Jump to content

James Perch


BeloEmre

Recommended Posts

Plus the fact Forest looked very good for the play-offs (if not automatic promotion) at that point in time so it stands to reason that they wouldn't want to sell him then. Ditto some of the fans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember Bolton fans saying that Guthrie was shit and i think he is a canny little player. Don't read too much into what others fans are saying about outgoing players, whether it's good or bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its great to see we're being pro-active and actually making signings early/before most teams- something we've rarely done in the past.

 

Carl Cort 05/07/2000

Craig Bellamy 25/06/2001

Robbie Elliott 02/07/2001

Hugo Viana 22/06/2002

Lee Bowyer 01/07/2003

James Milner 02/07/2004

Scott Parker 15/06/2005

Craig Moore 01/07/2005

Mark Viduka 07/06/2007

Joey Barton 14/06/2007

David Rozehnal 29/06/2007

Geremi 03/07/2007

Jonas Gutierrez 02/07/2008

Sebastien Bassong  01/07/2008

 

 

14 times in ten years' worth of transfers probably qualifies as 'rarely' tbf.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest firetotheworks

I seem to remember Bolton fans saying that Guthrie was s*** and i think he is a canny little player. Don't read too much into what others fans are saying about outgoing players, whether it's good or bad.

 

They said Nolan was shit too...You're right though, it works both ways. We were pretty gutted when Beye left, and he's done nothing since. You just never know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember Bolton fans saying that Guthrie was s*** and i think he is a canny little player. Don't read too much into what others fans are saying about outgoing players, whether it's good or bad.

 

They said Nolan was s*** too...You're right though, it works both ways. We were pretty gutted when Beye left, and he's done nothing since. You just never know.

 

Exactly, you just never really know. Carr, Parker, N'Zogbia and Milner are all players we weren't too disapointed to see leave the club, all of which have been key players for their respective clubs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Deal is completed btw:  (hope that wasn't posted before)

 

http://www.nufc.co.uk/articles/20100705/perch-completes-magpies-switch_2240137_2084592

 

Perch Completes Magpies Switch

 

NEWCASTLE United have today completed the signing of James Perch from Nottingham Forest on a four-year deal.

 

The 24-year-old, who made 220 appearances for Forest, has signed for an undisclosed fee.

 

In all, Perch scored 12 goals for the Reds after making his debut as an 18-year-old in August 2004. Last season he made 21 appearances for the Championship side, scoring once.

 

Perch joined Forest's Academy in 2003 after being on Norwich City's books as a schoolboy, and has shown his versatility by playing across the back-four.

 

The Mansfield-born player also starred in midfield during his time at the City Ground where he also played under United Assistant Manager Colin Calderwood between 2006 and 2008.

 

Newcastle manager Chris Hughton was delighted to snap up Perch, a player who was on his radar in the January transfer window and said: "James is a player I've admired for some time and it's great we've been able to secure his services.

 

"I'm certain he'll prove to be a great addition to our squad."

Link to post
Share on other sites

At least he's young and has something to prove. Also, he's been there a long time so leaving might be just what he needs to freshen him up.

 

With the lack of funds Hughton has to be looking to sign underrated players and transform them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest BooBoo

All that's missing now is the obligitory pose in toon top along side an oversized NUFC crest photo shoot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Splodgely

At least he's young and has something to prove. Also, he's been there a long time so leaving might be just what he needs to freshen him up.

I certainly don't think there's any doubt he's stagnated here. I guess there is a question over whether there is anything to reinvigorate or not, but while I don't think he'll make it, you simply never know in football. It may simply have been a case of never really getting going here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.forestforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=40893.20

 

the forest fans dont seem to rate him that much

 

"goodbye to bad rubbish"

 

He is bollocks, my lass and all her family are forest fans/season ticket holders and are now laughing.

 

He's defensively minded but better on the ball than most of our lot in the centre of the park.

No, he isn't. He's defensively minded because he's a defender. He can tackle, but I wouldn't trust him with a long pass or to show some flair. I want a decent fee for him simply because we have no back-up to Gunter and Perch is more than good enough to hold his own if need be, but I doubt he'll become more than a squad player for us.

 

Just thought I'd point out that they don't seem to have changed their minds as much as some are now making out.

 

My point was that there's a difference between the mixed view we saw in January (a few saying he's shit, but plenty saying he's worth keeping and they're happy we rejected the bid) and just about everyone on the same forum saying he's shit now.  Splodgley says thats down to him playing shit since January, I can't argue because I haven't seen him play outside of our game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest BooBoo

I'm pleased with the signing simply because it indicates there is some money to spend. A positive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does this leave us on the "no new capital outlay on new players".

 

Just a smokescreen? And if so did we really use that smokescreen to have a better bargaining position on Perch? Now everyone else will just say "yeah right" if we say we have absolutely no money to spend on players.

 

Or did we (I) just misunderstand the meaning of the words?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pleased with the signing simply because it indicates there is some money to spend. A positive.

 

or that we had money to spend

I think we have money to spend.

 

Give hughton some credit, he's not going to spend his entire budget on Perch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does this leave us on the "no new capital outlay on new players".

 

Just a smokescreen? And if so did we really use that smokescreen to have a better bargaining position on Perch? Now everyone else will just say "yeah right" if we say we have absolutely no money to spend on players.

 

Or did we (I) just misunderstand the meaning of the words?

 

To me, that statement was a clear case of lowering expectations, so that if you did go on to get a few players, it's a pleasant surprise. Ish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pleased with the signing simply because it indicates there is some money to spend. A positive.

 

Let's see who is still here when the window closes first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...