Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

More transfer rumours

midds

by midds
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

WillingtonMag

WillingtonMag

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, KaKa said:

 

What happens when they all start getting injured, and we're left playing the likes of Chris Wood?

Suppose any player can get injured think Ekitekes has had as many Injuries as he has lately? I'm not saying I'd prefer him to a younger player but if we've tried and can't get them to come no way would I be turning my nose up at him. Even If we get 2 seasons out of him he could be worth it his goal scoring record is class.

 

 

Edited by WillingtonMag

Link to post
Share on other sites
TRon

TRon

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, KaKa said:

 

What happens when they all start getting injured, and we're left playing the likes of Chris Wood?

 

31 isn't like being a pensioner, their bones don't start getting brittle at that age. I mean if you were talking about a 34 yr old I would get it. But if Zapata is injury prone, then yes you want to avoid, same as you would if he was 27.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ed210

Ed210

Posted
Posted
Just now, WillingtonMag said:

Suppose any player can get injured think Ekitekes has had as many Injuries as he has lately? I'm not saying I'd prefer him to a younger player but if we've tried and can't get them to come no way would I be turning my nose up at him. Even If we get 2 seasons out of him he could be worth it his goal scoring recording is class.


 

hang on a minute, I thought he was killed in a drink drive accident with his agent? Is that not true? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
KaKa

KaKa

Posted
Posted
Just now, TRon said:

 

31 isn't like being a pensioner, their bones don't start getting brittle at that age. I mean if you were talking about a 34 yr old I would get it. But if Zapata is injury prone, then yes you want to avoid, same as you would if he was 27.

 

There is a greater risk with older players as well as a typically longer recovery period also.

 

We already have one injury prone striker and one who most of us don't want to see playing too often at all.  I don't think we should be bringing in for a high fee and wages, a 31 year old striker that is coming from a much slower paced league. I think there's a decent chance his fitness becomes an issue, and we can't afford that.

 

It was actually a fear of mine with Trippier coming back to the Prem from Spain last January, and sure enough, he got injured. We were just very fortunate Krafth stepped up under Howe and performed really well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thumbheed

Thumbheed

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, KaKa said:

 

It's actually embarrassing that they can be so clueless. How could we possibly go and sign yet another 30 year old striker. Such a lazy link from someone that's not paid any attention to what the club is doing. Awful stuff. Just throwing out made up articles for clicks.

 

Actually totally disagree with this.

 

Bare in mind our very short term target is probably 8th places at best then signing a proven albeit aging striker is no less sensible than signing a young unproven striker - as long as they offer us something in helping us achieve that goal, which Zapata would. 

 

What is apparent, is that out and out strikers of the 'right profile' - ie young and proven- are at an absolute premium price wise (and availibltiy  for that matter) which we've seen with Isak, Vlahovic, Oshimen, Nunez and even a discounted Haaland going for 70 odd million, which at this point in time seems incompatible with our current spending ability. 

 

Personally see no reason why getting someone like Zapata who offers presence on the pitch in the form of pace, strength and work rate wouldn't be savvy business for the next couple of years we aim for 8th and give us time to grow our revenue to be big enough to actually splurge when we need to make that bigger push for European places. 

 

 

Edited by Thumbheed

Link to post
Share on other sites
madras

madras

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, KaKa said:

 

There is a greater risk with older players as well as a typically longer recovery period also.

 

We already have one injury prone striker and one who most of us don't want to see playing too often at all.  I don't think we should be bringing in for a high fee and wages, a 31 year old striker that is coming from a much slower paced league. I think there's a decent chance his fitness becomes an issue, and we can't afford that.

 

It was actually a fear of mine with Trippier coming back to the Prem from Spain last January, and sure enough, he got injured. We were just very fortunate Krafth stepped up under Howe and performed really well.

Are players more likely to break a bone in their foot when tackling in their early 30s than their early 20s ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kid Icarus

Kid Icarus

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Coffee_Johnny said:

Admittedly based on not very much at all, I don’t want Lingard. Despite his wealth of experience I just can’t see him being a positive influence, particularly off the field. 

 

It's based entirely on fans not liking him off the field. :lol: There's nothing whatsoever to suggest he'd be a bad influence within the club like, only the opposite. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SUPERTOON

SUPERTOON

Posted
Posted
Just now, Kid Icarus said:

 

It's based entirely on fans not liking him off the field. :lol: There's nothing whatsoever to suggest he'd be a bad influence within the club like, only the opposite. 

For me it’s based on him having played well for about 5 months in his whole career. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kid Icarus

Kid Icarus

Posted
Posted
Just now, SUPERTOON said:

For me it’s based on him having played well for about 5 months in his whole career. 

 

Fair enough like, I was only replying to the comment about him not being a positive influence though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SUPERTOON

SUPERTOON

Posted
Posted
Just now, Kid Icarus said:

 

Fair enough like, I was only replying to the comment about him not being a positive influence though. 

Yeah didn’t see your comment underneath till after I posted 👍

Link to post
Share on other sites
KaKa

KaKa

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Thumbheed said:

 

Actually totally disagree with this.

 

Bare in mind our very short term target is probably 8th places at best then signing a proven albeit aging striker is no less sensible than signing a young unproven striker - as long as they offer us something in helping us achieve that goal, which Zapata would. 

 

What is apparent, is that out and out strikers of the 'right profile' - ie young and proven- are at an absolute premium price wise (and availibltiy  for that matter) which we've seen with Isak, Vlahovic, Oshimen, Nunez and even a discounted Haaland going for 70 odd million, which at this point in time seems incompatible with our spending ability. 

 

Personally see no reason why getting someone like Zapata who offers presence on the pitch in the form of pace, strength and work rate wouldn't be savvy business for the next couple of years we aim for 8th and give us time to grow our revenue to be big enough to actually splurge when we need to make that bigger push for European places. 

 

 

 

 

I don't see it. So Zapata comes in for significant money and wages, and then what ... backs up Wilson? Or puts one of our better players in Wilson on the bench? Why put so much money into that? 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Coffee_Johnny

Coffee_Johnny

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, KaKa said:

 

I don't see it. So Zapata comes in for significant money and wages, and then what ... backs up Wilson? Or puts one of our better players in Wilson on the bench? Why put so much money into that? 

 

 

Competition, options, 5 subs and cover.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yorkie

Yorkie

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, ponsaelius said:

If resale value didn't matter Man City wouldn't be selling players when they're keen to move on before their value goes. Every club has to operate within FFP now and buy and sell efficiently and intelligently. Liverpool have been remarkable at this in recent years.

 

We have no cheat code like Man City did when they were able to leapfrog straight into the CL in two seasons. Unless we think we can make the CL in the next two seasons with our signings then it is far too risky to weight the age of the squad so highly.

 

The sensible model is something much closer to what Leipzig have done in recent years.

 

Not saying you're wrong because it would obviously be more economically sound to buy good young players, but if we can't get the ones that are going to improve us what do we do then? Keep going down the list of options until we end up with Rivieire and Cabella, or sign a few players who don't guarantee resale value but, in the name of progress, will improve us in the short term? You've said yourself that we're starting from ground zero so I can see them being flexible, and they have been so far - they've signed 'old', 'peak' and young. Steadfastly sticking to a 'resale value only' policy in our current position sounds a bit Mike Ashley.

 

Besides, the average age is still being addressed to some extent if it's Gayle out and Zapata in. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...