Guest bimpy474 Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 We desperately need a backup for Cisse really, at least as much as a winger. A backup is more important than a player for the first team to replace Jonas? Well I don't think we need to play Jonas as it is. Obviously both players are needed, but I don't want to think of the consequences of relying on Shola. Cisse is our first choice striker. Who plays either side if we started tomorrow? I would play a 433 with Gouffran and Ben Arfa either side. Gouffran's quite clearly not comfortable in that position man. Out of those three first choice players, which is the weak link? That's the one you look to displace first. Remy fits the bill of course but we'll need far more than that. We need at least two top players who can play as a wide forward if we're going to carry on playing as we do. Sinclair would have been perfect for a wide left role in a 4-3-3 and would be fine in a 4-4-2 there. But no we have Jonas for that role. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 We're not completely fucked at all man, that's a massive exaggeration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishmael Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Enjoying this discussion btw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Ben Arfa, Marveaux, Sissoko *shudders* and Jonas are probably the "wide players." You're right though, we need to improve that area. But what do you prefer? Improve those four or improve the Cisse, Shola strike force? So our two first team wide player options consist of at least three players playing out of position? As opposed to Papiss Cisse playing in his own position alone or with another striker in Gouffran? Gee tough one. 4-3-3 Gouffran left, Cisse middle, Ben Arfa right. Jonas can feck off. I like Gouffran but if he is first choice in that position, we are completely fucked. I know i was just giving a team that didn't include Jonas tbh. Also if we lined up 4-3-3, why cant the front three move and rotate. They dont have to stick rigidly to their positions. Unfortunately this is a major flaw with Pardew and his tactics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 The lack of ambition is incredulous. Look at Napoli for example, they've built up slowly using solid scouting and player recruitment but have realised the need for marquee signings. Sold their star player but instantly went out and spent above the odds to secure the one top class striker available to replace him. Sold out 60,000 seats for his unveiling and shirt/season ticket sales are through the roof. The hype and momentum of that signing will make bringing further recruitments easier, make the club more marketable in terms of sponsorship and retain an upward momentum. We've got 100% the same potential as them in terms of fanbase, a wealthier owner and a greater TV deal to fall back on. But the club thinks small all the time, buys cheap, markets itself poorly, signs small fry sponsorship deals. No attempt whatsoever to fulfill the potential of the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 We're not completely fucked at all man, that's a massive exaggeration. If over the course of a Premier League season, our only options in two crucial attacking positions are Ben Arfa, Gouffran, Sammy and Jonas, you're saying we're not fucked? Utterly preposterous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishmael Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 You can't use the Napoli example without knowing their financial standing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishmael Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 We're not completely fucked at all man, that's a massive exaggeration. If over the course of a Premier League season, our only options in two crucial attacking positions are Ben Arfa, Gouffran, Sammy and Jonas, you're saying we're not fucked? Utterly preposterous. Don't forget Mareaux and Sissoko *shudders*. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 We're not completely fucked at all man, that's a massive exaggeration. If over the course of a Premier League season, our only options in two crucial attacking positions are Ben Arfa, Gouffran, Sammy and Jonas, you're saying we're not fucked? Utterly preposterous. Eh? I never said anything like that. I'm just saying that Gouffran is alright as wide of a three. IMO of course. We obviously need more attacking options overall. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 We're not completely fucked at all man, that's a massive exaggeration. If over the course of a Premier League season, our only options in two crucial attacking positions are Ben Arfa, Gouffran, Sammy and Jonas, you're saying we're not fucked? Utterly preposterous. Eh? I never said anything like that. I'm just saying that Gouffran is alright as wide of a three. IMO of course. We obviously need more attacking options overall. "Alright" in what sense? Is this you being delighted at finishing somewhere above the bottom three again? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 I should know not to discuss anything with you Wullie. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 We're not completely fucked at all man, that's a massive exaggeration. If over the course of a Premier League season, our only options in two crucial attacking positions are Ben Arfa, Gouffran, Sammy and Jonas, you're saying we're not fucked? Utterly preposterous. Don't forget Mareaux and Sissoko *shudders*. I didn't forget them. They don't play in that position. Don't forget Krul! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 You can't use the Napoli example without knowing their financial standing. They had made 4 consecutive seasons of profit up until 2011 according to the Swiss ramble. It has unlikely to have changed since then considering added CL revenue and player profit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishmael Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Any debts? Wages as % of turnover? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 But if they were profitable, the must've been spending within their means, no? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 I should know not to discuss anything with you Wullie. Why? Because unlike you, I want the club to be successful rather than "have a decent season with some decent moments"? You can't discuss anything with anyone Ian because you're coming from a point where everything the club does is acceptable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiled in Texas Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 The problem is we don't sign players to address squad weaknesses, we sign them because we think they'll appreciate in worth. There may be a little something to this, but seeing as we don't seem to turn over players (Buy, Sell. Buy, Sell) i wouldn't say that this is particularly true. If it was we would turn over the players much more rapidly in a revolving door policy. Of course I may look very silly if we sell Cabaye, Ben Arfa and Cisse this window, but we don't seem to do that sort of transaction. Value for money seems to be the plan.....making sure that we are not over paying for players. I approve of that strategy, even if it is a painfull process at times. The challenge is knowing when to give a little, but also knowing that each time you give a little it weakens the next bargaining position. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 As I said, pointless. I made a point about how good I thought Gouffran was and you put a load of words into my mouth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Any debts? Wages as % of turnover? In fact, they now have no bank debts at all, after eliminating the €32 million balance in 2005, and actually have cash balances of €14 million the important wages to turnover ratio is still only 42%, which is astonishingly low for a major football club and way below UEFA’s recommended maximum limit of 70%. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 As I said, pointless. I made a point about how good I thought Gouffran was and you put a load of words into my mouth. Is he good enough as a wide player to potentially get us into the Champions League? If your answer is no, then I'm right. If your answer is yes, then you should lay off the smack. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishmael Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Yeah, we can't do a Napoli then. No debts and 42% wages is fucking amazing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Any debts? Wages as % of turnover? In fact, they now have no bank debts at all, after eliminating the €32 million balance in 2005, and actually have cash balances of €14 million the important wages to turnover ratio is still only 42%, which is astonishingly low for a major football club and way below UEFA’s recommended maximum limit of 70%. Doesn't that mean they're a good example of financial stability? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishmael Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 If we were in Napoli's position with our current transfer window's failures I'd be stood outside SJP firing flaming arrows of doom at the boardroom windows. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Any debts? Wages as % of turnover? In fact, they now have no bank debts at all, after eliminating the €32 million balance in 2005, and actually have cash balances of €14 million the important wages to turnover ratio is still only 42%, which is astonishingly low for a major football club and way below UEFA’s recommended maximum limit of 70%. Doesn't that mean they're a good example of financial stability? Isn't that what you always try to claim we are? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 As I said, pointless. I made a point about how good I thought Gouffran was and you put a load of words into my mouth. Is he good enough as a wide player to potentially get us into the Champions League? If your answer is no, then I'm right. If your answer is yes, then you should lay off the smack. The question doesn't really make sense, because we'd have to upgrade absolutely loads of players to get in the CL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts