[Archived] Lucas Neill

[Fife Rover]

  Florida Rover said:

Mark Hughes blocks Lucas' move to West Ham b/c they won't include konchesky as a swap according to this article

i guess the Ukrainian trialist is not a consideration then?

What is going on here? Why is MH claiming that cash is no good to him "because he can't spend it"?

[Ozz]

  Fife Rover said:

Why is MH claiming that cash is no good to him "because he can't spend it"?

`Cos West Ham now pay in Krona. And biscuits.

[philipl]

  Fife Rover said:

What is going on here? Why is MH claiming that cash is no good to him "because he can't spend it"?

Because he wants more cash or perhaps a different player WHam are unwilling to part with.

Anyway, if the Icelanders can pay Lucash £70K a week they can certainly pay Rovers more useless transfer cash.

This is a transfer made in hell for the Hammers. Watch Lucash go AWOL at key moments, get sent off, and conceed and miss penalties in key relegation games whilst being an "ultra professional" hard working pro.

Curbishley is buying relegation with this one and Lucash will be delighted to comply.

PS Perhaps premature but it looks like a second transfer "told you so" from your's truly in one week. All I need to do is start posting quotations of myself and I'll be halfway to being a 'drog- perish the thought!

Edited January 18, 2007 by philipl

[Fife Rover]

  philipl said:

Because he wants more cash or perhaps a different player WHam are unwilling to part with.

So in answer to my previous question and assuming Philipl is correct, this can only have one meaning; that MH actually as things stand has NO MONEY AT ALL to spend and he needs more than WHam are offering for Neill just to get a replacement for him. Either that or a player in exchange which MH finds acceptable.

This in spite of the availability of Nesmachniy for around £1.2m!! Very sad state of affairs! Makes you begin to think that Vinjay might just have a point.

And before anybody gets any ideas: NO! I am NOT Vinjay.

[Will]

  philipl said:

Because he wants more cash or perhaps a different player WHam are unwilling to part with.

Anyway, if the Icelanders can pay Lucash £70K a week they can certainly pay Rovers more useless transfer cash.

This is a transfer made in hell for the Hammers. Watch Lucash go AWOL at key moments, get sent off, and conceed and miss penalties in key relegation games whilst being an "ultra professional" hard working pro.

Curbishley is buying relegation with this one and Lucash will be delighted to comply.

PS Perhaps premature but it looks like a second transfer "told you so" from your's truly in one week. All I need to do is start posting quotations of myself and I'll be halfway to being a 'drog- perish the thought!

Ha, f*****g ha. I cant wait to see him in blue & white again.

Tosser.

Edited January 18, 2007 by Will

[Ste B]

  Fife Rover said:

So in answer to my previous question and assuming Philipl is correct, this can only have one meaning; that MH actually as things stand has NO MONEY AT ALL to spend and he needs more than WHam are offering for Neill

Its probably because the players he wants are not available in the transfer window, so he would rather keep Neill until the close season.

[philipl]

Player availability of acceptable quality is the critical factor in my opinion. We'd look absolute loons if Neill went then suddenly all our full back replacements (all two of them) were snapped up elsewhere. I'd say this season more than most recently, the Walker Trust would open the purse strings to buy.

But buy what?

Look at Davenport for £3m , Young for almost £10m.

There is hardly a raging howling mob outside the JW main entrance demanding to know why we weren't in the bidding...

[thenodrog]

Actions being taken by clubs to ensure that get a bigger slice of the new TV deal simply mean that they will never keep it! Madness.

Edited January 19, 2007 by thenodrog

[Ronin]

I guess if Neill is really after money, I don't see why he doesn't follow Beckham and play in the US.

[Cocker]

  Ronin said:

I guess if Neill is really after money, I don't see why he doesn't follow Beckham and play in the US.

Because I doubt anyone in the US would know who he is and he would probably get more at West Ham

[M-K]

  Ronin said:

I guess if Neill is really after money, I don't see why he doesn't follow Beckham and play in the US.

One star player per team, isn't it? Although they said on Sky Sports that LA were offering trials to anyone who wants to turn up, so maybe Lucas could nip over there for the weekend and show them what a £70k per week player really looks like.

[Ronin]

  Cocker said:

Because I doubt anyone in the US would know who he is and he would probably get more at West Ham

True.

[waggy]

anything less than a million for lucas,i would keep him till the summer

[thenodrog]

  waggy said:

anything less than a million for lucas,i would keep him till the summer

Quite right waggy. I'll upset a few of the perrenial moaners on here by saying this but for once we are able to play hard ball in this transfer window and with the moeny swilling around at the moment we are sat firmly in the driving seat. It's Win Win.

[RevidgeBlue]

  waggy said:

anything less than a million for lucas,i would keep him till the summer

If, as seems increasingly likely, we are getting Warnock in first it seems very unlikely we'll be keeping Lucas.

And rightly so. He's been poor enough over the last couple of months as it is as his attention has wandered. It would be a disaster playing him for the remainder of the season imo.

[Cocker]

  RevidgeBlue said:

If, as seems increasingly likely, we are getting Warnock in first it seems very unlikely we'll be keeping Lucas.

And rightly so. He's been poor enough over the last couple of months as it is as his attention has wandered. It would be a disaster playing him for the remainder of the season imo.

Agreed, well said

[Wild Irish Rover]

Der.... I'm confused. Is Lucas still a Rovers player or has he signed for the (cringe) claret and blue hammers? Can't see anything to confirm he has gone. I'd like to see this wrapped up ahead of the weekend, as I feel we need to get a settled squad focused on the job(s) in hand as soon as possible. All of this 'is he / isn't he' fandango is nothing but an unsettling influence on the side, not to mention somewhat galling for the supporters.

Anyone got a definitive answer? Is Lucas Neill going? Either way, I hope he isn't included for the short trip to Eastlands tomorrow, although the beeb still have him in the team selection.

[Cocker]

He is still a rover at the mo. In fact, he looks to be in the squad for tomorrow

[thenodrog]

  RevidgeBlue said:

If, as seems increasingly likely, we are getting Warnock in first it seems very unlikely we'll be keeping Lucas.

And rightly so. He's been poor enough over the last couple of months as it is as his attention has wandered. It would be a disaster playing him for the remainder of the season imo.

I may be wrong but imo warnock is a poorer player than Neill and more injury prone.

[den]

If Warnock comes in and shows better than Gray or Neill at LB, we could be better off being that we will have more balance in the side. That's important.

[RevidgeBlue]

  thenodrog said:

I may be wrong but imo warnock is a poorer player than Neill and more injury prone.

As with Dunn/Ferguson you're contradicting your normal position again Gordon.

You're usually one for the club taking preemptive strike action first, leaving the awkward player with nowhere to go!

[waggy]

lucas neill is a tough tackling,sometimes hatchet man,but it is worth turning down a million for him,because he always gives 100% even if he has been poor recentley,remenber when sourpuss was here,he was carbage and still a automatic selection,remenber he won us the uefa league

[Scotty]

  RevidgeBlue said:

And rightly so. He's been poor enough over the last couple of months as it is as his attention has wandered. It would be a disaster playing him for the remainder of the season imo.

Simply untrue, and just because you keep repeating it isn't going to make it anymore true either.

[RevidgeBlue]

  Scotty said:

Simply untrue, and just because you keep repeating it isn't going to make it anymore true either.

It's absolutely true, hindsight and his recent performances on the pitch have shown you've been wrong in your unstinting support of Neill but you won't admit that's the case.

Edited January 19, 2007 by RevidgeBlue

[Bobby G]

Ive watched almost every Rovers game live on TV this season and I have to say that Neill has other than the game against Liverpool been fiery, committed and tough as usual. However, since he has been playing left back he is much much more better going forward than defending, which was I think the opposite at right back.

You are forgetting that we are playing him at left back. But his performances have been decent and he gives us much better solidity at the back than Gray.