ohmelads Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Everyone knows the craic with Luque, they can see we're not playing him even though he's fit. When I was over in Spain some people were asking me what the hell has happened to him, and I couldn't give them an answer. We're not going to get much money for him, if we tout him around Spain we may get 3 - 4M for him. He's still highly rated there, but they know he hasn't played for a year. That amount would be enough to land us a Championship striker as a replacement. The Luque issue needs to be resolved immediately because it's obvious where this is going. He'll end up going for nowt next summer if Roeder is still in charge and we as a club can't keep doing this every year, it's unsustainable. Souness did it with Robert and Bellamy and now Roeder is doing it with one of our most expensive players, a player we've seen start half a dozen Premiership games. He's being frozen out. If we sell Luque we will need THREE new strikers. It won't generate money, it'll cost us money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Does being on the bench not cup-tie you? Do you have to actually make it onto the pitch? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Svenno Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 You have to make it onto the pitch Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ujpest doza Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Everyone knows the craic with Luque, they can see we're not playing him even though he's fit. When I was over in Spain some people were asking me what the hell has happened to him, and I couldn't give them an answer. We're not going to get much money for him, if we tout him around Spain we may get 3 - 4M for him. He's still highly rated there, but they know he hasn't played for a year. That amount would be enough to land us a Championship striker as a replacement. The Luque issue needs to be resolved immediately because it's obvious where this is going. He'll end up going for nowt next summer if Roeder is still in charge and we as a club can't keep doing this every year, it's unsustainable. Souness did it with Robert and Bellamy and now Roeder is doing it with one of our most expensive players, a player we've seen start half a dozen Premiership games. He's being frozen out. If we sell Luque we will need THREE new strikers. It won't generate money, it'll cost us money. Why? He isn't a striker anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Narttu Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 actually, he is a striker. :roll: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohmelads Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Everyone knows the craic with Luque, they can see we're not playing him even though he's fit. When I was over in Spain some people were asking me what the hell has happened to him, and I couldn't give them an answer. We're not going to get much money for him, if we tout him around Spain we may get 3 - 4M for him. He's still highly rated there, but they know he hasn't played for a year. That amount would be enough to land us a Championship striker as a replacement. The Luque issue needs to be resolved immediately because it's obvious where this is going. He'll end up going for nowt next summer if Roeder is still in charge and we as a club can't keep doing this every year, it's unsustainable. Souness did it with Robert and Bellamy and now Roeder is doing it with one of our most expensive players, a player we've seen start half a dozen Premiership games. He's being frozen out. If we sell Luque we will need THREE new strikers. It won't generate money, it'll cost us money. Why? He isn't a striker anyway. He played his last season for Depor on the wing, and played for Spain on the wing. But much of his career was spent as a second striker, Depor fans believe this is his best position and I would agree, although his injury on his second game has made him about two yards slower than the player Depor fans are used to seeing. We haven't seen him produce much up front for us, but then again, we haven't seen much of him full stop. He's been frozen out since he arrived here. My prediction is that Roeder will continue to freeze him out over the next 12 months and we will see him return to Spain for next to nothing next summer. Funny thing is a lot of Newcastle fans still wouldn't know anything about him. Looks like the same thing will ultimately happen with Boumsong. It's already happened with Robert and Viana in the last 12 months, so Boum and Luque are the next two. It's a completely unsustainable transfer policy but a lot of people seem to support it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 He's not being "frozen out". Why this has to be Roeder's fault I don't know. Given our current striking situation, the suggestion that he would intentionally freeze out one of only two strikers at his disposal is stupid. That Luque doesn't get a game is an indictment of Luque, nobody else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohmelads Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 He's not being "frozen out". Why this has to be Roeder's fault I don't know. Given our current striking situation, the suggestion that he would intentionally freeze out one of only two strikers at his disposal is stupid. That Luque doesn't get a game is an indictment of Luque, nobody else. Ameobi started against Ventspils. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 He's not being "frozen out". Why this has to be Roeder's fault I don't know. Given our current striking situation, the suggestion that he would intentionally freeze out one of only two strikers at his disposal is stupid. That Luque doesn't get a game is an indictment of Luque, nobody else. Ameobi started against Ventspils. You've lost me? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohmelads Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 He's not being "frozen out". Why this has to be Roeder's fault I don't know. Given our current striking situation, the suggestion that he would intentionally freeze out one of only two strikers at his disposal is stupid. That Luque doesn't get a game is an indictment of Luque, nobody else. Ameobi started against Ventspils. You've lost me? Will Ameobi now be dropped on the back of a rubbish performance against Ventspils? People think it's fair to drop Luque on the back of a friendly against Villarreal, a game in which Ameobi was spared of deserved criticism because he scored from a set-piece. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 He's not being "frozen out". Why this has to be Roeder's fault I don't know. Given our current striking situation, the suggestion that he would intentionally freeze out one of only two strikers at his disposal is stupid. That Luque doesn't get a game is an indictment of Luque, nobody else. Ameobi started against Ventspils. You've lost me? Will Ameobi now be dropped on the back of a rubbish performance against Ventspils? People think it's fair to drop Luque on the back of a friendly against Villarreal, a game in which Ameobi was spared of deserved criticism because he scored from a set-piece. Shola wasn't rubbish against Ventspils. So no, he won't be dropped. And given that the alternative is Luque, we can't afford to drop him. Lesser of two evils, and the fact that Shola is the lesser of two evils and is keeping Luque out of the team is an indictment of Luque, no one else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ujpest doza Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 actually, he is a striker. :roll: Is he fuck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohmelads Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Shola wasn't rubbish against Ventspils. So no, he won't be dropped. And given that the alternative is Luque, we can't afford to drop him. Lesser of two evils, and the fact that Shola is the lesser of two evils and is keeping Luque out of the team is an indictment of Luque, no one else. Shola was no better against Ventspils than Luque against Villarreal. Considering the level of opposition I expected a lot better from Ameobi. Perhaps he missed having a striker next to him...? We caused Villarreal more problems than we caused Ventspils. You make it sound like it's Ameobi or Luque, yet Ameobi was rubbish without a strike partner last night. I think he got one effort on target and won a few headers. Fact is Luque has been frozen out, look at Roeder's team selections last season. Even Chopra played more minutes than him last season, and he's since been released for nothing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Shola wasn't rubbish against Ventspils. So no, he won't be dropped. And given that the alternative is Luque, we can't afford to drop him. Lesser of two evils, and the fact that Shola is the lesser of two evils and is keeping Luque out of the team is an indictment of Luque, no one else. Shola was no better against Ventspils than Luque against Villarreal. Considering the level of opposition I expected a lot better from Ameobi. Perhaps he missed having a striker next to him...? You make it sound like it's Ameobi or Luque, yet Ameobi was rubbish without a strike partner against Ventspils. Fact is Luque has been frozen out, look at Roeder's team selections last season. Even Chopra played more minutes than him last season, and he's since been released for nothing. Luque isn't being left out due to anything in the Villarreal match. The suggestion is daft, tbh. If he's out it's because over a period of time he hasn't earned a place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzza Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 I've often thought that Roeder has something against Luque, how the hell can chopra get more minutes.... I don't know. He does look a bit lazy when he plays but he has been showing in the friendlies that he can play a bit. The only reason I can see that he didn't play last night was that somebody has shown an interest in signing him otherwise it doesn't add up: 5 man midfield and virtually no attacking threat? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohmelads Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Luque isn't being left out due to anything in the Villarreal match. The suggestion is daft, tbh. If he's out it's because over a period of time he hasn't earned a place. What period of time is this? Let me get this straight, he started the season with a clean slate yet he's already lost his place and you're saying Villarreal had nothing to do with it? Are you honestly suggesting he lost his place after the Lillestrom game, where he scored our only goal?! They're the only two games he's started. Under Roeder, Chopra got more opportunities than Luque. Fact. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ujpest doza Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Shola wasn't rubbish against Ventspils. So no, he won't be dropped. And given that the alternative is Luque, we can't afford to drop him. Lesser of two evils, and the fact that Shola is the lesser of two evils and is keeping Luque out of the team is an indictment of Luque, no one else. Shola was no better against Ventspils than Luque against Villarreal. Considering the level of opposition I expected a lot better from Ameobi. Perhaps he missed having a striker next to him...? We caused Villarreal more problems than we caused Ventspils. You make it sound like it's Ameobi or Luque, yet Ameobi was rubbish without a strike partner last night. I think he got one effort on target and won a few headers. Fact is Luque has been frozen out, look at Roeder's team selections last season. Even Chopra played more minutes than him last season, and he's since been released for nothing. Amoebi is garbage. Luque is not a forward and never will be, nothing more than a panic buy prior to the closure of the transfer window. Chopra may not be good enough for the Premiership but his attitude was spot on, i was also under the impression that as he is under 24 and has come through our academy that we will be due a fee for him of sorts, 1/2 a million springs to mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Luque isn't being left out due to anything in the Villarreal match. The suggestion is daft, tbh. If he's out it's because over a period of time he hasn't earned a place. What period of time is this? Let me get this straight, he started the season with a clean slate yet he's already lost his place and you're saying Villarreal had nothing to do with it? Are you honestly suggesting he lost his place after the Lillestrom game, where he scored our only goal?! They're the only two games he's started. Under Roeder, Chopra got more opportunities than Luque. Fact. How about since we signed him? Ask yourself why Chopra got more opportunities than Luque. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzza Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 cos' he runs about like a headless chicken?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohmelads Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Luque isn't being left out due to anything in the Villarreal match. The suggestion is daft, tbh. If he's out it's because over a period of time he hasn't earned a place. What period of time is this? Let me get this straight, he started the season with a clean slate yet he's already lost his place and you're saying Villarreal had nothing to do with it? Are you honestly suggesting he lost his place after the Lillestrom game, where he scored our only goal?! They're the only two games he's started. Under Roeder, Chopra got more opportunities than Luque. Fact. How about since we signed him? Ask yourself why Chopra got more opportunities than Luque. Weren't we told all the players got a clean slate at the start of the season? According to you Villarreal had nothing to do with it, and the only other game he started was Lillestrom, where he scored our only goal. Or was it the PSV performance, one that impressed most people and included a penalty. So tell me what he has done to lose his place? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ujpest doza Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Luque isn't being left out due to anything in the Villarreal match. The suggestion is daft, tbh. If he's out it's because over a period of time he hasn't earned a place. What period of time is this? Let me get this straight, he started the season with a clean slate yet he's already lost his place and you're saying Villarreal had nothing to do with it? Are you honestly suggesting he lost his place after the Lillestrom game, where he scored our only goal?! They're the only two games he's started. Under Roeder, Chopra got more opportunities than Luque. Fact. How about since we signed him? Ask yourself why Chopra got more opportunities than Luque. Weren't we told all the players got a clean slate at the start of the season? According to you Villarreal had nothing to do with it, so tell me what he has done to lose his place? For fucks sake the season hasn't even started properly yet man, these are still just pre season games even though they have a more competitive edge. Wait and see whther the sackless cunt is in the team to play Wigan and then whinge about him not getting a chance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Luque isn't being left out due to anything in the Villarreal match. The suggestion is daft, tbh. If he's out it's because over a period of time he hasn't earned a place. What period of time is this? Let me get this straight, he started the season with a clean slate yet he's already lost his place and you're saying Villarreal had nothing to do with it? Are you honestly suggesting he lost his place after the Lillestrom game, where he scored our only goal?! They're the only two games he's started. Under Roeder, Chopra got more opportunities than Luque. Fact. How about since we signed him? Ask yourself why Chopra got more opportunities than Luque. Weren't we told all the players got a clean slate at the start of the season? According to you Villarreal had nothing to do with it, so tell me what he has done to lose his place? Because he's a gutless, heartless bastard who doesn't really want to play for the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzza Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Wait and see whther the sackless **** is in the team to play Wigan and then whinge about him not getting a chance. Aye, you've got a point there like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohmelads Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 To answer your earlier question, I am still wondering why Chopra got more opportunities than Luque, yet Luque was retained and Chopra was not. Due to starting only 6 games last season, Luque's value has more than halved. Another season like that and he'll be going for next to nothing. Would you rather sell him now and bring in a cheap Championship striker? I'm curious just how badly you want rid of Luque. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kenton Magpie Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 It's about time Roeder pulled his finger from his arse and decided to get rid of Luque if this is the case Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts