Lotus Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Not disagreeing with the majority of your post but the purchase of Duff was unecessary. We had a decent player in that position and more important areas to spend a third of the transfer budget. That's not hindsight, he was not in his prime, he was sold 'cheap' for a good reason. It's not a bad idea to take a gamble sometimes but we had other problems in the squad, LW was ok. That's the problem with the "squad" generally today, we have 1 decent first choice player for a position, but very little backup. Allardyce addressed those "problems in the squad" the following season spending substantially more than £5m (I assume you mean the defence) and we subsequently went on to concede twice as many goals - in no small part due to the midfield being weak. I don't think you and I are gonna disagree much on this tbh, but regards the defence. Allardyce bought a CB for <3m and one for free, and that's exactly what they looked like. I'd say he got his money's worth for those 2. Beye is a good buy and i think Ricky is a decent and promising defender. I think BSA thought he was addressing the MidF with Barton and Smith, Barton i could understand (BSA was unlucky with him tbf), Smith was a mystery in my eyes. BSA wasn't unlucky with barton. he knew exactly what he was buyong and if he bought him purely because of his on-field stuff ignoring the players wider life then BSA was a bigger fool than i thought. Barton broke a bone in preseason which i think affected his form. That's unlucky. I didn't know Barton was gonna spark off at some McDonalds and neither did BSA. I actually thought he'd have the brains to stay out of it. I was wrong there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Not disagreeing with the majority of your post but the purchase of Duff was unecessary. We had a decent player in that position and more important areas to spend a third of the transfer budget. That's not hindsight, he was not in his prime, he was sold 'cheap' for a good reason. It's not a bad idea to take a gamble sometimes but we had other problems in the squad, LW was ok. That's the problem with the "squad" generally today, we have 1 decent first choice player for a position, but very little backup. Allardyce addressed those "problems in the squad" the following season spending substantially more than £5m (I assume you mean the defence) and we subsequently went on to concede twice as many goals - in no small part due to the midfield being weak. I don't think you and I are gonna disagree much on this tbh, but regards the defence. Allardyce bought a CB for <3m and one for free, and that's exactly what they looked like. I'd say he got his money's worth for those 2. Beye is a good buy and i think Ricky is a decent and promising defender. I think BSA thought he was addressing the MidF with Barton and Smith, Barton i could understand (BSA was unlucky with him tbf), Smith was a mystery in my eyes. BSA wasn't unlucky with barton. he knew exactly what he was buyong and if he bought him purely because of his on-field stuff ignoring the players wider life then BSA was a bigger fool than i thought. Barton broke a bone in preseason which i think affected his form. That's unlucky. I didn't know Barton was gonna spark off at some McDonalds and neither did BSA. I actually thought he'd have the brains to stay out of it. I was wrong there. no problem with him on the pitch. if it was that alone he is defintly a player to have based on his citeh form when we signed him. however you are in a small minority if you thought him kicking off again was unlikely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Frenchman could find exit door opens soon CHARLES NZogbias agent has been told his client will be part of the January sales at St Jamess Park. http://www.journallive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2008/11/25/frenchman-could-find-exit-door-opens-soon-61634-22330045/ In any case, we need to start giving more first team experience to Lua Lua, who I think will turn out to be a much better player. Is he a left winger? He doesn't need to be when both Duff and Jonas can play on the left. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotus Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Not disagreeing with the majority of your post but the purchase of Duff was unecessary. We had a decent player in that position and more important areas to spend a third of the transfer budget. That's not hindsight, he was not in his prime, he was sold 'cheap' for a good reason. It's not a bad idea to take a gamble sometimes but we had other problems in the squad, LW was ok. That's the problem with the "squad" generally today, we have 1 decent first choice player for a position, but very little backup. Allardyce addressed those "problems in the squad" the following season spending substantially more than £5m (I assume you mean the defence) and we subsequently went on to concede twice as many goals - in no small part due to the midfield being weak. I don't think you and I are gonna disagree much on this tbh, but regards the defence. Allardyce bought a CB for <3m and one for free, and that's exactly what they looked like. I'd say he got his money's worth for those 2. Beye is a good buy and i think Ricky is a decent and promising defender. I think BSA thought he was addressing the MidF with Barton and Smith, Barton i could understand (BSA was unlucky with him tbf), Smith was a mystery in my eyes. BSA wasn't unlucky with barton. he knew exactly what he was buyong and if he bought him purely because of his on-field stuff ignoring the players wider life then BSA was a bigger fool than i thought. Barton broke a bone in preseason which i think affected his form. That's unlucky. I didn't know Barton was gonna spark off at some McDonalds and neither did BSA. I actually thought he'd have the brains to stay out of it. I was wrong there. no problem with him on the pitch. if it was that alone he is defintly a player to have based on his citeh form when we signed him. however you are in a small minority if you thought him kicking off again was unlikely. As i said, i was wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Not disagreeing with the majority of your post but the purchase of Duff was unecessary. We had a decent player in that position and more important areas to spend a third of the transfer budget. That's not hindsight, he was not in his prime, he was sold 'cheap' for a good reason. It's not a bad idea to take a gamble sometimes but we had other problems in the squad, LW was ok. That's the problem with the "squad" generally today, we have 1 decent first choice player for a position, but very little backup. Allardyce addressed those "problems in the squad" the following season spending substantially more than £5m (I assume you mean the defence) and we subsequently went on to concede twice as many goals - in no small part due to the midfield being weak. I don't think you and I are gonna disagree much on this tbh, but regards the defence. Allardyce bought a CB for <3m and one for free, and that's exactly what they looked like. I'd say he got his money's worth for those 2. Beye is a good buy and i think Ricky is a decent and promising defender. I think BSA thought he was addressing the MidF with Barton and Smith, Barton i could understand (BSA was unlucky with him tbf), Smith was a mystery in my eyes. I mostly agree, but I didn't want to take this into a discussion about Allardyce, my point was that 1) it's not at all easy to improve a defence weak in all departments by spending £5m on it and 2) sometimes you can do more to improve your defence by improving your midfielders/attackers than you can by improving your defenders (I'd argue it's only really worth having quality defenders after you've got the other parts of the team sorted, but that's even further OT for this thread). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Not disagreeing with the majority of your post but the purchase of Duff was unecessary. We had a decent player in that position and more important areas to spend a third of the transfer budget. That's not hindsight, he was not in his prime, he was sold 'cheap' for a good reason. It's not a bad idea to take a gamble sometimes but we had other problems in the squad, LW was ok. That's the problem with the "squad" generally today, we have 1 decent first choice player for a position, but very little backup. Allardyce addressed those "problems in the squad" the following season spending substantially more than £5m (I assume you mean the defence) and we subsequently went on to concede twice as many goals - in no small part due to the midfield being weak. I don't think you and I are gonna disagree much on this tbh, but regards the defence. Allardyce bought a CB for <3m and one for free, and that's exactly what they looked like. I'd say he got his money's worth for those 2. Beye is a good buy and i think Ricky is a decent and promising defender. I think BSA thought he was addressing the MidF with Barton and Smith, Barton i could understand (BSA was unlucky with him tbf), Smith was a mystery in my eyes. BSA wasn't unlucky with barton. he knew exactly what he was buyong and if he bought him purely because of his on-field stuff ignoring the players wider life then BSA was a bigger fool than i thought. Barton broke a bone in preseason which i think affected his form. That's unlucky. I didn't know Barton was gonna spark off at some McDonalds and neither did BSA. I actually thought he'd have the brains to stay out of it. I was wrong there. no problem with him on the pitch. if it was that alone he is defintly a player to have based on his citeh form when we signed him. however you are in a small minority if you thought him kicking off again was unlikely. As i said, i was wrong. you can't do that on here. you have to twist and squirm and defend your view blindly no matter what,dodge questions,change the subject,derail the argument on to minutiae of the tiniest detail. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotus Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Not disagreeing with the majority of your post but the purchase of Duff was unecessary. We had a decent player in that position and more important areas to spend a third of the transfer budget. That's not hindsight, he was not in his prime, he was sold 'cheap' for a good reason. It's not a bad idea to take a gamble sometimes but we had other problems in the squad, LW was ok. That's the problem with the "squad" generally today, we have 1 decent first choice player for a position, but very little backup. Allardyce addressed those "problems in the squad" the following season spending substantially more than £5m (I assume you mean the defence) and we subsequently went on to concede twice as many goals - in no small part due to the midfield being weak. I don't think you and I are gonna disagree much on this tbh, but regards the defence. Allardyce bought a CB for <3m and one for free, and that's exactly what they looked like. I'd say he got his money's worth for those 2. Beye is a good buy and i think Ricky is a decent and promising defender. I think BSA thought he was addressing the MidF with Barton and Smith, Barton i could understand (BSA was unlucky with him tbf), Smith was a mystery in my eyes. I mostly agree, but I didn't want to take this into a discussion about Allardyce, my point was that 1) it's not at all easy to improve a defence weak in all departments by spending £5m on it and 2) sometimes you can do more to improve your defence by improving your midfielders/attackers than you can by improving your defenders (I'd argue it's only really worth having quality defenders after you've got the other parts of the team sorted, but that's even further OT for this thread). That last point is interesting. I've heard a couple of posters say something similar and yet 'conventional wisdom' always seems to be that you build from the back. Not saying Alan Hansen is an authority but he says 'If you haven't got a defence you haven't got much.' You always hear pundits trotting out a similar line. Just cause they're on TV doesn't make them right but i genuinely want to know if you think differently and why cause i'm genuinely interested. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotus Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Not disagreeing with the majority of your post but the purchase of Duff was unecessary. We had a decent player in that position and more important areas to spend a third of the transfer budget. That's not hindsight, he was not in his prime, he was sold 'cheap' for a good reason. It's not a bad idea to take a gamble sometimes but we had other problems in the squad, LW was ok. That's the problem with the "squad" generally today, we have 1 decent first choice player for a position, but very little backup. Allardyce addressed those "problems in the squad" the following season spending substantially more than £5m (I assume you mean the defence) and we subsequently went on to concede twice as many goals - in no small part due to the midfield being weak. I don't think you and I are gonna disagree much on this tbh, but regards the defence. Allardyce bought a CB for <3m and one for free, and that's exactly what they looked like. I'd say he got his money's worth for those 2. Beye is a good buy and i think Ricky is a decent and promising defender. I think BSA thought he was addressing the MidF with Barton and Smith, Barton i could understand (BSA was unlucky with him tbf), Smith was a mystery in my eyes. BSA wasn't unlucky with barton. he knew exactly what he was buyong and if he bought him purely because of his on-field stuff ignoring the players wider life then BSA was a bigger fool than i thought. Barton broke a bone in preseason which i think affected his form. That's unlucky. I didn't know Barton was gonna spark off at some McDonalds and neither did BSA. I actually thought he'd have the brains to stay out of it. I was wrong there. no problem with him on the pitch. if it was that alone he is defintly a player to have based on his citeh form when we signed him. however you are in a small minority if you thought him kicking off again was unlikely. As i said, i was wrong. you can't do that on here. you have to twist and squirm and defend your view blindly no matter what,dodge questions,change the subject,derail the argument on to minutiae of the tiniest detail. That is not the road to emancipation my brother.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Not disagreeing with the majority of your post but the purchase of Duff was unecessary. We had a decent player in that position and more important areas to spend a third of the transfer budget. That's not hindsight, he was not in his prime, he was sold 'cheap' for a good reason. It's not a bad idea to take a gamble sometimes but we had other problems in the squad, LW was ok. That's the problem with the "squad" generally today, we have 1 decent first choice player for a position, but very little backup. Allardyce addressed those "problems in the squad" the following season spending substantially more than £5m (I assume you mean the defence) and we subsequently went on to concede twice as many goals - in no small part due to the midfield being weak. I don't think you and I are gonna disagree much on this tbh, but regards the defence. Allardyce bought a CB for <3m and one for free, and that's exactly what they looked like. I'd say he got his money's worth for those 2. Beye is a good buy and i think Ricky is a decent and promising defender. I think BSA thought he was addressing the MidF with Barton and Smith, Barton i could understand (BSA was unlucky with him tbf), Smith was a mystery in my eyes. I mostly agree, but I didn't want to take this into a discussion about Allardyce, my point was that 1) it's not at all easy to improve a defence weak in all departments by spending £5m on it and 2) sometimes you can do more to improve your defence by improving your midfielders/attackers than you can by improving your defenders (I'd argue it's only really worth having quality defenders after you've got the other parts of the team sorted, but that's even further OT for this thread). That last point is interesting. I've heard a couple of posters say something similar and yet 'conventional wisdom' always seems to be that you build from the back. Not saying Alan Hansen is an authority but he says 'If you haven't got a defence you haven't got much.' You always hear pundits trotting out a similar line. Just cause they're on TV doesn't make them right but i genuinely want to know if you think differently and why cause i'm genuinely interested. we had a defence of hughes,griffin,o'brien,bramble,dabizas etc. not one great defender there but it worked because of the organization and the work done defending by the whole team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Not disagreeing with the majority of your post but the purchase of Duff was unecessary. We had a decent player in that position and more important areas to spend a third of the transfer budget. That's not hindsight, he was not in his prime, he was sold 'cheap' for a good reason. It's not a bad idea to take a gamble sometimes but we had other problems in the squad, LW was ok. That's the problem with the "squad" generally today, we have 1 decent first choice player for a position, but very little backup. Allardyce addressed those "problems in the squad" the following season spending substantially more than £5m (I assume you mean the defence) and we subsequently went on to concede twice as many goals - in no small part due to the midfield being weak. I don't think you and I are gonna disagree much on this tbh, but regards the defence. Allardyce bought a CB for <3m and one for free, and that's exactly what they looked like. I'd say he got his money's worth for those 2. Beye is a good buy and i think Ricky is a decent and promising defender. I think BSA thought he was addressing the MidF with Barton and Smith, Barton i could understand (BSA was unlucky with him tbf), Smith was a mystery in my eyes. BSA wasn't unlucky with barton. he knew exactly what he was buyong and if he bought him purely because of his on-field stuff ignoring the players wider life then BSA was a bigger fool than i thought. Barton broke a bone in preseason which i think affected his form. That's unlucky. I didn't know Barton was gonna spark off at some McDonalds and neither did BSA. I actually thought he'd have the brains to stay out of it. I was wrong there. no problem with him on the pitch. if it was that alone he is defintly a player to have based on his citeh form when we signed him. however you are in a small minority if you thought him kicking off again was unlikely. As i said, i was wrong. you can't do that on here. you have to twist and squirm and defend your view blindly no matter what,dodge questions,change the subject,derail the argument on to minutiae of the tiniest detail. That is not the road to emancipation my brother.... killjoy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Frenchman could find exit door opens soon CHARLES NZogbias agent has been told his client will be part of the January sales at St Jamess Park. http://www.journallive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2008/11/25/frenchman-could-find-exit-door-opens-soon-61634-22330045/ In any case, we need to start giving more first team experience to Lua Lua, who I think will turn out to be a much better player. Is he a left winger? He doesn't need to be when both Duff and Jonas can play on the left. I forgot about Jonas tbf. In which case Zog is definitely more expendable. If it was down to me though, I would keep Zog and sell Duff in an ideal world. Duff and Jonas are hard working but neither has goals in them. While i expect someone will show me some stats at this point it won't really change my view: I believe Zog is a goal-scoring midifelder in a team playing well, so he offers something a bit extra. We might have seen only glimpses of it since he's been here but it's there IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotus Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Not disagreeing with the majority of your post but the purchase of Duff was unecessary. We had a decent player in that position and more important areas to spend a third of the transfer budget. That's not hindsight, he was not in his prime, he was sold 'cheap' for a good reason. It's not a bad idea to take a gamble sometimes but we had other problems in the squad, LW was ok. That's the problem with the "squad" generally today, we have 1 decent first choice player for a position, but very little backup. Allardyce addressed those "problems in the squad" the following season spending substantially more than £5m (I assume you mean the defence) and we subsequently went on to concede twice as many goals - in no small part due to the midfield being weak. I don't think you and I are gonna disagree much on this tbh, but regards the defence. Allardyce bought a CB for <3m and one for free, and that's exactly what they looked like. I'd say he got his money's worth for those 2. Beye is a good buy and i think Ricky is a decent and promising defender. I think BSA thought he was addressing the MidF with Barton and Smith, Barton i could understand (BSA was unlucky with him tbf), Smith was a mystery in my eyes. I mostly agree, but I didn't want to take this into a discussion about Allardyce, my point was that 1) it's not at all easy to improve a defence weak in all departments by spending £5m on it and 2) sometimes you can do more to improve your defence by improving your midfielders/attackers than you can by improving your defenders (I'd argue it's only really worth having quality defenders after you've got the other parts of the team sorted, but that's even further OT for this thread). That last point is interesting. I've heard a couple of posters say something similar and yet 'conventional wisdom' always seems to be that you build from the back. Not saying Alan Hansen is an authority but he says 'If you haven't got a defence you haven't got much.' You always hear pundits trotting out a similar line. Just cause they're on TV doesn't make them right but i genuinely want to know if you think differently and why cause i'm genuinely interested. we had a defence of hughes,griffin,o'brien,bramble,dabizas etc. not one great defender there but it worked because of the organization and the work done defending by the whole team. I'm interested in the notion that it's not worth buying good defenders unless you have good attackers first. When clubs come up, they've got to build from the back shirley?!? Forwards cost more and if you can get a haof decent defence together you're always in tha game. I'm fully aware that if you don't score you'll go down but i want to know more about the notion of 'building from the front.' It's AntiHansenism. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Not disagreeing with the majority of your post but the purchase of Duff was unecessary. We had a decent player in that position and more important areas to spend a third of the transfer budget. That's not hindsight, he was not in his prime, he was sold 'cheap' for a good reason. It's not a bad idea to take a gamble sometimes but we had other problems in the squad, LW was ok. That's the problem with the "squad" generally today, we have 1 decent first choice player for a position, but very little backup. Allardyce addressed those "problems in the squad" the following season spending substantially more than £5m (I assume you mean the defence) and we subsequently went on to concede twice as many goals - in no small part due to the midfield being weak. I don't think you and I are gonna disagree much on this tbh, but regards the defence. Allardyce bought a CB for <3m and one for free, and that's exactly what they looked like. I'd say he got his money's worth for those 2. Beye is a good buy and i think Ricky is a decent and promising defender. I think BSA thought he was addressing the MidF with Barton and Smith, Barton i could understand (BSA was unlucky with him tbf), Smith was a mystery in my eyes. I mostly agree, but I didn't want to take this into a discussion about Allardyce, my point was that 1) it's not at all easy to improve a defence weak in all departments by spending £5m on it and 2) sometimes you can do more to improve your defence by improving your midfielders/attackers than you can by improving your defenders (I'd argue it's only really worth having quality defenders after you've got the other parts of the team sorted, but that's even further OT for this thread). That last point is interesting. I've heard a couple of posters say something similar and yet 'conventional wisdom' always seems to be that you build from the back. Not saying Alan Hansen is an authority but he says 'If you haven't got a defence you haven't got much.' You always hear pundits trotting out a similar line. Just cause they're on TV doesn't make them right but i genuinely want to know if you think differently and why cause i'm genuinely interested. we had a defence of hughes,griffin,o'brien,bramble,dabizas etc. not one great defender there but it worked because of the organization and the work done defending by the whole team. I'm interested in the notion that it's not worth buying good defenders unless you have good attackers first. When clubs come up, they've got to build from the back shirley?!? Forwards cost more and if you can get a haof decent defence together you're always in tha game. I'm fully aware that if you don't score you'll go down but i want to know more about the notion of 'building from the front.' It's AntiHansenism. it's always worth buying better players but plenty of times good players are no answer to organisation. i wouldn't prioritise which positions,you can only do it theoretically as in...we desperately need a right midfielder but we have a chance at a quality left midfielder for example. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umer Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 At the end of the day there is no point keeping a player that doesn't want to be here... and nearly every window for the past couple of years he's made it pretty clear he wants off. Just hope we spend the money on someone decent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotus Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Not disagreeing with the majority of your post but the purchase of Duff was unecessary. We had a decent player in that position and more important areas to spend a third of the transfer budget. That's not hindsight, he was not in his prime, he was sold 'cheap' for a good reason. It's not a bad idea to take a gamble sometimes but we had other problems in the squad, LW was ok. That's the problem with the "squad" generally today, we have 1 decent first choice player for a position, but very little backup. Allardyce addressed those "problems in the squad" the following season spending substantially more than £5m (I assume you mean the defence) and we subsequently went on to concede twice as many goals - in no small part due to the midfield being weak. I don't think you and I are gonna disagree much on this tbh, but regards the defence. Allardyce bought a CB for <3m and one for free, and that's exactly what they looked like. I'd say he got his money's worth for those 2. Beye is a good buy and i think Ricky is a decent and promising defender. I think BSA thought he was addressing the MidF with Barton and Smith, Barton i could understand (BSA was unlucky with him tbf), Smith was a mystery in my eyes. I mostly agree, but I didn't want to take this into a discussion about Allardyce, my point was that 1) it's not at all easy to improve a defence weak in all departments by spending £5m on it and 2) sometimes you can do more to improve your defence by improving your midfielders/attackers than you can by improving your defenders (I'd argue it's only really worth having quality defenders after you've got the other parts of the team sorted, but that's even further OT for this thread). That last point is interesting. I've heard a couple of posters say something similar and yet 'conventional wisdom' always seems to be that you build from the back. Not saying Alan Hansen is an authority but he says 'If you haven't got a defence you haven't got much.' You always hear pundits trotting out a similar line. Just cause they're on TV doesn't make them right but i genuinely want to know if you think differently and why cause i'm genuinely interested. we had a defence of hughes,griffin,o'brien,bramble,dabizas etc. not one great defender there but it worked because of the organization and the work done defending by the whole team. I'm interested in the notion that it's not worth buying good defenders unless you have good attackers first. When clubs come up, they've got to build from the back shirley?!? Forwards cost more and if you can get a haof decent defence together you're always in tha game. I'm fully aware that if you don't score you'll go down but i want to know more about the notion of 'building from the front.' It's AntiHansenism. it's always worth buying better players but plenty of times good players are no answer to organisation. i wouldn't prioritise which positions,you can only do it theoretically as in...we desperately need a right midfielder but we have a chance at a quality left midfielder for example. I get your point. The other thing is that just becasue you need to fill a position, doesn't mean there's a player availble that you want/ can afford. I think people sometimes overlook that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 charlie is only 22, duff is at the twlight of his career jfk doesn't have a clue if he get's rid of charlie and keeps duff, shows you he is playing players on reputation only Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 charlie is only 22, duff is at the twlight of his career jfk doesn't have a clue if he get's rid of charlie and keeps duff, shows you he is playing players on reputation only or it could mean he'd get more for a player who wnats away so he can buy a better standard of player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Kinnear says he's staying. http://www.nufc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10278~1466088,00.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Kinnear says he's staying. http://www.nufc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10278~1466088,00.html he would say that...wouldn't he. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Kinnear says he's staying. http://www.nufc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10278~1466088,00.html he would say that...wouldn't he. Hasn't disputed the Enrique rumours. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Kinnear says he's staying. http://www.nufc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10278~1466088,00.html he would say that...wouldn't he. Hasn't disputed the Enrique rumours. thoughthe said none of those involved in the chelsea would be going anywhere Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Kinnear says he's staying. http://www.nufc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10278~1466088,00.html he would say that...wouldn't he. To me that translates as "he won't be leaving on the cheap so if PSG or anyone else want him they'll have to stump up serious cash" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Kinnear says he's staying. http://www.nufc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10278~1466088,00.html "The last player we want to sell is James Milner. I am sure he will not be leaving St James' Park." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Kinnear says he's staying. http://www.nufc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10278~1466088,00.html "The last player we want to sell is James Milner. I am sure he will not be leaving St James' Park." If PSG want to pay 12m on the other hand.... Anyway, love the way some are harping on about a few decent goals (out of numerous appearances) as an example of Charlie's amazing potential (and the continued comparisons to Ronaldo are frankly an embarrassment). Can we point out the goals scored by Duff and Smith from 3-4+ seasons ago to support their continued inclusion in the squad? They've both scored some belters in their time too. No first touch, no composure, no vision, not that much speed, not that much technique, all of those are the key attributes that make Ronaldo the player he is and are the most starkly lacking attributes of Charlie's game. He has some good attributes (aggression, directness/takes players on and can pass) and i'd prefer if he stayed if he was happy to. However, if we could get a decent price, i'm sure we could find a player that adds more value to the side. We are of course required to sell to buy this window, as we all know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 That statement of Kinnear's isn't the most convincing of denials, and in any case, it's pretty clear from it that he sees him as a squad member rather than a first team regular. That's what Zoggy wants - and that's fair enough at this point in his career. 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