James Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 In the short term, we need to make improvements at right back, left back, central midfield, and up front, as after a few injuries in each position, we are left with Carr (at least if the team was picked how it should be) at right back, Ramage at left back, Pattison/Zoggy Central Midfield, and Luque/Carroll up front. None of these players are good enough for a team who want a stable mid-table season. As they are to provide decent cover, these players need only be squad players, although I would recommend we went for high standard full backs, as there are quite a few individuals able to fill into that position as squad players (ie Solano, Taylor, Babayaro, Huntington, Ramage and Carr) Other players like Sibierski (good intelligent use of good end product), Bramble (good for 89 minutes in a match), Moore (reliable), Milner (bags of energy and constantly improving) and Solano (good end product) are able to see us through until the end of the season. Assuming we signed the four players I feel we need in January, and the right back was a first teamer, if we are looking for consistent top 6 finishes, in the summer, I would look to sign a £10m+ valued proven centre back, a young centre back with great potential, and depending on the form of Milner, Dyer and solano on the right wing, possibly a new right winger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Not going to comment on the fact that with at least 2 failed bids on the last day of the transfer window we obviously had the money for defenders but f*cked up due to poor planning NE5? Also not going for free's like Campbell, Trabelsi... Take it thats a no then, wonder why? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 every f***ing thread without fail OMG, it's the boiler making daft noises again. Yup, every thread some foolish person just has to run the club down as shite. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Duff? So we don't need any defenders then? Campbell of a free wouldn't have helped? Would've, should've.... the club should've picked up Campbell and a few others... true. Neill and Bridge would've been nice. We do need defenders. But without Martins and Sibierski we'd be out of Europe and in the relegation zone right now. Solid acquisitions. Duff has not be spectacular, but for 5m is a steal. There isn't a club that wouldn't take him for that... if we can ever get Dyer, Martins, and Duff together on the pitch... absolutely. Spot on and nailed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Not going to comment on the fact that with at least 2 failed bids on the last day of the transfer window we obviously had the money for defenders but f*cked up due to poor planning NE5? Also not going for free's like Campbell, Trabelsi... better to wait for who you want is what I say, I'm sure if the club had went and got alternative targets you would have slated them for "bad planning", along with the fact that we spent 15m quid on much needed forwards. Why don't you reply to Baggio as he seems to think the club shouldn't have spent any money at all, never mind more money, as you do ? What sort of wages are Campbell and Trabelsi ........ would Campbell have settled and moved here rather than a short drive down the M3 .... do you know the answer or is this simply Championship manager type ideals ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Anyway I am tired of you and your mates' double standards and general "damned if they do damned if they don't" idiocy. Stop buying quality players and don't complain when you see true mediocrity as a result, if that is what you want. Or keep buying them and watch them sold off on the cheap a la Leeds, would you prefer us to go that way as long as we keep spending money? As for your "deluded as ever" comment, I put that down to you not being able to answer the question properly. All the talk of a possible buy out would include paying off or huge debts, of course they will want something in return but the only way to make money in football is for the club to be successful. how do you think the club will be successful without spending money Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Not going to comment on the fact that with at least 2 failed bids on the last day of the transfer window we obviously had the money for defenders but f*cked up due to poor planning NE5? Also not going for free's like Campbell, Trabelsi... How do you know we didn't go for Campbell? How do you know if we did go for him but he didn't want to join? You talk about free transfers as though they cost nowt at all. How do you know what his wage demands may have been? Do you know for sure whether Roeder wanted these players? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 In the short term, we need to make improvements at right back, left back, central midfield, and up front, as after a few injuries in each position, we are left with Carr (at least if the team was picked how it should be) at right back, Ramage at left back, Pattison/Zoggy Central Midfield, and Luque/Carroll up front. None of these players are good enough for a team who want a stable mid-table season. As they are to provide decent cover, these players need only be squad players, although I would recommend we went for high standard full backs, as there are quite a few individuals able to fill into that position as squad players (ie Solano, Taylor, Babayaro, Huntington, Ramage and Carr) Other players like Sibierski (good intelligent use of good end product), Bramble (good for 89 minutes in a match), Moore (reliable), Milner (bags of energy and constantly improving) and Solano (good end product) are able to see us through until the end of the season. Assuming we signed the four players I feel we need in January, and the right back was a first teamer, if we are looking for consistent top 6 finishes, in the summer, I would look to sign a £10m+ valued proven centre back, a young centre back with great potential, and depending on the form of Milner, Dyer and solano on the right wing, possibly a new right winger. I will let Baggio answer this, as he has the answer to the financial problems at the club. Stand by to be enlightened. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Not going to comment on the fact that with at least 2 failed bids on the last day of the transfer window we obviously had the money for defenders but f*cked up due to poor planning NE5? Also not going for free's like Campbell, Trabelsi... better to wait for who you want is what I say, I'm sure if the club had went and got alternative targets you would have slated them for "bad planning", along with the fact that we spent 15m quid on much needed forwards. Why don't you reply to Baggio as he seems to think the club shouldn't have spent any money at all, never mind more money, as you do ? What sort of wages are Campbell and Trabelsi ........ would Campbell have settled and moved here rather than a short drive down the M3 .... do you know the answer or is this simply Championship manager type ideals ? So we waited and waited and waited and we got a player in a position we didn't really need, a loan player who has hardly kicked a ball, a desperate last minute signing which by a stroke of luck actually paid off (if you tell me you ever thought that wasn't a panic when the Viduka thing fell through you need more help than I though) and Martins who I will agree was a good signing. Fact is we knew we needed defenders, we had money for defenders and we fucked up fannying about getting defenders. Would Trabelsi or Campbells wages have been much if anymore than Duff's without even thinking of a signing on fee? Ok we can use the excuse that Campbell might not have wanted to come here but the fact Roeder ruled him out anyway kind of p*sses on that notion does it not? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Not going to comment on the fact that with at least 2 failed bids on the last day of the transfer window we obviously had the money for defenders but f*cked up due to poor planning NE5? Also not going for free's like Campbell, Trabelsi... How do you know we didn't go for Campbell? Roeder came out publically and said he didn't want Campbell because he hadn't played enough games in the last couple of seasons tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Not going to comment on the fact that with at least 2 failed bids on the last day of the transfer window we obviously had the money for defenders but f*cked up due to poor planning NE5? Also not going for free's like Campbell, Trabelsi... How do you know we didn't go for Campbell? Roeder came out publically and said he didn't want Campbell because he hadn't played enough games in the last couple of seasons tbh. Aye that was a pretty clear sign to me, thought it might have been to others aswell but I often forget who im talking to on here! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Not going to comment on the fact that with at least 2 failed bids on the last day of the transfer window we obviously had the money for defenders but f*cked up due to poor planning NE5? Also not going for free's like Campbell, Trabelsi... How do you know we didn't go for Campbell? Roeder came out publically and said he didn't want Campbell because he hadn't played enough games in the last couple of seasons tbh. It was rhetorical, gemmill. But anyway, as you've answered it all I can ask is what's all this garbage about bad planning (from various people) then? If the manager didn't want the player and didn't go for him that sounds like he's sticking to a plan as far as I can tell. That an individual on this forum thinks we should have a signed a player the manager didn't want doesn't = bad planning by the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Not going to comment on the fact that with at least 2 failed bids on the last day of the transfer window we obviously had the money for defenders but f*cked up due to poor planning NE5? Also not going for free's like Campbell, Trabelsi... How do you know we didn't go for Campbell? Roeder came out publically and said he didn't want Campbell because he hadn't played enough games in the last couple of seasons tbh. Aye that was a pretty clear sign to me, thought it might have been to others aswell but I often forget who im talking to on here! Eh? WTF are you on about now? Jesus. You must be one really dumb person. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Anyway I am tired of you and your mates' double standards and general "damned if they do damned if they don't" idiocy. Stop buying quality players and don't complain when you see true mediocrity as a result, if that is what you want. Or keep buying them and watch them sold off on the cheap a la Leeds, would you prefer us to go that way as long as we keep spending money? As for your "deluded as ever" comment, I put that down to you not being able to answer the question properly. All the talk of a possible buy out would include paying off or huge debts, of course they will want something in return but the only way to make money in football is for the club to be successful. how do you think the club will be successful without spending money There are 2 options. The first one would be for them to invest their own money into the club to give us that lift up into the CL places, from then on with the the extra income they can operate at a break even policy where they only spend what the club has made through profit. The second option would be to get a decent managerial set up installed similar to what Bolton have got and move the club forward from there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Anyway I am tired of you and your mates' double standards and general "damned if they do damned if they don't" idiocy. Stop buying quality players and don't complain when you see true mediocrity as a result, if that is what you want. Or keep buying them and watch them sold off on the cheap a la Leeds, would you prefer us to go that way as long as we keep spending money? As for your "deluded as ever" comment, I put that down to you not being able to answer the question properly. All the talk of a possible buy out would include paying off or huge debts, of course they will want something in return but the only way to make money in football is for the club to be successful. how do you think the club will be successful without spending money There are 2 options. The first one would be for them to invest their own money into the club to give us that lift up into the CL places, from then on with the the extra income they can operate at a break even policy where they only spend what the club has made through profit. The second option would be to get a decent managerial set up installed similar to what Bolton have got and move the club forward from there. Have Bolton not spent any money? What have they won? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 In the short term, we need to make improvements at right back, left back, central midfield, and up front, as after a few injuries in each position, we are left with Carr (at least if the team was picked how it should be) at right back, Ramage at left back, Pattison/Zoggy Central Midfield, and Luque/Carroll up front. None of these players are good enough for a team who want a stable mid-table season. As they are to provide decent cover, these players need only be squad players, although I would recommend we went for high standard full backs, as there are quite a few individuals able to fill into that position as squad players (ie Solano, Taylor, Babayaro, Huntington, Ramage and Carr) Other players like Sibierski (good intelligent use of good end product), Bramble (good for 89 minutes in a match), Moore (reliable), Milner (bags of energy and constantly improving) and Solano (good end product) are able to see us through until the end of the season. Assuming we signed the four players I feel we need in January, and the right back was a first teamer, if we are looking for consistent top 6 finishes, in the summer, I would look to sign a £10m+ valued proven centre back, a young centre back with great potential, and depending on the form of Milner, Dyer and solano on the right wing, possibly a new right winger. I will let Baggio answer this, as he has the answer to the financial problems at the club. Stand by to be enlightened. Cheers Leazes :grt: You're right in saying this is all things we need strengthening but due a bad managerial appointment by the chairman, failure to control the wage bill and general overspending on players there won't be any presents this year Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Not going to comment on the fact that with at least 2 failed bids on the last day of the transfer window we obviously had the money for defenders but f*cked up due to poor planning NE5? Also not going for free's like Campbell, Trabelsi... How do you know we didn't go for Campbell? Roeder came out publically and said he didn't want Campbell because he hadn't played enough games in the last couple of seasons tbh. It was rhetorical, gemmill. But anyway, as you've answered it all I can ask is what's all this garbage about bad planning (from various people) then? If the manager didn't want the player and didn't go for him that sounds like he's sticking to a plan as far as I can tell. That an individual on this forum thinks we should have a signed a player the manager didn't want doesn't = bad planning by the club. Sticking to a bad plan is as bad as failing to plan tbh. Making the decision not to buy Campbell based on a flawed decision making process doesn't earn him extra points just because he had a (poor) reason not to buy the player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Not going to comment on the fact that with at least 2 failed bids on the last day of the transfer window we obviously had the money for defenders but f*cked up due to poor planning NE5? Also not going for free's like Campbell, Trabelsi... How do you know we didn't go for Campbell? Roeder came out publically and said he didn't want Campbell because he hadn't played enough games in the last couple of seasons tbh. Aye that was a pretty clear sign to me, thought it might have been to others aswell but I often forget who im talking to on here! Eh? WTF are you on about now? Jesus. You must be one really dumb person. If you don't understand it I think you need to be looking closer to home for the dumb person. The fact we had failed bids on the last day of the season for defenders suggests bad planning does it not? Or was being left with 6 defenders the plan all along? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Anyway I am tired of you and your mates' double standards and general "damned if they do damned if they don't" idiocy. Stop buying quality players and don't complain when you see true mediocrity as a result, if that is what you want. Or keep buying them and watch them sold off on the cheap a la Leeds, would you prefer us to go that way as long as we keep spending money? As for your "deluded as ever" comment, I put that down to you not being able to answer the question properly. All the talk of a possible buy out would include paying off or huge debts, of course they will want something in return but the only way to make money in football is for the club to be successful. how do you think the club will be successful without spending money There are 2 options. The first one would be for them to invest their own money into the club to give us that lift up into the CL places, from then on with the the extra income they can operate at a break even policy where they only spend what the club has made through profit. The second option would be to get a decent managerial set up installed similar to what Bolton have got and move the club forward from there. Have Bolton not spent any money? What have they won? They've bought Anelka this season but he was there only real big money signing. Bolton haven't won anything, having said that they didn't have to go into £87 million of debt just to win the Intertoto cup. With our higher financial turnover would be on a much higher level than Bolton, maybe the ways Spurs is run would be a better example. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Not going to comment on the fact that with at least 2 failed bids on the last day of the transfer window we obviously had the money for defenders but f*cked up due to poor planning NE5? Also not going for free's like Campbell, Trabelsi... How do you know we didn't go for Campbell? Roeder came out publically and said he didn't want Campbell because he hadn't played enough games in the last couple of seasons tbh. It was rhetorical, gemmill. But anyway, as you've answered it all I can ask is what's all this garbage about bad planning (from various people) then? If the manager didn't want the player and didn't go for him that sounds like he's sticking to a plan as far as I can tell. That an individual on this forum thinks we should have a signed a player the manager didn't want doesn't = bad planning by the club. Sticking to a bad plan is as bad as failing to plan tbh. Making the decision not to buy Campbell based on a flawed decision making process doesn't earn him extra points just because he had a (poor) reason not to buy the player. That's nonsense, Gemmill. What's more, you know it is. Some could say not selecting Luque is a bad plan, mate. Some would say selling Bellamy was a bad plan, others would say it's a good plan, isn't that right? :winking: Football is a matter of opinions. If the manager didn't want Campbell he can't be accused of having no plan just because some idiot on this forum thinks he should have signed him. Get it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Not going to comment on the fact that with at least 2 failed bids on the last day of the transfer window we obviously had the money for defenders but f*cked up due to poor planning NE5? Also not going for free's like Campbell, Trabelsi... How do you know we didn't go for Campbell? Roeder came out publically and said he didn't want Campbell because he hadn't played enough games in the last couple of seasons tbh. Aye that was a pretty clear sign to me, thought it might have been to others aswell but I often forget who im talking to on here! Eh? WTF are you on about now? Jesus. You must be one really dumb person. If you don't understand it I think you need to be looking closer to home for the dumb person. The fact we had failed bids on the last day of the season for defenders suggests bad planning does it not? Or was being left with 6 defenders the plan all along? No. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Anyway I am tired of you and your mates' double standards and general "damned if they do damned if they don't" idiocy. Stop buying quality players and don't complain when you see true mediocrity as a result, if that is what you want. Or keep buying them and watch them sold off on the cheap a la Leeds, would you prefer us to go that way as long as we keep spending money? As for your "deluded as ever" comment, I put that down to you not being able to answer the question properly. All the talk of a possible buy out would include paying off or huge debts, of course they will want something in return but the only way to make money in football is for the club to be successful. how do you think the club will be successful without spending money There are 2 options. The first one would be for them to invest their own money into the club to give us that lift up into the CL places, from then on with the the extra income they can operate at a break even policy where they only spend what the club has made through profit. The second option would be to get a decent managerial set up installed similar to what Bolton have got and move the club forward from there. Have Bolton not spent any money? What have they won? They've bought Anelka this season but he was there only real big money signing. Bolton haven't won anything, having said that they didn't have to go into £87 million of debt just to win the Intertoto cup. With our higher financial turnover would be on a much higher level than Bolton, maybe the ways Spurs is run would be a better example. Well I thought you were generally on about Bolton and how they've approached things over a number of years. They've spent money, but won nowt. Just like us. The reason we're in such debt right now is down to one bad managerial appointment, no more than that. It happens. It will be turned around by a good manager. I'm hoping Roeder is that man, still not sure though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Not going to comment on the fact that with at least 2 failed bids on the last day of the transfer window we obviously had the money for defenders but f*cked up due to poor planning NE5? Also not going for free's like Campbell, Trabelsi... How do you know we didn't go for Campbell? Roeder came out publically and said he didn't want Campbell because he hadn't played enough games in the last couple of seasons tbh. Aye that was a pretty clear sign to me, thought it might have been to others aswell but I often forget who im talking to on here! Eh? WTF are you on about now? Jesus. You must be one really dumb person. If you don't understand it I think you need to be looking closer to home for the dumb person. The fact we had failed bids on the last day of the season for defenders suggests bad planning does it not? Or was being left with 6 defenders the plan all along? No. how does it not? We obviously knew we needed the players otherwise we wouldnt have bid so how does leaving it too late not make it a bad plan? If I had some money to buy a relative an xmas present but failed to get it because i left it till the 24th December would the excuse "Well I did plan to buy it" go down too well? Some people have the nerve to call others idiots! :lol: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BooBoo Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Not going to comment on the fact that with at least 2 failed bids on the last day of the transfer window we obviously had the money for defenders but f*cked up due to poor planning NE5? Also not going for free's like Campbell, Trabelsi... How do you know we didn't go for Campbell? Roeder came out publically and said he didn't want Campbell because he hadn't played enough games in the last couple of seasons tbh. Aye that was a pretty clear sign to me, thought it might have been to others aswell but I often forget who im talking to on here! Eh? WTF are you on about now? Jesus. You must be one really dumb person. If you don't understand it I think you need to be looking closer to home for the dumb person. The fact we had failed bids on the last day of the season for defenders suggests bad planning does it not? Or was being left with 6 defenders the plan all along? No. Silly sod. Can someone not give the Brothers Dim their hot toddys and pack them off to their rooms with a copy each of Last of the Summer Wine on dvd. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Not going to comment on the fact that with at least 2 failed bids on the last day of the transfer window we obviously had the money for defenders but f*cked up due to poor planning NE5? Also not going for free's like Campbell, Trabelsi... How do you know we didn't go for Campbell? Roeder came out publically and said he didn't want Campbell because he hadn't played enough games in the last couple of seasons tbh. It was rhetorical, gemmill. But anyway, as you've answered it all I can ask is what's all this garbage about bad planning (from various people) then? If the manager didn't want the player and didn't go for him that sounds like he's sticking to a plan as far as I can tell. That an individual on this forum thinks we should have a signed a player the manager didn't want doesn't = bad planning by the club. Sticking to a bad plan is as bad as failing to plan tbh. Making the decision not to buy Campbell based on a flawed decision making process doesn't earn him extra points just because he had a (poor) reason not to buy the player. That's nonsense, Gemmill. What's more, you know it is. Some could say not selecting Luque is a bad plan, mate. Some would say selling Bellamy was a bad plan, others would say it's a good plan, isn't that right? :winking: Football is a matter of opinions. If the manager didn't want Campbell he can't be accused of having no plan just because some idiot on this forum thinks he should have signed him. Get it? I'm not suggesting that Roeder's plan is a bad one just because someone on here wanted to sell Campbell and Roeder didn't. To me signing Campbell was a no-brainer. I reckon Harry Redknapp would agree. Roeder fucked up with that signing and I think you know he did too. I really don't know why you're trying to defend the performance in the last transfer window. When you look at the sudden flurry of activity on the last day, you have to say that we had at least SOME money to spend. So then you have to ask yourself the question why had we left our business to the last day of the window. The answer is poor planning. No one would plan to do that much business on the last day. No one would plan to make their first enquiries about a player on the last day of the window (Viduka). No one would plan to try and hijack a bid for a defender that another club had all but signed (Huth). No one would plan to send one of their players into talks with another club only to have to call them back at the last minute (Milner). There was no plan to buy Antoine Sibierski - as pleasant a surprise as that signing has been, Roeder didn't plan for it, it happened when he shat himself at around 8pm on August 31st. It was also the lack of planning that saw us having to draft in Bernard the day after the window closed, having not scouted the player at all, the result of which being that he hasn't played a game for us since September. Why waste your time trying to defend that? It's a joke and you know it is. 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