Anderson Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 He's on about Smith, surely? We at least had one decent season from Butt. http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00981/alansmith1909getty_981023c.jpg But I agree, Carrick's miles better but we've no need for him. Like Butt and Smith we'd just be signing them because he's available and he's come from Man Utd. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 It's irrelevant who he's on about. How? It's the entire basis of his post. Because it's a stupid thing to say. We stick in a bid for Ronaldo, "Hang on lads, do you remember the last player we bought from Real Madrid". They may be midfielders, and they may be on the decline, but Carrick is better than both Smith and Butt, so the fact we got both of them when they were on the decline is a pointless thing to say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen927 Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 It's irrelevant who he's on about. How? It's the entire basis of his post. Because it's a stupid thing to say. We stick in a bid for Ronaldo, "Hang on lads, do you remember the last player we bought from Real Madrid". They may be midfielders, and they may be on the decline, but Carrick is better than both Smith and Butt, so the fact we got both of them when they were on the decline is a pointless thing to say. Carrick is on the decline, just as Butt and Smith were when we bought them. Ronaldo is a whole different kettle of fish to Michael Owen, not even worth discussing that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 I wouldn't want us to sign Carrick, but he's superior to both Smith and Butt when we bought them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 It's irrelevant who he's on about. How? It's the entire basis of his post. Because it's a stupid thing to say. We stick in a bid for Ronaldo, "Hang on lads, do you remember the last player we bought from Real Madrid". They may be midfielders, and they may be on the decline, but Carrick is better than both Smith and Butt, so the fact we got both of them when they were on the decline is a pointless thing to say. Carrick is on the decline, just as Butt and Smith were when we bought them. Ronaldo is a whole different kettle of fish to Michael Owen, not even worth discussing that. But them being on the decline says nothing about their ability. They are three completely different players and at different ages/stages of their career. I'd rather take each case seperately then say "Let's not get Carrick because the last midfielder we got from Man U that was on the decline, turned out to be shit" - surely it's a crazy predecent to have? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segun Oluwaniyi Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 It is idiotic to let your past dictate your future. Each decision should be made on an individual basis by looking at the possible positives and negatives. Personally I think Carrick has a lot left and may be rejuvenated by playing here. I wouldn't mind him, as long as he doesn't get a 4.5 year contract. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderson Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 It's irrelevant who he's on about. How? It's the entire basis of his post. Because it's a stupid thing to say. We stick in a bid for Ronaldo, "Hang on lads, do you remember the last player we bought from Real Madrid". They may be midfielders, and they may be on the decline, but Carrick is better than both Smith and Butt, so the fact we got both of them when they were on the decline is a pointless thing to say. Carrick is on the decline, just as Butt and Smith were when we bought them. Ronaldo is a whole different kettle of fish to Michael Owen, not even worth discussing that. But them being on the decline says nothing about their ability. They are three completely different players and at different ages/stages of their career. I'd rather take each case seperately then say "Let's not get Carrick because the last midfielder we got from Man U that was on the decline, turned out to be s***" - surely it's a crazy predecent to have? I was barely stating it as precedent, just making a light hearted passing comment. No need to take everything at face value. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 It's irrelevant who he's on about. How? It's the entire basis of his post. Because it's a stupid thing to say. We stick in a bid for Ronaldo, "Hang on lads, do you remember the last player we bought from Real Madrid". They may be midfielders, and they may be on the decline, but Carrick is better than both Smith and Butt, so the fact we got both of them when they were on the decline is a pointless thing to say. Carrick is on the decline, just as Butt and Smith were when we bought them. Ronaldo is a whole different kettle of fish to Michael Owen, not even worth discussing that. But them being on the decline says nothing about their ability. They are three completely different players and at different ages/stages of their career. I'd rather take each case seperately then say "Let's not get Carrick because the last midfielder we got from Man U that was on the decline, turned out to be s***" - surely it's a crazy predecent to have? I was barely stating it as precedent, just making a light hearted passing comment. No need to take everything at face value. Fair enough, I don't have a light hearted-o-meter though. I just read it differently Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen927 Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Carrick will be 30 come the summer. He was 27 the last time he had a good season. He's on the decline. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Carrick will be 30 come the summer. He was 27 the last time he had a good season. He's on the decline. Nobody is arguing against that man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderson Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 The way I see it is that Carrick wouldn't make our starting line up. Tiote > Carrick, and we need a much more attack minded midfielder to partner him. Therefore there's no reason to sign him, pay big wages and let him stagnate and decline further while sat on our bench. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shaun Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 I'd love to have him here. Sign him up on a 2 year contract and see how he goes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen927 Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Carrick will be 30 come the summer. He was 27 the last time he had a good season. He's on the decline. Nobody is arguing against that man So how is he any different to Smith and Butt when we signed them? We shouldn't avoid signing players from Man United entirely, that would be ignorance, we should avoid signing players who are ageing and not looking anything like getting back into form though, irregardless of which club they come from. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 I'd love to have him here. Sign him up on a 2 year contract and see how he goes. Do we do two-year contracts? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Carrick will be 30 come the summer. He was 27 the last time he had a good season. He's on the decline. Nobody is arguing against that man So how is he any different to Smith and Butt when we signed them? We shouldn't avoid signing players from Man United entirely, that would be ignorance, we should avoid signing players who are ageing and not looking anything like getting back into form though, irregardless of which club they come from. Because he's better than Smith and Butt when we signed them! I dunno why I'm biting anyway, I don't even want him here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 I'd love to have him here. Sign him up on a 2 year contract and see how he goes. Do we do two-year contracts? More importantly why would he sign such a short term deal? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shaun Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 I'd love to have him here. Sign him up on a 2 year contract and see how he goes. Do we do two-year contracts? Should do for players over 26. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 He played well for Man Utd yesterday, can't see why they'd sell him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen927 Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Carrick will be 30 come the summer. He was 27 the last time he had a good season. He's on the decline. Nobody is arguing against that man So how is he any different to Smith and Butt when we signed them? We shouldn't avoid signing players from Man United entirely, that would be ignorance, we should avoid signing players who are ageing and not looking anything like getting back into form though, irregardless of which club they come from. Because he's better than Smith and Butt when we signed them! I dunno why I'm biting anyway, I don't even want him here I'm not fishing, I just believe Carrick is playing to the same level now that Smith and Butt were in their final season at OT. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Carrick would be a massive step in the wrong direction when we've finally (apparently) heading in the right on when it comes to our signings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest palnese Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 I think he'd love to finish his career with us, hometown club and all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderson Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 If West Ham stay up I can see him ending up there. Why has this provoked so much discussion anyway? He's not even been linked to us and there's next to no chance the club would actually be interested. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segun Oluwaniyi Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Carrick would be a massive step in the wrong direction when we've finally (apparently) heading in the right on when it comes to our signings. There is no wrong direction or right direction. Is Perch a step in the right direction? There is no problem targeting older players as long we hedge the risk presented by them and supplement it with other types of signings. It is just foolish to pass up signing a talented footballer because he does not resemble other recent signings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen927 Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Carrick would be a massive step in the wrong direction when we've finally (apparently) heading in the right on when it comes to our signings. There is no wrong direction or right direction. Is Perch a step in the right direction? There is no problem targeting older players as long we hedge the risk presented by them and supplement it with other types of signings. It is just foolish to pass up signing a talented footballer because he does not resemble other recent signings. There is a problem signing older players who would cost £8m+ and want £40k+ when our budget is likely to be relatively small. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Carrick would be a massive step in the wrong direction when we've finally (apparently) heading in the right on when it comes to our signings. There is no wrong direction or right direction. Is Perch a step in the right direction? There is no problem targeting older players as long we hedge the risk presented by them and supplement it with other types of signings. It is just foolish to pass up signing a talented footballer because he does not resemble other recent signings. James Perch is a 25 year old and was arguably brought in as defensive cover for various positions. Whilst he's turned out to not be a very good player, the intent of the signing was very good. Campbell, the other bad signing this season, was also a good one in theory as he'd cover us should we get injuries and could aid the younger players with his experience. I also think there were talks of him taking up a coaching role with the club once he'd retired. Carrick is an aging player on the decline with a very likely high wage for the one position we actually do have enough players for. It'd be a silly signing and one in the wrong direction. 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