Lotus Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 mackems.gif Is this your one man mission to make sure that nothing negative is said about the old board? Never seen such blinkered views in my life. Cue retort of top 4 European quals and 3 consec top 5 finishes and how well we're doing nows etc etc. never mind about the relegation struggle, at least we didn't waste any money in the transfer window Whos decision was that? it is what you said you wanted You're either saying that KK was wrong not to sign anybody and you think that was a major f**k up or you're implying that KK just lied us to us about it therefore suggesting KK is a man without intergrity. I would have thought you must be having misgivings either way. I thought you used to have a coherent arguement regarding the old board (i thought the old board had a lot of unjust crticism) but now you're not. I think you're a bit lost, mate. Seems like the disappointment is really getting to you. I sympathise with that, we must all be suffering. I hope that next season is one we can all look forward to and that we concentrate on the players performances rather than the board. yes I think it was a major mistake not to sign a player in the transfer window. If KK made the decision and we go down then he has to shoulder some blame. If the current board however denied him and he's covering for them it will become obvious, and if the current board are going to run the club with attempting to capitalise on the fanbase then so far as I am concerned they can f*** off back to where they came from. I don't believe the 2nd scenario holds true, and i think deep down you don't either. You're pissed off by the performances this year and you're highlighting the fact that a change of board would not guarentee success the was a few mongs on thought it would. You've got a lot to offer when it comes to appraisal of players and management, why don't you do that more? I would enjoy reading your synopsis of one of our games instead of your views on the old board. We all know them. But when you say Martins hasn't got the 'dead eye' i listen. If you think Owen has something to offer, i listen. If you think Taylor's got a top CB in him fighting to get out i'll listen and want to know why (i don't think he has btw). Because when you talk football it's great so please do it more :-) Thank you, I've also heard excuses from a board for 30 years to kid people they have ambition when they don't, so I've seen and heard all these too. Morts pathetic comments before the deadline and about our summers transfer activity were straight out of the Lord Westwood/Gordon McKeag book of football knowledge and ambition. We will find out. The board have a lot to do to even match the overall performance of the last board during their years running the club. Do you think these backround appoints meet with the approval of Keegan ? because this is another area which could cause him to walk and I for one wouldn't blame him in the slightest if he isn't allowed to run the club the way he wants. I think the club needs a better infrastructure, if it doesn't interfere with KK's decisions or if it serves his purpose then i think it's fine, there'll no conflict. So far they've targeted some young'uns which is good, KK doesn't want to get bogged down with that. They just have to be careful to stay within their remit. Hopefully egos won't get in the way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotus Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 We had a bid accepted for Woodgate though Leazes so that puts your theory about the funds to bed surely. Time will tell. We needed forwards and I suspect that given half a chance Keegan would have brought at least one in. As I said, if HE decided the forwards we had were good enough I'd be surprised and also he will have to bear the responsibility for his judgement. Remember Mort saying before the deadline that if we bought anybody it would be for the future. w******, considering the position we were in and the fixtures coming up. You were putting forward the possibility funds may have been withheld in January were you not? We also had a bids for Wes Brown and Giles Barnes rejected too. Did KK mention Barnes? Cause i had the feeling it was a decision made by the other lot, more of the 'promising youngsters' thing rather than 1st team player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 We had a bid accepted for Woodgate though Leazes so that puts your theory about the funds to bed surely. Time will tell. We needed forwards and I suspect that given half a chance Keegan would have brought at least one in. As I said, if HE decided the forwards we had were good enough I'd be surprised and also he will have to bear the responsibility for his judgement. Remember Mort saying before the deadline that if we bought anybody it would be for the future. w******, considering the position we were in and the fixtures coming up. You were putting forward the possibility funds may have been withheld in January were you not? We also had a bids for Wes Brown and Giles Barnes rejected too. Did KK mention Barnes? Cause i had the feeling it was a decision made by the other lot, more of the 'promising youngsters' thing rather than 1st team player. indeed, the short term is paramount, considering our position. As for Wes Brown, he's an average player surrounded by great players. I would rather have had Phil Neville for instance if we are going to bring in manure fringe players, or ex manure fringe players. But we need forwards, we've needed them for 2 years. We still haven't replaced Shearer and Bellamy, and add Solano and a Dyer type of player who actually plays and wants to play, to this, is exactly why we are where we are now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 We had a bid accepted for Woodgate though Leazes so that puts your theory about the funds to bed surely. Time will tell. We needed forwards and I suspect that given half a chance Keegan would have brought at least one in. As I said, if HE decided the forwards we had were good enough I'd be surprised and also he will have to bear the responsibility for his judgement. Remember Mort saying before the deadline that if we bought anybody it would be for the future. w******, considering the position we were in and the fixtures coming up. You were putting forward the possibility funds may have been withheld in January were you not? We also had a bids for Wes Brown and Giles Barnes rejected too. Did KK mention Barnes? Cause i had the feeling it was a decision made by the other lot, more of the 'promising youngsters' thing rather than 1st team player. He just said it was a player he'd of liked to have brought in for the future if he could get the other players in he wanted. I think the Summer will tell us a lot of things, the main one being why he didn't sign the players he wanted in January, I think the likely reason is they're top four players (that's a guess) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 We had a bid accepted for Woodgate though Leazes so that puts your theory about the funds to bed surely. Time will tell. We needed forwards and I suspect that given half a chance Keegan would have brought at least one in. As I said, if HE decided the forwards we had were good enough I'd be surprised and also he will have to bear the responsibility for his judgement. Remember Mort saying before the deadline that if we bought anybody it would be for the future. Wanker, considering the position we were in and the fixtures coming up. You were putting forward the possibility funds may have been withheld in January were you not? yes, and also the fact that Keegan clearly stated after his first game in charge that he would like to bring in 3 players during the window, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have meant 3 defenders. But I don't understand how, when the evidence is there that we bid for players, that you think it's a possibility the funds weren't there. I think we just went for players and because of a few factors (the timing for one thing) they wouldn't come. Simple as. I'm not saying the board shouldn't get stick because the timing of the Allardyce sacking and bringing in Keegan was risky. But I think you're being unfair on this one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 We had a bid accepted for Woodgate though Leazes so that puts your theory about the funds to bed surely. Time will tell. We needed forwards and I suspect that given half a chance Keegan would have brought at least one in. As I said, if HE decided the forwards we had were good enough I'd be surprised and also he will have to bear the responsibility for his judgement. Remember Mort saying before the deadline that if we bought anybody it would be for the future. w******, considering the position we were in and the fixtures coming up. You were putting forward the possibility funds may have been withheld in January were you not? We also had a bids for Wes Brown and Giles Barnes rejected too. Did KK mention Barnes? Cause i had the feeling it was a decision made by the other lot, more of the 'promising youngsters' thing rather than 1st team player. indeed, the short term is paramount, considering our position. As for Wes Brown, he's an average player surrounded by great players. I would rather have had Phil Neville for instance if we are going to bring in manure fringe players, or ex manure fringe players. But we need forwards, we've needed them for 2 years. We still haven't replaced Shearer and Bellamy, and add Solano and a Dyer type of player who actually plays and wants to play, to this, is exactly why we are where we are now. If that's the current board's fault it's the previous board's fault too then, surely. (I actually blame the managers we've had since Robson and before KK but you get my point). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 We had a bid accepted for Woodgate though Leazes so that puts your theory about the funds to bed surely. Time will tell. We needed forwards and I suspect that given half a chance Keegan would have brought at least one in. As I said, if HE decided the forwards we had were good enough I'd be surprised and also he will have to bear the responsibility for his judgement. Remember Mort saying before the deadline that if we bought anybody it would be for the future. Wanker, considering the position we were in and the fixtures coming up. You were putting forward the possibility funds may have been withheld in January were you not? yes, and also the fact that Keegan clearly stated after his first game in charge that he would like to bring in 3 players during the window, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have meant 3 defenders. But I don't understand how, when the evidence is there that we bid for players, that you think it's a possibility the funds weren't there. I think we just went for players and because of a few factors (the timing for one thing) they wouldn't come. Simple as. I'm not saying the board shouldn't get stick because the timing of the Allardyce sacking and bringing in Keegan was risky. But I think you're being unfair on this one. if we go down, it won't matter who or what is unfair. The day we can't, or stop, going for the best players from the likes of Blackburn, we are back to the shite club we used to be. Buying certain players in january would have been cheaper and more beneficical than the summer. Players always have their price, always have done and always will. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 We had a bid accepted for Woodgate though Leazes so that puts your theory about the funds to bed surely. Time will tell. We needed forwards and I suspect that given half a chance Keegan would have brought at least one in. As I said, if HE decided the forwards we had were good enough I'd be surprised and also he will have to bear the responsibility for his judgement. Remember Mort saying before the deadline that if we bought anybody it would be for the future. Wanker, considering the position we were in and the fixtures coming up. You were putting forward the possibility funds may have been withheld in January were you not? yes, and also the fact that Keegan clearly stated after his first game in charge that he would like to bring in 3 players during the window, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have meant 3 defenders. But I don't understand how, when the evidence is there that we bid for players, that you think it's a possibility the funds weren't there. I think we just went for players and because of a few factors (the timing for one thing) they wouldn't come. Simple as. I'm not saying the board shouldn't get stick because the timing of the Allardyce sacking and bringing in Keegan was risky. But I think you're being unfair on this one. if we go down, it won't matter who or what is unfair. The day we can't, or stop, going for the best players from the likes of Blackburn, we are back to the shite club we used to be. Buying certain players in january would have been cheaper and more beneficical than the summer. Players always have their price, always have done and always will. But that's a different matter mate. If we go down you can apportion blame til the cows come home - Keegan, Shepherd, Ashley, Allardyce, etc. I'm talking about the specific matter of January funds, which were there. Unless a lot of people (Boro included) are lying and I think more of KK than that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 We had a bid accepted for Woodgate though Leazes so that puts your theory about the funds to bed surely. Time will tell. We needed forwards and I suspect that given half a chance Keegan would have brought at least one in. As I said, if HE decided the forwards we had were good enough I'd be surprised and also he will have to bear the responsibility for his judgement. Remember Mort saying before the deadline that if we bought anybody it would be for the future. Wanker, considering the position we were in and the fixtures coming up. You were putting forward the possibility funds may have been withheld in January were you not? yes, and also the fact that Keegan clearly stated after his first game in charge that he would like to bring in 3 players during the window, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have meant 3 defenders. But I don't understand how, when the evidence is there that we bid for players, that you think it's a possibility the funds weren't there. I think we just went for players and because of a few factors (the timing for one thing) they wouldn't come. Simple as. I'm not saying the board shouldn't get stick because the timing of the Allardyce sacking and bringing in Keegan was risky. But I think you're being unfair on this one. if we go down, it won't matter who or what is unfair. The day we can't, or stop, going for the best players from the likes of Blackburn, we are back to the shite club we used to be. Buying certain players in january would have been cheaper and more beneficical than the summer. Players always have their price, always have done and always will. But would you understand Keegan's decision to wait if he signs SWP in the Summer? Because he's the sort of player that wouldn't of been available in January. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 We had a bid accepted for Woodgate though Leazes so that puts your theory about the funds to bed surely. Time will tell. We needed forwards and I suspect that given half a chance Keegan would have brought at least one in. As I said, if HE decided the forwards we had were good enough I'd be surprised and also he will have to bear the responsibility for his judgement. Remember Mort saying before the deadline that if we bought anybody it would be for the future. w******, considering the position we were in and the fixtures coming up. You were putting forward the possibility funds may have been withheld in January were you not? We also had a bids for Wes Brown and Giles Barnes rejected too. Did KK mention Barnes? Cause i had the feeling it was a decision made by the other lot, more of the 'promising youngsters' thing rather than 1st team player. indeed, the short term is paramount, considering our position. As for Wes Brown, he's an average player surrounded by great players. I would rather have had Phil Neville for instance if we are going to bring in manure fringe players, or ex manure fringe players. But we need forwards, we've needed them for 2 years. We still haven't replaced Shearer and Bellamy, and add Solano and a Dyer type of player who actually plays and wants to play, to this, is exactly why we are where we are now. If that's the current board's fault it's the previous board's fault too then, surely. (I actually blame the managers we've had since Robson and before KK but you get my point). to a point. Buying Owen was undoubtedly attempting to continue a policy of bringing in the best players possible, where possible. Especially with Shearers immiment retirement. Nobody was to know he was going to suffer such long term injuries. With the right partner and fitness they could have did what Beardsley/Cole did, and Shearer/Bellamy. In fact, Owen and Bellamy would have been a great partnership IMO. All you can do is buy the quality players. And yes I do concede we paid too much for Owen, but we paid too much for other players, and lots of other clubs do exactly the same. If they perform it doesn't matter paying a bit over the odds, thats what our fanbase gives us ie an advantage over lots of other clubs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 We had a bid accepted for Woodgate though Leazes so that puts your theory about the funds to bed surely. Time will tell. We needed forwards and I suspect that given half a chance Keegan would have brought at least one in. As I said, if HE decided the forwards we had were good enough I'd be surprised and also he will have to bear the responsibility for his judgement. Remember Mort saying before the deadline that if we bought anybody it would be for the future. Wanker, considering the position we were in and the fixtures coming up. You were putting forward the possibility funds may have been withheld in January were you not? yes, and also the fact that Keegan clearly stated after his first game in charge that he would like to bring in 3 players during the window, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have meant 3 defenders. But I don't understand how, when the evidence is there that we bid for players, that you think it's a possibility the funds weren't there. I think we just went for players and because of a few factors (the timing for one thing) they wouldn't come. Simple as. I'm not saying the board shouldn't get stick because the timing of the Allardyce sacking and bringing in Keegan was risky. But I think you're being unfair on this one. if we go down, it won't matter who or what is unfair. The day we can't, or stop, going for the best players from the likes of Blackburn, we are back to the shite club we used to be. Buying certain players in january would have been cheaper and more beneficical than the summer. Players always have their price, always have done and always will. But that's a different matter mate. If we go down you can apportion blame til the cows come home - Keegan, Shepherd, Ashley, Allardyce, etc. I'm talking about the specific matter of January funds, which were there. Unless a lot of people (Boro included) are lying and I think more of KK than that. Catch 22. Yes I think Keegan has integrity, more than most people, but in this situation you could look at it both ways. He's older and wiser than he used to be and getting the club out of danger would be the priority for the moment. I don't know, neither do you, but what I do know is I think Morts comments have been amateur, naive and totally clueless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I thought comments from the chairman weren't important though Basically, as I see it - everything points towards funds being available in January and I was told that Keegan was told he could have as much money as he wanted when he came here. That's one of the main reasons he came back. The same person who told me that told me he had the job about 3 hours before it was announced. I know - ITK, etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotus Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I thought comments from the chairman weren't important though Basically, as I see it - everything points towards funds being available in January and I was told that Keegan was told he could have as much money as he wanted when he came here. That's one of the main reasons he came back. The same person who told me that told me he had the job about 3 hours before it was announced. I know - ITK, etc. I just think KK had been out of the job too long to know who to buy tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I thought comments from the chairman weren't important though Basically, as I see it - everything points towards funds being available in January and I was told that Keegan was told he could have as much money as he wanted when he came here. That's one of the main reasons he came back. The same person who told me that told me he had the job about 3 hours before it was announced. I know - ITK, etc. team related comments do matter. Considering the amount of money that smaller clubs have now and will have in the summer, it will need to be a lot, and should be a lot, for a club with our fanbase. Thats my point. There's no hiding place if we go down though. The only reason you do this is by having poor players, and the fact is that too many of the wrong type and quality were brought in last summer, and an opportunity to do something about it in January was allowed to pass by. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I thought comments from the chairman weren't important though Basically, as I see it - everything points towards funds being available in January and I was told that Keegan was told he could have as much money as he wanted when he came here. That's one of the main reasons he came back. The same person who told me that told me he had the job about 3 hours before it was announced. I know - ITK, etc. Did you get the PM off Martin Jol too then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
juniatmoko Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 We had a bid accepted for Woodgate though Leazes so that puts your theory about the funds to bed surely. Time will tell. We needed forwards and I suspect that given half a chance Keegan would have brought at least one in. As I said, if HE decided the forwards we had were good enough I'd be surprised and also he will have to bear the responsibility for his judgement. Remember Mort saying before the deadline that if we bought anybody it would be for the future. w******, considering the position we were in and the fixtures coming up. You were putting forward the possibility funds may have been withheld in January were you not? We also had a bids for Wes Brown and Giles Barnes rejected too. Did KK mention Barnes? Cause i had the feeling it was a decision made by the other lot, more of the 'promising youngsters' thing rather than 1st team player. indeed, the short term is paramount, considering our position. As for Wes Brown, he's an average player surrounded by great players. I would rather have had Phil Neville for instance if we are going to bring in manure fringe players, or ex manure fringe players. But we need forwards, we've needed them for 2 years. We still haven't replaced Shearer and Bellamy, and add Solano and a Dyer type of player who actually plays and wants to play, to this, is exactly why we are where we are now. If that's the current board's fault it's the previous board's fault too then, surely. (I actually blame the managers we've had since Robson and before KK but you get my point). to a point. Buying Owen was undoubtedly attempting to continue a policy of bringing in the best players possible, where possible. Especially with Shearers immiment retirement. Nobody was to know he was going to suffer such long term injuries. With the right partner and fitness they could have did what Beardsley/Cole did, and Shearer/Bellamy. In fact, Owen and Bellamy would have been a great partnership IMO. All you can do is buy the quality players. And yes I do concede we paid too much for Owen, but we paid too much for other players, and lots of other clubs do exactly the same. If they perform it doesn't matter paying a bit over the odds, thats what our fanbase gives us ie an advantage over lots of other clubs. true... who's know owen will be crocked for shit when we buy him... we are pretty unlucky with him... we buy also martin to replace his place... but the worst thing i felt is.... why we just buy 1 quality striker at a time.... why we don't buy 2 quality striker at once?.... why we are so depend on 1 striker? why we don't make quality partnerships up front..... i guess it all blames to the management.... they are too depend on 1 person just like shearer era.... football has change... the way football playing is changed... and the management just stuck in the past... buying owen at first place with huge money at first place when u can get 2 quality strikers is insane and managerial error also... look at the way big 4 strikers stocks... even they have quality strikers also in the bench Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I thought comments from the chairman weren't important though Basically, as I see it - everything points towards funds being available in January and I was told that Keegan was told he could have as much money as he wanted when he came here. That's one of the main reasons he came back. The same person who told me that told me he had the job about 3 hours before it was announced. I know - ITK, etc. team related comments do matter. Considering the amount of money that smaller clubs have now and will have in the summer, it will need to be a lot, and should be a lot, for a club with our fanbase. Thats my point. There's no hiding place if we go down though. The only reason you do this is by having poor players, and the fact is that too many of the wrong type and quality were brought in last summer, and an opportunity to do something about it in January was allowed to pass by. I give up when you're in this sort of mood. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I thought comments from the chairman weren't important though Basically, as I see it - everything points towards funds being available in January and I was told that Keegan was told he could have as much money as he wanted when he came here. That's one of the main reasons he came back. The same person who told me that told me he had the job about 3 hours before it was announced. I know - ITK, etc. team related comments do matter. Considering the amount of money that smaller clubs have now and will have in the summer, it will need to be a lot, and should be a lot, for a club with our fanbase. Thats my point. There's no hiding place if we go down though. The only reason you do this is by having poor players, and the fact is that too many of the wrong type and quality were brought in last summer, and an opportunity to do something about it in January was allowed to pass by. I give up when you're in this sort of mood. I win Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 How old are you again? A young looking 53? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Logic Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I just think KK had been out of the job too long to know who to buy tbh. I think you couldn't be wider of the mark. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 We had a bid accepted for Woodgate though Leazes so that puts your theory about the funds to bed surely. Time will tell. We needed forwards and I suspect that given half a chance Keegan would have brought at least one in. As I said, if HE decided the forwards we had were good enough I'd be surprised and also he will have to bear the responsibility for his judgement. Remember Mort saying before the deadline that if we bought anybody it would be for the future. w******, considering the position we were in and the fixtures coming up. You were putting forward the possibility funds may have been withheld in January were you not? We also had a bids for Wes Brown and Giles Barnes rejected too. Did KK mention Barnes? Cause i had the feeling it was a decision made by the other lot, more of the 'promising youngsters' thing rather than 1st team player. indeed, the short term is paramount, considering our position. As for Wes Brown, he's an average player surrounded by great players. I would rather have had Phil Neville for instance if we are going to bring in manure fringe players, or ex manure fringe players. But we need forwards, we've needed them for 2 years. We still haven't replaced Shearer and Bellamy, and add Solano and a Dyer type of player who actually plays and wants to play, to this, is exactly why we are where we are now. If that's the current board's fault it's the previous board's fault too then, surely. (I actually blame the managers we've had since Robson and before KK but you get my point). to a point. Buying Owen was undoubtedly attempting to continue a policy of bringing in the best players possible, where possible. Especially with Shearers immiment retirement. Nobody was to know he was going to suffer such long term injuries. With the right partner and fitness they could have did what Beardsley/Cole did, and Shearer/Bellamy. In fact, Owen and Bellamy would have been a great partnership IMO. All you can do is buy the quality players. And yes I do concede we paid too much for Owen, but we paid too much for other players, and lots of other clubs do exactly the same. If they perform it doesn't matter paying a bit over the odds, thats what our fanbase gives us ie an advantage over lots of other clubs. true... who's know owen will be crocked for shit when we buy him... we are pretty unlucky with him... we buy also martin to replace his place... but the worst thing i felt is.... why we just buy 1 quality striker at a time.... why we don't buy 2 quality striker at once?.... why we are so depend on 1 striker? why we don't make quality partnerships up front..... i guess it all blames to the management.... they are too depend on 1 person just like shearer era.... football has change... the way football playing is changed... and the management just stuck in the past... buying owen at first place with huge money at first place when u can get 2 quality strikers is insane and managerial error also... look at the way big 4 strikers stocks... even they have quality strikers also in the bench Rooney cost how much ? Tevez ? (What will he cost manure this summer) Ronaldo ? (12m 4 years ago or whatever it was now) Drogba ? Torres ? The best players cost the most money mate. You will never match the top teams if you don't compete with them. You can find these players on their way up in the game, of course you can, but not every time. Nobody does, and these players and the fees they cost their current clubs are proof. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 How old are you again? A young looking 53? so is Glenn Roeder Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gash Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Rooney cost how much ? Tevez ? (What will he cost manure this summer) Ronaldo ? (12m 4 years ago or whatever it was now) Drogba ? Torres ? The best players cost the most money mate. You will never match the top teams if you don't compete with them. You can find these players on their way up in the game, of course you can, but not every time. Nobody does, and these players and the fees they cost their current clubs are proof. Adebayor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Rooney cost how much ? Tevez ? (What will he cost manure this summer) Ronaldo ? (12m 4 years ago or whatever it was now) Drogba ? Torres ? The best players cost the most money mate. You will never match the top teams if you don't compete with them. You can find these players on their way up in the game, of course you can, but not every time. Nobody does, and these players and the fees they cost their current clubs are proof. Adebayor Read the thread properly !! Oh bugger, I've just seen the next Adebayor down the school field this afternoon Fancy Alex Ferguson paying all that money when its all so simple Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
juniatmoko Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 We had a bid accepted for Woodgate though Leazes so that puts your theory about the funds to bed surely. Time will tell. We needed forwards and I suspect that given half a chance Keegan would have brought at least one in. As I said, if HE decided the forwards we had were good enough I'd be surprised and also he will have to bear the responsibility for his judgement. Remember Mort saying before the deadline that if we bought anybody it would be for the future. w******, considering the position we were in and the fixtures coming up. You were putting forward the possibility funds may have been withheld in January were you not? We also had a bids for Wes Brown and Giles Barnes rejected too. Did KK mention Barnes? Cause i had the feeling it was a decision made by the other lot, more of the 'promising youngsters' thing rather than 1st team player. indeed, the short term is paramount, considering our position. As for Wes Brown, he's an average player surrounded by great players. I would rather have had Phil Neville for instance if we are going to bring in manure fringe players, or ex manure fringe players. But we need forwards, we've needed them for 2 years. We still haven't replaced Shearer and Bellamy, and add Solano and a Dyer type of player who actually plays and wants to play, to this, is exactly why we are where we are now. If that's the current board's fault it's the previous board's fault too then, surely. (I actually blame the managers we've had since Robson and before KK but you get my point). to a point. Buying Owen was undoubtedly attempting to continue a policy of bringing in the best players possible, where possible. Especially with Shearers immiment retirement. Nobody was to know he was going to suffer such long term injuries. With the right partner and fitness they could have did what Beardsley/Cole did, and Shearer/Bellamy. In fact, Owen and Bellamy would have been a great partnership IMO. All you can do is buy the quality players. And yes I do concede we paid too much for Owen, but we paid too much for other players, and lots of other clubs do exactly the same. If they perform it doesn't matter paying a bit over the odds, thats what our fanbase gives us ie an advantage over lots of other clubs. true... who's know owen will be crocked for s*** when we buy him... we are pretty unlucky with him... we buy also martin to replace his place... but the worst thing i felt is.... why we just buy 1 quality striker at a time.... why we don't buy 2 quality striker at once?.... why we are so depend on 1 striker? why we don't make quality partnerships up front..... i guess it all blames to the management.... they are too depend on 1 person just like shearer era.... football has change... the way football playing is changed... and the management just stuck in the past... buying owen at first place with huge money at first place when u can get 2 quality strikers is insane and managerial error also... look at the way big 4 strikers stocks... even they have quality strikers also in the bench Rooney cost how much ? Tevez ? (What will he cost manure this summer) Ronaldo ? (12m 4 years ago or whatever it was now) Drogba ? Torres ? The best players cost the most money mate. You will never match the top teams if you don't compete with them. You can find these players on their way up in the game, of course you can, but not every time. Nobody does, and these players and the fees they cost their current clubs are proof. at least with 17m u can get 2 quality strikers..... i don't say it must be already world-class rated striker either... i think it our scouting was the extremely bad... for searching players if we going to get rooney, teves, ronaldo, drogba, torres.... i can be NUFC scout also.... by using TV every week as source 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