joey_big_nose Posted January 14, 2008 Posted January 14, 2008 Blackburn are ready to snap up Amdy Faye from Rangers as a replacement for Robbie Savage. (The Mirror) Ordinarily I would be worried about this, but to be honest Hughes has done such a god job that if he reckons he can get this guy back to his best then I would take that. Does sort of indicate we only have the Savage money to spend and maybe a little extra. Bit rubbish.
This thread is brought to you by theterracestore.com Enter code `BRFCS` at checkout for an exclusive discount!
rover6 Posted January 14, 2008 Posted January 14, 2008 The Faye and Smertin midfield duet at Pompey were almost the talk of the Prem at one stage. However, things went horribly wrong for Faye after that. (Or fantastically well if you are talking in fiscal terms.) Was Faye involved in the whole corruption scandal, if only incidentally? Faye's better than Mokoena, so I'm not complaining.
LeftWinger Posted January 14, 2008 Posted January 14, 2008 Faye's better than Mokoena, so I'm not complaining. My cousin Faye is better than Mokoena!
krislu Posted January 14, 2008 Posted January 14, 2008 If we believe the rumours, its Sidwell to Sunderland (loan with option to buy) and Faye to Rovers on loan/trial. Are we really in that poor financial state that we can't even take Sidwell on loan?
Exiled_Rover Posted January 14, 2008 Posted January 14, 2008 Well I'd imagine Sunderland have paid good money for the privilege of half a season of Sidwell. They have much more financial clout than us - though they're in desperate trouble if they go down methinks. With the money Hughes has available he has to be sure about his targets, especially as a quality central midfielder is going to be expensive - we don't need a repeat of the Ferguson fiasco. If Hughes feels Faye can do a job for half a season until his targets become more realistic then so be it......assuming he's not off to Newcastle that is.
brian_gallagher85 Posted January 14, 2008 Posted January 14, 2008 The fact we could have played 2 games with Faye before Sidwell heads North is also a major plus....it smacks of desperation from Keane
Exiled_Rover Posted January 14, 2008 Posted January 14, 2008 The fact we could have played 2 games with Faye before Sidwell heads North is also a major plus....it smacks of desperation from Keane I'd say it's a calculated gamble, but well worth Keane's time. Sidwell would walk into that team, and obviously there's still half the season to go so those two games aren't a deal breaker.
RevidgeBlue Posted January 14, 2008 Posted January 14, 2008 How old is Faye? Can't find him listed amongst the Rangers squad on Soccerbase. Doesn't strike me as someone who would improve the starting eleven and seems to be scraping the barrel a bit to me.
Dave S Posted January 14, 2008 Posted January 14, 2008 How old is Faye? Can't find him listed amongst the Rangers squad on Soccerbase. Doesn't strike me as someone who would improve the starting eleven and seems to be scraping the barrel a bit to me. DOB 12 March 1977
modes98 Posted January 14, 2008 Posted January 14, 2008 Can't find him listed amongst the Rangers squad on Soccerbase That's because he is only on loan to them from Charlton. Profile
Torgeir Posted January 14, 2008 Posted January 14, 2008 31 in March? Hopefully it's only a loan signing until better players in the right price range become available. 31 is no age for a footballer in today's game.
Rovermatt Posted January 14, 2008 Posted January 14, 2008 31 is no age for a footballer in today's game. Eh?
neekoy Posted January 14, 2008 Posted January 14, 2008 31 is no age for a footballer in today's game. Someone better inform Giggs, Scholes, Figo, Van Nistelrooy, Maldini, Cannavaro, blahblahblahblah
Jan Posted January 14, 2008 Posted January 14, 2008 Someone better inform Giggs, Scholes, Figo, Van Nistelrooy, Maldini, Cannavaro, blahblahblahblah "31 is no age" means 31 is considered relatively young. Perhaps that clarifies.
Torgeir Posted January 14, 2008 Posted January 14, 2008 "31 is no age" means 31 is considered relatively young. Perhaps that clarifies. Yep, that was what I meant - sorry for the misunderstandings
Jan Posted January 14, 2008 Posted January 14, 2008 Yep, that was what I meant - sorry for the misunderstandings It's fine- you were just too colloquial for some!!!
Cheshireblue Posted January 14, 2008 Posted January 14, 2008 I heard a little something last night from one of his sponsors, but one certain M. Owen is looking to move back to the northwest. Neither liverpool or ManUre are interested apparently, so the options are reducing. City or Rovers were the two options that he mentioned, especially with Sven at City, but Rovers healthy league position and the imminent departure of McCarthy mean we are apparently not out of the running. He has no time for Mr Ashley or the style of football that they play, and the prospect of partnering Santa is quite appealing. He wants to get scoring goals again and cement his place in the England team under the new manager. Wih Bentley and Santa, that is emminently achievable at Rovers.
Exiled_Rover Posted January 14, 2008 Posted January 14, 2008 Who's paying the transfer fee and the ridiculous wages? Certainly not Rovers.
Nelsta Posted January 14, 2008 Posted January 14, 2008 I heard a little something last night from one of his sponsors, but one certain M. Owen is looking to move back to the northwest. Neither liverpool or ManUre are interested apparently, so the options are reducing. City or Rovers were the two options that he mentioned, especially with Sven at City, but Rovers healthy league position and the imminent departure of McCarthy mean we are apparently not out of the running. He has no time for Mr Ashley or the style of football that they play, and the prospect of partnering Santa is quite appealing. He wants to get scoring goals again and cement his place in the England team under the new manager. Wih Bentley and Santa, that is emminently achievable at Rovers. I think his wages would be against him comming here.
Mozzer Posted January 14, 2008 Posted January 14, 2008 if michael owen was available for less then 5million i would consider it..anything more is a waste of money..
Rovermatt Posted January 14, 2008 Posted January 14, 2008 Rovers wouldn't pay the electric bill if they thought they could get away with it. Michael Owen is certainly not an option.
Cheshireblue Posted January 14, 2008 Posted January 14, 2008 There is no release fee payable now, so it's whatever the market rate is. He wants to leave so the price may be a lower than you expect. Wages are an issue, but if you are going to push the boat out for anyone.....
philipl Posted January 14, 2008 Posted January 14, 2008 Striker is usually the one position where you can get away with out of kilter wages- if you want/need to. Whilst we have all been sweating on the empty chair at St James's, we are nearly at halfway point in the January window and it is still remarkably quiet. Apart from Chelsea signing Anelka (which affects two clubs' prospects), I cannot think of a single signing likely to affect the destiny of any club this season (other than the wholesale clear-out at Luton). Let's see how easy Megson will find it to get the requisite quality with his Anelka cash- I think he will struggle.
USRoverME Posted January 14, 2008 Posted January 14, 2008 We need some clarity in the sidwell market. I think he's exactly the central figure we need. I've always rated him. He's that 2-way midfielder we always want. Sounds like its going to be a drama with sudnerland involved and Grant not wanting to let him go due to the ANC's hit on Chelsea... but Rovers and Hughes negotiate drama better than most.... (think Sav, Benni...)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.