Hughesy Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Ben Arfa, Tiote, Cabaye, Marveaux, Ba, Erding. No ambition since we've came back up like. And how many times do we have to remind you that Tiote was unknown? Even the other names have some question mark of sort over them..... but i won't go there. Unknown to who? You? The football world at large? All scouts? European scouts? What a stupid thing to say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Unless Ba and Erdinc become prolific goalscorers, then nothing will change my mind. Carroll was banging them in for fun man. The only reason I ever agreed to the Carroll deal was because I thought an exceptional amount of money like that would allow us to buy and think big and substantially improve the first team. And we haven't. And don't look like doing at all. Unless we sign Sturridge (ha!), then there was no point to the Carroll deal at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Ba is a prolific goalscorer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Haris Vuckic Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Ba is a prolific goalscorer. 7 in 12 for the worst team in the league. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Unless Ba and Erdinc become prolific goalscorers, then nothing will change my mind. Carroll was banging them in for fun man. The only reason I ever agreed to the Carroll deal was because I thought an exceptional amount of money like that would allow us to buy and think big and substantially improve the first team. And we haven't. And don't look like doing at all. Unless we sign Sturridge (ha!), then there was no point to the Carroll deal at all. The reason for the Carroll deal was that the amount of money was too good to turn down. That's it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Unless Ba and Erdinc become prolific goalscorers, then nothing will change my mind. Carroll was banging them in for fun man. The only reason I ever agreed to the Carroll deal was because I thought an exceptional amount of money like that would allow us to buy and think big and substantially improve the first team. And we haven't. And don't look like doing at all. Unless we sign Sturridge (ha!), then there was no point to the Carroll deal at all. The reason for the Carroll deal was that the amount of money was too good to turn down. That's it. Only if you're prepared to spend it. Which is the crux of the matter and the reason for the discontent atm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Unless Ba and Erdinc become prolific goalscorers, then nothing will change my mind. Carroll was banging them in for fun man. The only reason I ever agreed to the Carroll deal was because I thought an exceptional amount of money like that would allow us to buy and think big and substantially improve the first team. And we haven't. And don't look like doing at all. Unless we sign Sturridge (ha!), then there was no point to the Carroll deal at all. The reason for the Carroll deal was that the amount of money was too good to turn down. That's it. Only if you're prepared to spend it. Which is the crux of the matter and the reason for the discontent atm. What I mean is, when you get an offer for an asset that is that crazy you pretty much have to sell. If the club was financially healthy and/or Ashley was prepared to continue to pump money in, we could have said no. But neither of those things is true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Unless Ba and Erdinc become prolific goalscorers, then nothing will change my mind. Carroll was banging them in for fun man. The only reason I ever agreed to the Carroll deal was because I thought an exceptional amount of money like that would allow us to buy and think big and substantially improve the first team. And we haven't. And don't look like doing at all. Unless we sign Sturridge (ha!), then there was no point to the Carroll deal at all. The reason for the Carroll deal was that the amount of money was too good to turn down. That's it. Only if you're prepared to spend it. Which is the crux of the matter and the reason for the discontent atm. What I mean is, when you get an offer for an asset that is that crazy you pretty much have to sell. If the club was financially healthy and/or Ashley was prepared to continue to pump money in, we could have said no. But neither of those things is true. So you're suggesting we had to say 'yes' to keep the club going? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Unless Ba and Erdinc become prolific goalscorers, then nothing will change my mind. Carroll was banging them in for fun man. The only reason I ever agreed to the Carroll deal was because I thought an exceptional amount of money like that would allow us to buy and think big and substantially improve the first team. And we haven't. And don't look like doing at all. Unless we sign Sturridge (ha!), then there was no point to the Carroll deal at all. The reason for the Carroll deal was that the amount of money was too good to turn down. That's it. Only if you're prepared to spend it. Which is the crux of the matter and the reason for the discontent atm. What I mean is, when you get an offer for an asset that is that crazy you pretty much have to sell. If the club was financially healthy and/or Ashley was prepared to continue to pump money in, we could have said no. But neither of those things is true. So you're suggesting we had to say 'yes' to keep the club going? He probably didn't literally "have" to say yes, we obviously wouldn't have gone bust without the Carroll sale (but you know that). What I'm saying is that if you have a club that is making regular losses, the owner is subsidising it with big loans, and there is a chance to bring in massive money for an overvalued asset, then you might well think it's a good idea. I'm not saying anyone "had" to sell Carroll, I'm saying I understand why it was too good a deal to turn down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Unless Ba and Erdinc become prolific goalscorers, then nothing will change my mind. Carroll was banging them in for fun man. The only reason I ever agreed to the Carroll deal was because I thought an exceptional amount of money like that would allow us to buy and think big and substantially improve the first team. And we haven't. And don't look like doing at all. Unless we sign Sturridge (ha!), then there was no point to the Carroll deal at all. The reason for the Carroll deal was that the amount of money was too good to turn down. That's it. Only if you're prepared to spend it. Which is the crux of the matter and the reason for the discontent atm. What I mean is, when you get an offer for an asset that is that crazy you pretty much have to sell. If the club was financially healthy and/or Ashley was prepared to continue to pump money in, we could have said no. But neither of those things is true. So you're suggesting we had to say 'yes' to keep the club going? You put it in bold and still miss the point? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Does Ba dominate defences and create chances like Carroll does? When AC's on his game, he is unstoppable. Reducing it to goals is too simple. He didn't score in the 5-1 but he set three up and they had a man sent off trying to stop him.Will Ba do all that? Let's hope so but those trying to convince themselves that we've not lost something special are living in a dream world. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayson Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Unless Ba and Erdinc become prolific goalscorers, then nothing will change my mind. Carroll was banging them in for fun man. The only reason I ever agreed to the Carroll deal was because I thought an exceptional amount of money like that would allow us to buy and think big and substantially improve the first team. And we haven't. And don't look like doing at all. Unless we sign Sturridge (ha!), then there was no point to the Carroll deal at all. The reason for the Carroll deal was that the amount of money was too good to turn down. That's it. Only if you're prepared to spend it. Which is the crux of the matter and the reason for the discontent atm. What I mean is, when you get an offer for an asset that is that crazy you pretty much have to sell. If the club was financially healthy and/or Ashley was prepared to continue to pump money in, we could have said no. But neither of those things is true. So you're suggesting we had to say 'yes' to keep the club going? He probably didn't literally "have" to say yes, we obviously wouldn't have gone bust without the Carroll sale (but you know that). What I'm saying is that if you have a club that is making regular losses, the owner is subsidising it with big loans, and there is a chance to bring in massive money for an overvalued asset, then you might well think it's a good idea. I'm not saying anyone "had" to sell Carroll, I'm saying I understand why it was too good a deal to turn down. Regular loses before we brought down the wages & got back into the prem following that. Tottenham dont look eager to accept 35m for Modric, thats a very good offer for their asset. Yet they seem aware that potentially theyll have a hard time replacing someone of his ability for a team of their current standing. If we do not improve as a side then our future turnover doesnt improve either. Its not to good a deal to turn down in that case, its shortsighted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Unless Ba and Erdinc become prolific goalscorers, then nothing will change my mind. Carroll was banging them in for fun man. The only reason I ever agreed to the Carroll deal was because I thought an exceptional amount of money like that would allow us to buy and think big and substantially improve the first team. And we haven't. And don't look like doing at all. Unless we sign Sturridge (ha!), then there was no point to the Carroll deal at all. The reason for the Carroll deal was that the amount of money was too good to turn down. That's it. Only if you're prepared to spend it. Which is the crux of the matter and the reason for the discontent atm. What I mean is, when you get an offer for an asset that is that crazy you pretty much have to sell. If the club was financially healthy and/or Ashley was prepared to continue to pump money in, we could have said no. But neither of those things is true. So you're suggesting we had to say 'yes' to keep the club going? He probably didn't literally "have" to say yes, we obviously wouldn't have gone bust without the Carroll sale (but you know that). What I'm saying is that if you have a club that is making regular losses, the owner is subsidising it with big loans, and there is a chance to bring in massive money for an overvalued asset, then you might well think it's a good idea. I'm not saying anyone "had" to sell Carroll, I'm saying I understand why it was too good a deal to turn down. So we could have kept him and still signed Ba, Cabaye, Marveaux and Abeid. That was my point - we had a choice and decided to take the cash and not invest any of it back into the playing staff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Does Ba dominate defences and create chances like Carroll does? When AC's on his game, he is unstoppable. Reducing it to goals is too simple. He didn't score in the 5-1 but he set three up and they had a man sent off trying to stop him.Will Ba do all that? Let's hope so but those trying to convince themselves that we've not lost something special are living in a dream world. Losing Carroll is a significant blow, no doubt about it. But does anyone dispute that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Unless Ba and Erdinc become prolific goalscorers, then nothing will change my mind. Carroll was banging them in for fun man. The only reason I ever agreed to the Carroll deal was because I thought an exceptional amount of money like that would allow us to buy and think big and substantially improve the first team. And we haven't. And don't look like doing at all. Unless we sign Sturridge (ha!), then there was no point to the Carroll deal at all. The reason for the Carroll deal was that the amount of money was too good to turn down. That's it. Only if you're prepared to spend it. Which is the crux of the matter and the reason for the discontent atm. What I mean is, when you get an offer for an asset that is that crazy you pretty much have to sell. If the club was financially healthy and/or Ashley was prepared to continue to pump money in, we could have said no. But neither of those things is true. So you're suggesting we had to say 'yes' to keep the club going? He probably didn't literally "have" to say yes, we obviously wouldn't have gone bust without the Carroll sale (but you know that). What I'm saying is that if you have a club that is making regular losses, the owner is subsidising it with big loans, and there is a chance to bring in massive money for an overvalued asset, then you might well think it's a good idea. I'm not saying anyone "had" to sell Carroll, I'm saying I understand why it was too good a deal to turn down. So we could have kept him and still signed Ba, Cabaye, Marveaux and Abeid. That was my point - we had a choice and decided to take the cash and not invest any of it back into the playing staff. Yes, probably, I've never denied we made that choice. All I'm saying is that choice isn't entirely wrong... or at least not necessarily. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Does Ba dominate defences and create chances like Carroll does? When AC's on his game, he is unstoppable. Reducing it to goals is too simple. He didn't score in the 5-1 but he set three up and they had a man sent off trying to stop him.Will Ba do all that? Let's hope so but those trying to convince themselves that we've not lost something special are living in a dream world. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 We lost one of the greatest prospects this club has had in a long long time. If you're going to do that, the very least we could have done was spent the money we got from him. Otherwise what's the point? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chubby Jason Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 This has to be the most boring transfer saga in a while. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishmael Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Does Ba dominate defences and create chances like Carroll does? When AC's on his game, he is unstoppable. Reducing it to goals is too simple. He didn't score in the 5-1 but he set three up and they had a man sent off trying to stop him.Will Ba do all that? Let's hope so but those trying to convince themselves that we've not lost something special are living in a dream world. I just want to win xshrug Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 WTF is 'xshrug'? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishmael Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 A shrug, but a bit extra. Keep up Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Unless Ba and Erdinc become prolific goalscorers, then nothing will change my mind. Carroll was banging them in for fun man. The only reason I ever agreed to the Carroll deal was because I thought an exceptional amount of money like that would allow us to buy and think big and substantially improve the first team. And we haven't. And don't look like doing at all. Unless we sign Sturridge (ha!), then there was no point to the Carroll deal at all. The reason for the Carroll deal was that the amount of money was too good to turn down. That's it. Only if you're prepared to spend it. Which is the crux of the matter and the reason for the discontent atm. What I mean is, when you get an offer for an asset that is that crazy you pretty much have to sell. If the club was financially healthy and/or Ashley was prepared to continue to pump money in, we could have said no. But neither of those things is true. So you're suggesting we had to say 'yes' to keep the club going? He probably didn't literally "have" to say yes, we obviously wouldn't have gone bust without the Carroll sale (but you know that). What I'm saying is that if you have a club that is making regular losses, the owner is subsidising it with big loans, and there is a chance to bring in massive money for an overvalued asset, then you might well think it's a good idea. I'm not saying anyone "had" to sell Carroll, I'm saying I understand why it was too good a deal to turn down. So we could have kept him and still signed Ba, Cabaye, Marveaux and Abeid. That was my point - we had a choice and decided to take the cash and not invest any of it back into the playing staff. Yes, probably, I've never denied we made that choice. All I'm saying is that choice isn't entirely wrong... or at least not necessarily. good old ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 A shrug, but a bit extra. Keep up Dave. Sounds shit, and doesn't make sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishmael Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Sounds s***. xshrug Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 I don't like the claim that "people would be happy if we paid 30m for Ba, Cabaye, and Marveaux" but I do believe that the lack of transfer fee contributes significantly to people badly underrating Ba. Fact of the matter is he was one of the most in-form players in the league for the last third of the season and scored in excess of 1 in 2 for an abysmal West Ham side. I realize that stats are only useful when they suit your opinion(), but his form for the last three months of the season pisses all over Carroll's, in both goals scored and general play. I don't consider myself qualified to judge conclusively whether he's better or worse than Carroll, but just because we got him for free doesn't mean he's suddenly unexciting. 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