Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Why the fuck did they sign Wickham for that kind of money. Seriously. Potential is great, but you can't afford to spend that kind of money on potential when you clearly need a first choice striker.

 

Is it not pretty much what we're looking to do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the f*** did they sign Wickham for that kind of money. Seriously. Potential is great, but you can't afford to spend that kind of money on potential when you clearly need a first choice striker.

 

Is it not pretty much what we're looking to do?

How so? We're looking to take a risk on unproven and almost completely unknown (to most on these shores) players who may or may not solve our striking problems. They needed a goalscorer and spent £8m on Wickham, he's not a goalscorer, he wasn't even a goalscorer in the championship. It's clear as day that he wasn't what they needed and he probably never will be, he might turn into a good supporting striker but he's not a poacher is he.

 

Plus, those fuckers have needed a left back for about 2 seasons now. Bruce just seems to sign a load of players with no rhyme or reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the f*** did they sign Wickham for that kind of money. Seriously. Potential is great, but you can't afford to spend that kind of money on potential when you clearly need a first choice striker.

 

Is it not pretty much what we're looking to do?

How so? We're looking to take a risk on unproven and almost completely unknown (to most on these shores) players who may or may not solve our striking problems. They needed a goalscorer and spent £8m on Wickham, he's not a goalscorer, he wasn't even a goalscorer in the championship. It's clear as day that he wasn't what they needed and he probably never will be, he might turn into a good supporting striker but he's not a poacher is he.

 

Plus, those fuckers have needed a left back for about 2 seasons now. Bruce just seems to sign a load of players with no rhyme or reason.

 

They took an £8m risk on an unproven striker from a lesser league - who didn't even have a particularly outstanding record in that league - despite needing a reliable goalscorer. You say he appears to be a supporting striker and not a poacher.

 

See the Nolan Roux thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the f*** did they sign Wickham for that kind of money. Seriously. Potential is great, but you can't afford to spend that kind of money on potential when you clearly need a first choice striker.

 

Is it not pretty much what we're looking to do?

How so? We're looking to take a risk on unproven and almost completely unknown (to most on these shores) players who may or may not solve our striking problems. They needed a goalscorer and spent £8m on Wickham, he's not a goalscorer, he wasn't even a goalscorer in the championship. It's clear as day that he wasn't what they needed and he probably never will be, he might turn into a good supporting striker but he's not a poacher is he.

 

Plus, those fuckers have needed a left back for about 2 seasons now. Bruce just seems to sign a load of players with no rhyme or reason.

 

They took an £8m risk on an unproven striker from a lesser league - who didn't even have a particularly outstanding record in that league - despite needing a reliable goalscorer.

 

See the Nolan Roux thread.

Fair enough, a good comparison :thup:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest sydneycove

Why the f*** did they sign Wickham for that kind of money. Seriously. Potential is great, but you can't afford to spend that kind of money on potential when you clearly need a first choice striker.

 

Is it not pretty much what we're looking to do?

How so? We're looking to take a risk on unproven and almost completely unknown (to most on these shores) players who may or may not solve our striking problems. They needed a goalscorer and spent £8m on Wickham, he's not a goalscorer, he wasn't even a goalscorer in the championship. It's clear as day that he wasn't what they needed and he probably never will be, he might turn into a good supporting striker but he's not a poacher is he.

 

Plus, those fuckers have needed a left back for about 2 seasons now. Bruce just seems to sign a load of players with no rhyme or reason.

 

They took an £8m risk on an unproven striker from a lesser league - who didn't even have a particularly outstanding record in that league - despite needing a reliable goalscorer.

 

See the Nolan Roux thread.

Fair enough, a good comparison :thup:

 

Not really:

 

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/player/_/id/111207/nolan-roux?cc=3436

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the fuck did they sign Wickham for that kind of money. Seriously. Potential is great, but you can't afford to spend that kind of money on potential when you clearly need a first choice striker.

 

At least we've genuinely spent fuck all, they've spent a fair whack and wasted a fair bit of it.

 

That's the big thing for me. They've bought him for his potential but they know he's not quite ready to start yet so he's spending a lot if time on the bench. The catch with that is that he's only going to reach his potential if he actually plays. It's catch 22.  The fans will, rightly, wonder whether the £8m would have been better spent on a strikers capable of goals now.

 

If we do buy this Roux lad, I'd like to think we'd have the bottle to start him if he's fit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest sydneycove

6 goals in Ligue 1. So what?

 

You said it in your post. Ligue 1. Not Championship.

 

I never mentioned the Championship.

 

Well you should probably give it a thought considering the massive quality difference between the two leagues. To just compare scoring records is very narrow sighted when the players are in different leagues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbf Roux is about 5-6 years older isn't he? If we buy him but treat him like Wickham we want shooting. Wickham should have gone to someone like Liverpool who have enough options to be able to loan him straight back out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave, stop being so f***ing negative  :lol: Roux is a way better allround player than Wickham. Think he'll do great for us, when he hopefully signs.

 

I'm not being negative at all. ???

 

Just pointing out the similarities between what they've done and what we appear to be doing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's a fair comparison. They're two completely different players, at completely different stages of their carreers. Wickham is just 18 and only being used as a sub. I expect Roux to go straight in to the first eleven.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest sydneycove

Dave, stop being so f***ing negative  :lol: Roux is a way better allround player than Wickham. Think he'll do great for us, when he hopefully signs.

 

I'm not being negative at all. ???

 

Just pointing out the similarities between what they've done and what we appear to be doing.

 

How is a solid career as a starter so far in Ligue 1 similar to a mostly substitue appearance filled career in the Championship?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...