? It would just make me feel more comfortable bringing in a striker who is almost certainly gonna bang quite a few in for us, due to form and fitness records. But they tend to cost money.

cant see anything wrong at all with saying it's a good signing if he's joined by another one or two of his ability but not wise if he's the only striker we bring in. that makes sense to me.

agree

woodgate to west ham?

anyone heard what barnetta and matuidi's release clauses are yet?

Fucks sake man. Give over with this crap. Give over with your life, it will be easier for everyone involved. oh, oh yeah? edit - this is what i was looking for Satan: Son of God, I will smash thy face into small little bits! Jesus: Oh - oh yeah??

i'd like to see us change our policy for colo mind, i think he's got years in him yet

i'd love to see two defensive minded mids capable of passing, would give a really strong spine to the team

I would have liked Barton but after seeing him captain a game this season (shout and scream at everyone) I'm not sure he's the right option. aye he was a disaster, totally off his game as well. he might settle into it on a more regular basis though

i'd feel more comfortable with him on the moon

i think i'll actually cry

i'd love to know what the thinking is behind this? premier league experience? settled in the city? what are the reasons for appointing him?

if someone makes a 'silly money' offer for him do you see him staying? i don't. do you think it's likely someone will make a 'silly money' offer for him? i'd say it's as likely as chelsea bidding 22m for modric. i'm not saying he's going, i'm saying it's naive to believe he definitely isnt.

If we are genuinely in for Matuidi then I'd be concerned that Tiote is going, because it just seems pointless having two top players for one position. But then why leave Tiote out of the final two games of the season if we expected him to leave before next season began? we could feasibly play both, but we could just as easily sell tiote and not bring in a proper replacement. saying he most definitely will not be going is naive in the extreme imo.

Good, because it isn't happening. care to wager some piss on that?

http://www.dailyhaggis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/o_rly.jpg

stephen ireland can fuck off. there'd be only one positive thing about his singing and that would be that it'd be at a 'knock down price' and quite frankly i'm sick of every single singing being based on that first and football second.

Everton's lure is overrated on here. Even if they've ended above us for a good while, I'd say we've got just as big of a name as Everton out there. Ambitions, money and the French connection is possible specific reasons. i'm willing to agree we're probably of equal standing reputation wise give or take, it just doesnt seem to add up being that we look to save money every which way we can that we'd offer more than them. unless the free transfer/only have to give the agents 2m aspect of the deal was enough to get ashley hard.

stability ? pile of shite really. find out where you want to bring your kid up, contact the nearest prem club and adjust your wage demands to get the move. i'm fairly sure even if he packed in tomorrow he'd ever have to work again . who on hear wouldn't take their kid to a new school every 2 or 3 years if they were to get 30kpw for it ? what are you on about? find out where you want to bring your kid up? you have to live in areas to get a feel for them. money doesn't equal stability, i'm pretty sure michael jackson, britney spears, whitney houston, mickey rourke etc can vouch for that. and whether anyone would move their children around for money or not doesn't necessarily mean it's the best thing for a kid.

£££. And all the French lads we're bringing in. why would we be willing to pay more than them though?