Dokko Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 I'm going to stick (at the risk of being lampooned by certain posters!!) with the Premiership era (dun dun duuunnnn). 1st off its more relevant and a couple of the old time sales would certainly win outright anyway. So which sale of a player had the biggest negative effect on the club? (if you think of any more please say and i will add them) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jep Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 "never have sold" ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decky Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Cole Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 "never have sold" ? Yes am shit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jep Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Sorry, I'm being pedantic Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 "never have sold" ? Yes am shit. "I'm shit"? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Sorry, I'm being pedantic No seriously, you weren't! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decky Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 On another day TT may have just took you're head off for that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 On another day TT may have just took you're head off for that Stop it. Now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Ginola wanted to go though. And we never sold Chopra. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Interesting thread. Why was Ferdinand actually sold? Never really understood that; i was too young at the time. The sale of Cole was understanable - getting Gillespie, signing Ferdinand - but Sir Les, i don't know. For me, Woodgate, because we got fuck all out of it - ie, did fuck all with the money and lost a great player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kingdawson Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Jenas is gonna win this hands down Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Interesting thread. Why was Ferdinand actually sold? Never really understood that; i was too young at the time. The sale of Cole was understanable - getting Gillespie, signing Ferdinand - but Sir Les, i don't know. For me, Woodgate, because we got fuck all out of it - ie, did fuck all with the money and lost a great player. They saw getting the same fee they paid for him back too good to turn down at his age, i think he was 29 at the time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Interesting thread. Why was Ferdinand actually sold? Never really understood that; i was too young at the time. The sale of Cole was understanable - getting Gillespie, signing Ferdinand - but Sir Les, i don't know. For me, Woodgate, because we got fuck all out of it - ie, did fuck all with the money and lost a great player. We never signed Sir Les though till six months later, so how on earth you can justify that as understandable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Interesting thread. Why was Ferdinand actually sold? Never really understood that; i was too young at the time. The sale of Cole was understanable - getting Gillespie, signing Ferdinand - but Sir Les, i don't know. For me, Woodgate, because we got fuck all out of it - ie, did fuck all with the money and lost a great player. They saw getting the same fee they paid for him back too good to turn down at his age, i think he was 29 at the time. Bad move. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 The good old PLC. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Interesting thread. Why was Ferdinand actually sold? Never really understood that; i was too young at the time. The sale of Cole was understanable - getting Gillespie, signing Ferdinand - but Sir Les, i don't know. For me, Woodgate, because we got fuck all out of it - ie, did fuck all with the money and lost a great player. We never signed Sir Les though till six months later, so how on earth you can justify that as understandable. Those six months were pretty insignificant in the great scheme of things though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alan Shearer 9 Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Ferdinand was sold to raise funds for other transfers iirc, from Keegan's autobio Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Ferdinand was sold to raise funds for other transfers iirc, from Keegan's autobio Keegan didn't sell him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.S.R. Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Hamman? Distin? (On loan technically, but we had the first option on him) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Interesting thread. Why was Ferdinand actually sold? Never really understood that; i was too young at the time. The sale of Cole was understanable - getting Gillespie, signing Ferdinand - but Sir Les, i don't know. For me, Woodgate, because we got fuck all out of it - ie, did fuck all with the money and lost a great player. We never signed Sir Les though till six months later, so how on earth you can justify that as understandable. Those six months were pretty insignificant in the great scheme of things though. Aye but the way it was put as if we sold Cole and we got Sir Les in there and then as a replacement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alan Shearer 9 Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Acuna Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Acuna Hamman Distin Added. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Interesting thread. Why was Ferdinand actually sold? Never really understood that; i was too young at the time. The sale of Cole was understanable - getting Gillespie, signing Ferdinand - but Sir Les, i don't know. For me, Woodgate, because we got fuck all out of it - ie, did fuck all with the money and lost a great player. We never signed Sir Les though till six months later, so how on earth you can justify that as understandable. Well i don't know. It was a few years before i was old enough to follow football, but that's what i thought. But Ferdinand did replace Cole and replaced him effectively, with no great fluctuation in the prices received/paid, so you could say it was always in the pipeline. One things for sure, if we're replying to the question the thread asks, selling Cole wasn't much of a mistake. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Selling Cole when we did rather than in the summer probably helped us actually, finishing sixth as we did. We mightn't have got so close to the title if we'd have the UEFA Cup to contend with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now