KaKa

2 minutes ago, Geordiebri said:

Using you're understanding its all about continuous improvement.  How is Pedro  part of that? You still haven't said why.

He isn't. I agree. It would be going backwards.

I want them to bring back Gayle. He has untapped potential.

14 minutes ago, Geordiebri said:

Pedro isnt building , he's not !

You're saying it's ok to get a mediocre backup for a centre forward who is only slightly better than average.  It's pointless tbh.

Is it possible to have bots on here?

1 hour ago, La Parka said:

Selling club gonna sell. 

 

He's getting on a bit as well. 

Contract expiring too.

12 minutes ago, Geordiebri said:

Instead of looking for a Wilson backup, why aren't we going for a Wilson upgrade? 

 

I thought we are supposed to be ambitious?

Signing Pedro Smells too much of wanting a Champagne lifestyle on fizzy pop money.

Have you not been following the club? They have talked about the approach in the immediate future over and over again. From owner to manager.

I don't understand how people can still be this unaware of what is going on. This is unbelievable. 

26 minutes ago, Super Duper Branko Strupar said:

 

We wont have gone from Diaby or Maddison to Pedro, though, given Pedro is a CF and the other 2 aren't. This would be more like moving from Ekitike to Pedro. Which given their previous experience doesnt feel like it's a drop off in quality or ambition. We're clearly after a younger understudy to Wilson who can also help give us more options. 

 

We're after 3 players in CF/ST, RW and CM. We're obviously, and quite smartly, imo, open to not only different terms of acquisition but also perceived and/or potential qaulity in all 3 roles to be able to improve the starting 11 and overall squad. That's going to be for not only financial/FFP considerations but also team integration. I dont think we've been linked with any CF/ST that would be of the quality in that position of Maddison or Diaby in theirs, because of the quality we already have there. RW and CM we lack that quality so going for better players demanding bigger sums there is obvious. 

 

 

 

Exactly. This is all clear as day.

The Pedro signing has absolutely nothing to do with the Diaby or Madison links.

There have been numerous mentions of them being after a young versatile striker, a first team right sided player, and perhaps a midfielder too.

Have no idea where the confusion on this is coming from.

1 hour ago, reefatoon said:

 

That’s the thing. Don’t worry about that as we don’t know what the budget or the plans are. Let’s just see it play out and see what happens. It’s not a time to be worrying, we’ve had 15 years of that. We will have a plan now and I am sure they know what they are wanting to do and how they want to plan it. Onwards and upwards.

 

 

 

It's all about how the deals are structured too. For example, our initial bid for João Pedro was a £20 million guaranteed fee with add ons.

That doesn't necessarily mean that £20 million is all paid upfront. Most deals just don'work that way.

We saw it with the Pope deal where only £3 million came out of this summer's budget. 

Similarly structured deals will allow us to get enough players in with the £40 million or whatever they have claimed we have left to spend.

The budget is not the issue right now. It is the club wanting to get players in and around the value they think is right, whether or not people agree with that is a different issue. Based on their work so far I trust their judgement.

25 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

This is why I call you slow. You're desperate to disagree and be right.

 

It is my opinion that some of the money spent on the LCB position would have been more effectively spent on attacking positions. I think the money spent there has contributed to limiting our attacking options.

 

You disagree. Fine. Move on and stop quoting me.

You keep getting abusive because you know you're talking rubbish and you're rattled. It's pretty pathetic really 

You clearly didn't understand how FFP actually works. 

'The money spent there has limited our attacking options' ... right, because they disagree with certain player valuations that of course means we don't have the budget. I forgot that was another one of your brilliant theories.

Man, go sit down somewhere. 

1 minute ago, HTT II said:

Lads @KaKa @The College Dropout, let it drop man, shake hands and move on!It's not a fight ma

It's not a fight man!

22 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

 

You’re missing the point again and I’m tired of repeating myself so I’ll keep it brief. 
 

Burn is a good signing. Botman will be a good signing. I’m not sure about both of them right now from a FFP and squad building standpoint as of today. 
 

We shouldn’t sign players permanently that we aim to replace within 12 months (because they lack quality) and who we will struggle to recoup from now. 
 

The Zaha thing is simple. I rate him as transformational, you don’t. That’s really where the conversation ends.  But I’ve not contradicted myself regarding Zaha at all. Zaha is generally regarded as one of the best players outside  the top 6. He has been heavily linked to Arsenal and Spurs in the past. As much as you might personally disagree he would be considered a statement signing. He is not the same type of signing as Dan Burn. 
 

I understand that as a strategy you prefer spending £20-30m on some young player from Ligue 1 than paying a premium on an established PL performer like JM or Zaha. I understand that thinking and why - it has value and if done right can be successful. Personally I think it’s overly risky and the flops will outweigh the hits unless you are getting the top talents. I don’t feel the need to follow you around thread to thread misunderstanding your perspective or wanting to prove you are wrong. It’s an easy to understand valid opinion with pros and cons. Me too, I also have easy to understand opinions with pros and cons.

You're point doesn't make sense no matter how often you repeat it.

Saying you aren't sure of Botman and Burn FFP wise or squad building wise is not based on any sound reasoning. Their year on year FFP cost, which is based on their fee spread over their contracts is low. And it is a clear upgrade squad wise.

So for you to claim otherwise on those two and try to justify Zaha does not fly. He's more costly FFP wise and an equivalent Premier League player or otherwise that is younger can be had without taking the FFP hit we would on Zaha.

2 hours ago, Lotus said:

If this is genuine, why didn’t we bid for him when Etikite went to PSG?
if he was a real and pre planned target, why is it taking until now?
Theres something seemingly amiss with our strategy regarding the recruitment of forwards.

We can all have lots of faith but if I just look at the evidence, we’ve signed Chris Wood (who was a waste of money and I can’t think of it as anything else) and apart from that,  nothing. Unlucky with Etikite, Under bid for Maddison (ludicrously so), and now have a bid turned down for this nipper.

I can’t make a pattern out of the bids (I’m ignoring the rumours and twitter ‘links’).

I would reckon one of Ashworth’s major jobs is to find a good head of recruitment. 

This guy was first linked all the way back in June. They were apparently discouraging bids then and insisting on big money.

I imagine we've been trying to bring that price down, and perhaps have waited until now to see how much yhey could do so. This pretty standard when clubs are trying to get the best price possible.

2 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

This is why I say you're not the most intelligent.

 

I've never said Dan Burn was a poor signing. Show me where I said that. I said he was a short-term signing and a stop-gap signing in the first team. What I questioned - is going back and signing the plan A in his position for top dollar in the very next window when funds are limited because of FFP. Having signed Burn, I would've kept him as first-choice for another season and prioritise RW, CM & ST. And if we were so determined to sign Botman, just push the boat out a little further in January. Because I think we are now after players a level below what i was hoping for (Harrison, Joao Pedro) in the attacking positions or falling short for fees for players at that ideal level (Maddison). In part, because we've spent £50m on LCB's over 2 windows.

 

Zaha is more akin to the Trippier signing. It's a quality signing, a statement signing, someone that is meant to come in and lift the quality of the team. You're not going to get your money back but what you are hoping for is genuine quality for 2-4 years and for him to make an immediate impact that gets the team up the league.

 

That's not the same as Dan Burn. Dan Burn was signed to stave relegation. We would sign Zaha to try and get into Europe asap.

 

This is a really simple point.

 

 

 

You say we shouldn't have signed both Botman and Burn (even though it means never seeing Clark feature again for us, and rightly so), but I disagree. It was the right approach because it improves our squad significantly. You act as though that isn't as important in improving our chances of European qualification. But you claim it wasn't the right move because Burn has low resale value and isn't European level ability and it isn't good for FFP. Again I disagree ... low resale value was not significant with the Burn transfer because he wasn't brought in to move on for profit, and he was not an expensive signing anyway. His £13 million fee over his 2.5 year contract counts as around £5 million a year FFP wise.

You seem certain Zaha is worth bringing in at 30 years old in a position where players don't age as well, for £30 million over 3 years, because he'll have this tremendous impact on the team and you compare him to Trippier. I'm sorry but I'm not having that. Trippier was brought in for his ability yes, but just as importantly for his stature in the game and for his leadership and winning experience. Zaha brings none of those intangibles and he is not good enough to justify bringing him in at this stage of his career at £30 million and on a big wage IMO. He'd be a bigger hit than Burn FFP wise as he'd be £10 million a year over a 3 year contract, if we could even get him for £30 million, which I don't think is realistic.

We're better off going for a player that we can actually land in that £30 million range who is younger and can be brought in on a 5 year contract, which is what the club is trying to do, as it is better FFP wise. The £30 million fee over the 5 year contract counts as £6 million a year for FFP. If at any point they do move on you are also able to at least also capitalise on that with a fee, which again, is good for the FFP accounts.

I don't think Zaha is that good that we can't find a younger player close to that ability or better that can continue to improve. We'll see if I'm right once the window closes I guess.

1 minute ago, LFEE said:

Not seen much of CHO but limited times when I did he seemed very unambitious with his passing and attacking play. Nothing at all about him stood out. Was like watching RLC for Chelsea also. You want them to surprise you etc as you think they are capable of more but both just play very methodical.

Yeah ... I like his potential, but not sure that's what we are after for the first team. Think we'll go for someone who has produced goals and assists previously.

7 minutes ago, Dokko said:

Manu V Liverpool next Monday is a win-win whatever the result. I really can't decide what I want more. Think Manu getting bummed again would be the funniest, but seeing liverpool with 3 or less pts from 3 games would be a delight as well.

 

The real winners are Citeh, unfortunately.

Man City have had a game against Ben Johnson at centre back for West Ham and then Bournemouth who were just trying to keep the score down.

Let's see what happens when they start facing a bit better competition. Not convinced yet they'll be as good this year.

Fantastic signing. Kind of signing Man United should be making for their midfield.

Good engine and physicality but decent on and with the ball too.

54 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

 

Used to play in Germany at one point right?

Always thought he looked interesting back then but hasn't been used as much at Atletico I don't think.

Interesting signing if true. At least it's someone that might have a bit of hunger to show what he can do.

Arsenal fans must be over the moon right now. What a weekend for them.

4 minutes ago, TheGuv said:

Zaha has slipped over about 6x now. Wear some proper fucking boots

That's his game. He's always a bit untidy and awkward like that in general play.

4 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

You quote me and fail to understand simple points day after day. 
 

You’ve called me a hypocrite. I’ve not contradicted myself once on Zaha if you would bother to engage your brain. I’ve realised it’s not a discussion in good faith - you and the same others just want to disagree with me. It’s tiresome. 

You think I'm attacking you personally, but I just disagree with almost all of your points. I just don't think they're great.

I thought you were being hypocritical after all the fuss about Dan Burn being a poor signing because he has no resale value. Now today you're saying you think Zaha would be a great short term signing.

3 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

With how much you seem to rate our rumoured targets I’m shocked at your dislike of Zaha. I agree his age all but rules us out, but his numbers over the last few years are light years ahead of any of our current or linked players.

I'm just never impressed by his general overall game. He loses the ball a lot, and complains about it a lot.

What I find amusing is that people rate him higher than Harrison who has a far better all around game and constantly tests the opposition with his final ball, as well as scores goals.

I'm sorry but I just don't get it.

Just now, The College Dropout said:

you’re not intelligent.  You’ve struggled with a v. simple point because you have a hard-on for me. Go away and stop quoting me. 

You're the one getting abusive and losing your cool 

It's nothing personal man. I just don't agree with 99.9% of your footballing points.

Just now, Optimistic Nut said:

 

If FFP wasn't an issue I'd 100% sign him. Brilliant footballer.

Thank God for FFP.

Just now, The College Dropout said:

You are not a bright individual. 
 

My personal opinion is Zaha is a great player that could play for a top 6 side. Pace, power, skill, balance and in recent years he’s added real end product. He’ll score 9-15 goals this season at Palace im sure. He would improve us immeasurably. I think he could be transformational player that would help get us into Europe. I personally think it’s a great short-term / medium term signing. 
 

However - I don’t think the club is interested in signing a 29 year old for £30m on massive wages. We could sign him for that money and still finish 9th.  I think FFP and resale is front and centre of our strategy. Those short term transfers were made in January - they don’t want that. 
 

I don’t think he’s the profile the club wants and I understand why. it’s not the strategy I would adopt but it is a logical one. 

Yes, I could never be as smart as you are, obviously.

Fortunately the club is as dumb as I am and would never sign Wilfred Zaha.

2 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

He’s only taken penalties in one season in his career 

In his best goal scoring year last year I presume? At 29 years old. 

Don't get the hype over him at all. Typically falls over and complains the majority of most matches.

He's 30 years old and shouldn't be anywhere near our radar.

Just now, The College Dropout said:

Significantly better than any of our attackers.  
 

can play across the front line. LW, RW and ST. 

 

Fee would be about £30m - nothing crazy. 
 

3 years - could get us into CL if we add a few more of that quality. 

You are such a hypocrite man

The other day you went on and on and on about resale value, and now here you are claiming yet again that a 30 year old Zaha should be signed

No thanks. Zaha is done man and he was never that great to begin with. His goal scoring record really isn't that great as he typically scored less than double figures and usually took penalties as well.

Just no ...

Just now, Conjo said:

 

Oh wow he scored one goal. Opinions firmly redeemed then!

 

My nose is firmly up in the air on this one. 

 mine too.