Toon line up top targets

[Howaythelads]

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:

 

You're complaining that the club didn't sign a player you wanted the club to sign but who the club didn't want to sign. Any failed bids during the transfer window were for players the club did want. Not all transfers come off, or do you think they do? 

 

Understand?

[Cajun]

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:

 

You're complaining that the club didn't sign a player you wanted the club to sign but who the club didn't want to sign. Any failed bids during the transfer window were for players the club did want. Not all transfers come off, or do you think they do? 

 

Understand?

 

It was an example of a player we more than had the funding to bring in which would have improved the defence. The reason the example was given is because NE5 tried to make out we used all our resources on signing attacking players which were of more importance therefore didn't get defenders, which quite obviously and as usual a huge pile of shite!

 

Understand?

[Howaythelads]

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.

 

Gemmill, I'm not defending anything. The accusation is the normal type that points a finger at the club when something doesn't happen as though it is the norm'. It isn't. As you well know. This club has successfully signed dozens of players since the present transfer system began, to suggest they are suddenly shite at buying players in the transfer window because they had some failed bids in the last one is pure nonsense.

 

Apart from the popularity for Campbell I'm not sure how bringing him in at the last minute would indicate any better planning than bringing in Sibierski and Bernard, something for which you're critical of the club for doing. Would you therefore be critical if, hypothetically, the club had signed a player at the last moment they didn't really want in Sol Campbell? Would that be different somehow?

 

The club had transfer targets that didn't work out this time. Shit happens.

 

[Cajun]

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.

 

Gemmill, I'm not defending anything. The accusation is the normal type that points a finger at the club when something doesn't happen as though it is the norm'. It isn't. As you well know. This club has successfully signed dozens of players since the present transfer system began, to suggest they are suddenly shite at buying players in the transfer window because they had some failed bids in the last one is pure nonsense.

 

Apart from the popularity for Campbell I'm not sure how bringing him in at the last minute would indicate any better planning than bringing in Sibierski and Bernard, something for which you're critical of the club for doing. Would you therefore be critical if, hypothetically, the club had signed a player at the last moment they didn't really want in Sol Campbell? Would that be different somehow?

 

The club had transfer targets that didn't work out this time. Shit happens.

 

 

Do you agree that the attempted transfer dealings on the last day of the window was a sign of poor planning?

 

Who said we should have signed Campbell on the last day of the window by the way?

[gazza ladra]

I'm disappointed that the club didn't pick up Bridge...  and, in retrospect, not trying to sign Campbell is an obvious blunder.

 

However, I am also happy about the deals Roeder DID NOT make -- the type of deal that Souness made when he bought Boumsong. He could of got desperate and thrown money  away.

 

Roeder should have picked up a defender or two. But the money he did spend, he spent wisely. Think he'll do well in January as well.

 

 

[Cajun]

I'm disappointed that the club didn't pick up Bridge...  and, in retrospect, not trying to sign Campbell is an obvious blunder.

 

However, I am also happy about the deals Roeder DID NOT make -- the type of deal that Souness made when he bought Boumsong. He could of got desperate and thrown money  away.

 

Roeder should have picked up a defender or two. But the money he did spend, he spent wisely. Think he'll do well in January as well.

 

 

 

I hope he does aswell. Ok he didn't spend money stupidly but that doesn't make his poor planning any better.

 

[midds]

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.

 

Spot fucking on. Got very little confidence in Roeder to sign the players we need. They fucked it up in August and have just about gotten away with it....can't see him signing the players we need come January.  :roll:

[Guest Gemmill]

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.

 

Gemmill, I'm not defending anything. The accusation is the normal type that points a finger at the club when something doesn't happen as though it is the norm'. It isn't. As you well know. This club has successfully signed dozens of players since the present transfer system began, to suggest they are suddenly shite at buying players in the transfer window because they had some failed bids in the last one is pure nonsense.

 

Apart from the popularity for Campbell I'm not sure how bringing him in at the last minute would indicate any better planning than bringing in Sibierski and Bernard, something for which you're critical of the club for doing. Would you therefore be critical if, hypothetically, the club had signed a player at the last moment they didn't really want in Sol Campbell? Would that be different somehow?

 

The club had transfer targets that didn't work out this time. Shit happens.

 

 

I wouldn't expect the club to bring in a player they didn't want.  I would however expect the club to want a player of Campbell's calibre and experience.  That's where they went wrong in that signing. 

 

But that's not really key to my point.  My point is that if we had money to spend and we knew what we wanted to spend it on, we wouldn't have left it to the last day of the window to make bids for the likes of Robert Huth and Zat Knight - Huth in particular had been available all transfer window.  We waited until he was all but sat in his press conference at Boro then tried to hijack the deal.  Why?  Because our planning was appalling and we didn't really know who we wanted.  So we procrastinated, left things til the last day, and then failed to secure the signings we had finally identified.  When that happened we were left with no time to find alternatives.  In anyone's book, in anyone's definition of the word, that is bad planning.

[Cajun]

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.

 

Gemmill, I'm not defending anything. The accusation is the normal type that points a finger at the club when something doesn't happen as though it is the norm'. It isn't. As you well know. This club has successfully signed dozens of players since the present transfer system began, to suggest they are suddenly shite at buying players in the transfer window because they had some failed bids in the last one is pure nonsense.

 

Apart from the popularity for Campbell I'm not sure how bringing him in at the last minute would indicate any better planning than bringing in Sibierski and Bernard, something for which you're critical of the club for doing. Would you therefore be critical if, hypothetically, the club had signed a player at the last moment they didn't really want in Sol Campbell? Would that be different somehow?

 

The club had transfer targets that didn't work out this time. Shit happens.

 

 

I wouldn't expect the club to bring in a player they didn't want.  I would however expect the club to want a player of Campbell's calibre and experience.  That's where they went wrong in that signing. 

 

But that's not really key to my point.  My point is that if we had money to spend and we knew what we wanted to spend it on, we wouldn't have left it to the last day of the window to make bids for the likes of Robert Huth and Zat Knight - Huth in particular had been available all transfer window.  We waited until he was all but sat in his press conference at Boro then tried to hijack the deal.  Why?  Because our planning was appalling and we didn't really know who we wanted.  So we procrastinated, left things til the last day, and then failed to secure the signings we had finally identified.  When that happened we were left with no time to find alternatives.  In anyone's book, in anyone's definition of the word, that is bad planning.

 

No, its not. [/ HTL ]

[gazza ladra]

I'm disappointed that the club didn't pick up Bridge...  and, in retrospect, not trying to sign Campbell is an obvious blunder.

 

However, I am also happy about the deals Roeder DID NOT make -- the type of deal that Souness made when he bought Boumsong. He could of got desperate and thrown money  away.

 

Roeder should have picked up a defender or two. But the money he did spend, he spent wisely. Think he'll do well in January as well.

 

 

 

I hope he does aswell. Ok he didn't spend money stupidly but that doesn't make his poor planning any better.

 

 

Agreed. Some poor planning. (Should not relied on the Cole deal going through). Should've bought Campbell.

 

But he brought some speed to the team-- which we desperately needed and need. And that has benefitted the entire team-- Emre's better.

 

Le Sib brings some height. I'll bet Roeder brings in some more height  in the transfer.

 

 

[Cajun]

I'm disappointed that the club didn't pick up Bridge...  and, in retrospect, not trying to sign Campbell is an obvious blunder.

 

However, I am also happy about the deals Roeder DID NOT make -- the type of deal that Souness made when he bought Boumsong. He could of got desperate and thrown money  away.

 

Roeder should have picked up a defender or two. But the money he did spend, he spent wisely. Think he'll do well in January as well.

 

 

 

I hope he does aswell. Ok he didn't spend money stupidly but that doesn't make his poor planning any better.

 

 

Agreed. Some poor planning. (Should not relied on the Cole deal going through). Should've bought Campbell.

 

But he brought some speed to the team-- which we desperately needed and need. And that has benefitted the entire team-- Emre's better.

 

Le Sib brings some height. I'll bet Roeder brings in some height more in the transfer.

 

 

 

I am very happy with Martins and Sibierski so kudos to him for that, fact is how anyone can defend the planning of the summer transfer window completely is beyond me. We failed to get in players that would help us push on and as a result we have struggled to stay out of the relegation zone so far.

[Howaythelads]

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.

 

Gemmill, I'm not defending anything. The accusation is the normal type that points a finger at the club when something doesn't happen as though it is the norm'. It isn't. As you well know. This club has successfully signed dozens of players since the present transfer system began, to suggest they are suddenly shite at buying players in the transfer window because they had some failed bids in the last one is pure nonsense.

 

Apart from the popularity for Campbell I'm not sure how bringing him in at the last minute would indicate any better planning than bringing in Sibierski and Bernard, something for which you're critical of the club for doing. Would you therefore be critical if, hypothetically, the club had signed a player at the last moment they didn't really want in Sol Campbell? Would that be different somehow?

 

The club had transfer targets that didn't work out this time. Shit happens.

 

 

Do you agree that the attempted transfer dealings on the last day of the window was a sign of poor planning?

 

Who said we should have signed Campbell on the last day of the window by the way?

 

No, I don't agree it was poor planning. Some transfer deals work and others don't.

 

Do you know what hypothetically means?  Do you know what example means?

 

Campbell left arse and signed for portsmouth well before the end of the transfer window. Newcastle didn't sign him because Roeder didn't want him and he obviously had other players he was interested in, deals that subsequently did not come off for whatever reason. What do you want the club to do? Sign Campbell earlier on big wages just in case these proposed deals don't come off? What do you suggest a club should do as standard practice when they have a definite transfer target? Should a club always sign an alternative earlier on, just in case their real target doesn't join? 

 

You're funny. You're also using that hindsight thing again, that you rely on so much.

 

You said, "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?"

 

You also said, "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..."

 

I mentioned Campbell simply as an example due to the fact you mentioned him and appeared to think the club should have signed him. Understand  yet?

[Howaythelads]

I'm disappointed that the club didn't pick up Bridge...  and, in retrospect, not trying to sign Campbell is an obvious blunder.

 

However, I am also happy about the deals Roeder DID NOT make -- the type of deal that Souness made when he bought Boumsong. He could of got desperate and thrown money  away.

 

Roeder should have picked up a defender or two. But the money he did spend, he spent wisely. Think he'll do well in January as well.

 

 

 

I hope he does aswell. Ok he didn't spend money stupidly but that doesn't make his poor planning any better.

 

 

bluelaugh.gif

[Howaythelads]

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.

 

Gemmill, I'm not defending anything. The accusation is the normal type that points a finger at the club when something doesn't happen as though it is the norm'. It isn't. As you well know. This club has successfully signed dozens of players since the present transfer system began, to suggest they are suddenly shite at buying players in the transfer window because they had some failed bids in the last one is pure nonsense.

 

Apart from the popularity for Campbell I'm not sure how bringing him in at the last minute would indicate any better planning than bringing in Sibierski and Bernard, something for which you're critical of the club for doing. Would you therefore be critical if, hypothetically, the club had signed a player at the last moment they didn't really want in Sol Campbell? Would that be different somehow?

 

The club had transfer targets that didn't work out this time. Shit happens.

 

 

I wouldn't expect the club to bring in a player they didn't want.  I would however expect the club to want a player of Campbell's calibre and experience.  That's where they went wrong in that signing. 

 

But that's not really key to my point.  My point is that if we had money to spend and we knew what we wanted to spend it on, we wouldn't have left it to the last day of the window to make bids for the likes of Robert Huth and Zat Knight - Huth in particular had been available all transfer window.  We waited until he was all but sat in his press conference at Boro then tried to hijack the deal.  Why?  Because our planning was appalling and we didn't really know who we wanted.  So we procrastinated, left things til the last day, and then failed to secure the signings we had finally identified.  When that happened we were left with no time to find alternatives.  In anyone's book, in anyone's definition of the word, that is bad planning.

 

Perhaps the quality the club wanted just wasn't there at a price they were prepared to pay. Huth, ffs. I'm glad that one didn't go through anyway. I'd sooner gamble on the likes of Ramage, tbh.

[Howaythelads]

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.

 

Gemmill, I'm not defending anything. The accusation is the normal type that points a finger at the club when something doesn't happen as though it is the norm'. It isn't. As you well know. This club has successfully signed dozens of players since the present transfer system began, to suggest they are suddenly shite at buying players in the transfer window because they had some failed bids in the last one is pure nonsense.

 

Apart from the popularity for Campbell I'm not sure how bringing him in at the last minute would indicate any better planning than bringing in Sibierski and Bernard, something for which you're critical of the club for doing. Would you therefore be critical if, hypothetically, the club had signed a player at the last moment they didn't really want in Sol Campbell? Would that be different somehow?

 

The club had transfer targets that didn't work out this time. Shit happens.

 

 

I wouldn't expect the club to bring in a player they didn't want.  I would however expect the club to want a player of Campbell's calibre and experience.  That's where they went wrong in that signing. 

 

But that's not really key to my point.  My point is that if we had money to spend and we knew what we wanted to spend it on, we wouldn't have left it to the last day of the window to make bids for the likes of Robert Huth and Zat Knight - Huth in particular had been available all transfer window.  We waited until he was all but sat in his press conference at Boro then tried to hijack the deal.  Why?  Because our planning was appalling and we didn't really know who we wanted.  So we procrastinated, left things til the last day, and then failed to secure the signings we had finally identified.  When that happened we were left with no time to find alternatives.  In anyone's book, in anyone's definition of the word, that is bad planning.

 

No, its not. [/ HTL ]

 

That's right.

[Cajun]

In all honesty I can't be arsed to debate this anymore.

 

The last minute attempts to sign Huth, Viduka and Knight tell me everything I need to know.

 

If Knight was someone we were looking to sign rather than an "alternative" like Sol Campbell then yes we should sign these alternatives before ending up with shite like that or in our case fuck all.

 

If you honestly think it takes the whole summer to sign one defender and a failure to do so isn't down to bad planning then i'm at a loss with how you view "planning" anyway.

 

Night HTL, also obviously hasn't come to your attention (right) but as I know you will read this thread this is also another thread in GC that you have missed (wonder why) regarding ID cards or something...  bluewink.gif

[Howaythelads]

In all honesty I can't be arsed to debate this anymore.

 

The last minute attempts to sign Huth, Viduka and Knight tell me everything I need to know.

 

If Knight was someone we were looking to sign rather than an "alternative" like Sol Campbell then yes we should sign these alternatives before ending up with shite like that or in our case F*** all.

 

If you honestly think it takes the whole summer to sign one defender and a failure to do so isn't down to bad planning then i'm at a loss with how you view "planning" anyway.

 

Night HTL, also obviously hasn't come to your attention (right) but as I know you will read this thread this is also another thread in GC that you have missed (wonder why) regarding ID cards or something...  bluewink.gif

 

:roll:

 

Failure to sign a player isn't bad planning, it can be any of a number of reasons.

 

Hope your mum tucked you in.

[Guest JamesD]

i remember reading that huth, woodgate, and campbell rebuffed us, and the bridge deal was to contingent on the cole transfer. didn't really seem like roeder's fault.

[Guest BooBoo]

 

So predictable.

[gazza ladra]

I am very happy with Martins and Sibierski so kudos to him for that, fact is how anyone can defend the planning of the summer transfer window completely is beyond me. We failed to get in players that would help us push on and as a result we have struggled to stay out of the relegation zone so far.

 

I'm not sure any one is defending the "planning". 

 

I am defending the end result, which has not been nearly as bad as some claim. I thought it was an absolute disaster at the time. I've revised my opinion. 

 

* I'm happy we did not sign Huth or Knight. Or spend stupid money for some SPL player.

* Martins is a great buy.

* Trust that Duff will prove to be a great signing.

* Delighted and surprised with Sibierski.

 

I can't speak for others, but  I think the argument that we really don't know all the facts and we can't put everything down to poor planning is valid. Money could well have been a key issue.

 

I think that Roeder expected to buy Bridge. Maybe he had no backup plan, I don't know. But I'm glad he didn't spend stupid money to bring in Knight or Huth.

 

 

 

[Guest JamesD]

I think that Roeder expected to buy Bridge. Maybe he had no backup plan, I don't know. But I'm glad he didn't spend stupid money to bring in Knight or Huth.

well, bernard hasn't exactly panned out.

[gazza ladra]

I think that Roeder expected to buy Bridge. Maybe he had no backup plan, I don't know. But I'm glad he didn't spend stupid money to bring in Knight or Huth.

well, bernard hasn't exactly panned out.

 

They brought back Bernard to placate the fans.  This season's Lee Clark.

[Superior Acuña]

I think that Roeder expected to buy Bridge. Maybe he had no backup plan, I don't know. But I'm glad he didn't spend stupid money to bring in Knight or Huth.

well, bernard hasn't exactly panned out.

 

But we didnt pay for him

[Baggio]

I think that Roeder expected to buy Bridge. Maybe he had no backup plan, I don't know. But I'm glad he didn't spend stupid money to bring in Knight or Huth.

well, bernard hasn't exactly panned out.

 

But we didnt pay for him

 

I presume he's picking his wages up every week unless he's here on a voluntary basis bluebigrazz.gif

[sempuki]

3 or 4 players (defence and attack) from Europe. I've really no idea who they could be:

 

The 51-year-old will send his resurgent Magpies side out against Premiership champions Chelsea in Wednesday night's Carling Cup quarter-final tie at St James' Park, looking to book a place in the last four by extending the Blues' run of one draw and two defeats in their last three visits to Tyneside.

 

However, Roeder will do so having already thrashed out just where the chairman's money will be invested during the transfer window as he looks to strengthen his squad.

 

Roeder said: "We have a list of players that we have spent the last three months putting together.

 

"We have spent a fair time in Europe looking at three or four targets in those areas of the team I feel need strengthening.

 

"We have very little strength in depth in defence and with Michael Owen and Shola Ameobi having long-term injuries, we do not really have strength in depth in striking roles.

 

"It would be quite easy to work out the areas we are attacking."

 

Shepherd was down at the club's annual general meeting in London on Tuesday, but will return ready to do business despite continuing speculation over the club's future ownership.

 

However, he remains focused on Roeder's rebuilding plan, and that would be boosted significantly by a victory over Chelsea.

 

Shepherd said: "Glenn and myself have already have already had preliminary discussions, but we will probably decide tomorrow just who we can or cannot bring to St James' Park in the January transfer window.

 

"Whatever people may or may not say about Newcastle United, we have always done our best for our manager, and we will do what we can for Glenn Roeder."

 

Jose Mourinho's side will arrive at St James' having lost there in the final game of last season and in the fifth round of the 2004-05 FA Cup with a Premiership draw in between.

 

The reigning league champions scraped past the Magpies at Stamford Bridge last Wednesday evening when Didier Drogba's late strike was enough to claim all three points, but that simply served to increase the belief within the black and white camp that they could claim a major scalp.

 

Roeder said: "I hope the players get confidence from that fact, but you never get - and never will get - two games exactly the same.

 

"Chelsea, being the winners they are, will be as keen and as desperate to go through to the semi-finals as we are.

 

"Jose Mourinho has always treated this cup with respect, which other managers have not done in the past by putting out weakened teams.

 

"We are expecting to play a very strong and motivated Chelsea team tomorrow night."

 

Roeder could have makeshift right-back Nolberto Solano back at his disposal after a groin injury with left-back Celestine Babayaro suspended, while Turkish midfielder Emre will have a late fitness test on an ankle problem.

 

However, Roeder has promised to keep a cool head on the sidelines whatever happens amid an ongoing debate over the behaviour of managers in which Mourinho has figured prominently.

 

He said: "Over the last few years, football has become more theatre and I do believe a number of managers play to the cameras, they do enjoy seeing themselves gyrating and jumping up and down.

 

"That is not normally my style. I have my moments, I must admit, when I am trying to encourage the team or direct operations from the sidelines.

 

"But I much prefer to stand and watch the game and study what is going on so when I get a chance to speak to them at half-time or at the end of the game, I can hopefully make a more accurate assessment than the guys that like to bounce up and down as if they are on trampolines."