spencey7 Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 Sam's story at the time was that the club had no money and it didn't feel right. The club thought they had found the new Mark Hughes. So Allardyce did legitimately turn down the offer of the job, rather than being overlooked in favour of Paul Ince? I find that very hard to believe...
This thread is brought to you by theterracestore.com Enter code `BRFCS` at checkout for an exclusive discount!
nicko Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 So Allardyce did legitimately turn down the offer of the job, rather than being overlooked in favour of Paul Ince? I find that very hard to believe... He wasn't offered the job, he had an interview for it.
spencey7 Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 He wasn't offered the job, he had an interview for it. Yet to save face when he took the job in December he (and, I think, John Williams) claimed that he had been Rovers' "preferred choice" since Hughes left, but that he turned down the job in the summer as it "wasn't the right time". It's such transparent lying. Paul Ince must feel a right plonker. Sacked, then made to look like you were never really wanted in the first place.
Kelbo Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 Yet to save face when he took the job in December he (and, I think, John Williams) claimed that he had been Rovers' "preferred choice" since Hughes left, but that he turned down the job in the summer as it "wasn't the right time". It's such transparent lying. Paul Ince must feel a right plonker. Sacked, then made to look like you were never really wanted in the first place. The rumours I heard were that Sam was in fact on the short list, before Rovers could make a decision, they needed to know if or not Ince would be allowed to manage without his badges!! Sam took this as Ince being offered the job and Sam withdrew, I believe that to be correct as it came from someone inside Rovers.
ScottishRover Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 Sam has said it will take £40 million to sign Cruz. This guy is a genius, showing who is boss
nicko Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 Sam has said it will take £40 million to sign Cruz. This guy is a genius, showing who is boss Wait until the window shuts before handing out the plaudits on this one...
ScottishRover Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 Wait until the window shuts before handing out the plaudits on this one... Obviously we would take less. He is just playing mind games. Trying to get Hughes to come in with an offer that we will accept and quikly. I think its a clever move.
Oklahoma Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 My guess is that he says he wants 40 million but will probably take less.
bluebruce Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 to be fair ince maybe had an eye for decent players, and i will always love him for getting money for friedel and signing robinson. lovely move! Nope, retarded move. Love him for getting money for Friedel? Any team in the Prem would have given us money for Friedel. IMO, we could have easily forced double that out of Villa- they were willing to pay him more each year! Robinson still doesn't impress me enough, and is categorically no Friedel. The change of keepers was one of our biggest weakenings.
Mr. E Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 City got Bellamy, and now they have 4 very good strikers. They won't be going for Cruz. Which means we won't be able to buy a decent right winger and central midfielder. We're stuck with the fine choice between Tugay, Mokoena, Andrews and Grella (and Dunn for however many games he stays fit) for the end of the season. Nope, retarded move. Love him for getting money for Friedel? Any team in the Prem would have given us money for Friedel. IMO, we could have easily forced double that out of Villa- they were willing to pay him more each year! Robinson still doesn't impress me enough, and is categorically no Friedel. The change of keepers was one of our biggest weakenings. Yep. Friedel has been our most important player for 7-8 years. And he still had at least 3 good seasons in him. The teams at the top buy players for 20mill + which they only keep for a season or two. We could have easily gotten a monstrous sum for him.
nicko Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 Just a thought on Roque... Man City are the strangest club to deal with in this window. I have had confirmed as fact that City went in for Palacios on Friday afternoon and said they would match the bid...Saturday passed and they didn't...Sunday came and went...and then this morning Spurs came back with much better terms for the player. Palacios was ironically going to stay at Wigan on Friday and snub Spurs before City came along and messed the thing up. What a club. Having a few bob does not buy you class.
67splitscreen Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 40m or not Hughes will have to up the anti some now. Guess we will find out pretty soon who's players are going to City. BS to Hughsey your move.
Oklahoma Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 It's manchester City you are talking about. There is no logic in them. And btw, who are they? lol
MeanGreenMachine Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 Who are these 4 very good strikers? Bellamy and Robinho (who is more of a wing foward) will be the only 2 worth having.
RoverRich Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 Just a thought on Roque... Man City are the strangest club to deal with in this window. I have had confirmed as fact that City went in for Palacios on Friday afternoon and said they would match the bid...Saturday passed and they didn't...Sunday came and went...and then this morning Spurs came back with much better terms for the player. Palacios was ironically going to stay at Wigan on Friday and snub Spurs before City came along and messed the thing up. What a club. Having a few bob does not buy you class. Nicko, don't know the whole truth behind this but maybe the following quote of the BBC website is the reason for the strange goings-on with Man City: "Bellamy's move to City is the result of a remarkable "gentleman's agreement" between Harry Redknapp and Mark Hughes, which sees City and Hughes dropping out of the race to sign Wilson Palacios, while Spurs and Redknapp have ended their interest in Bellamy. (Various)" Does seem to make sense with what you have said about Palacios and Bellamy.
92er Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 Just a thought on Roque... Man City are the strangest club to deal with in this window. I have had confirmed as fact that City went in for Palacios on Friday afternoon and said they would match the bid...Saturday passed and they didn't...Sunday came and went...and then this morning Spurs came back with much better terms for the player. Palacios was ironically going to stay at Wigan on Friday and snub Spurs before City came along and messed the thing up. What a club. Having a few bob does not buy you class. There was a quote on teletext today on the lines that Rednapp and MH had reached a gentlemen's agreement. Spurs would back out of the deal for Bellamy if City agreed not to go for Palacios.
nicko Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 Nicko, don't know the whole truth behind this but maybe the following quote of the BBC website is the reason for the strange goings-on with Man City: "Bellamy's move to City is the result of a remarkable "gentleman's agreement" between Harry Redknapp and Mark Hughes, which sees City and Hughes dropping out of the race to sign Wilson Palacios, while Spurs and Redknapp have ended their interest in Bellamy. (Various)" Does seem to make sense with what you have said about Palacios and Bellamy. Checked out that rumour on FRIDAY...and it was denied to me. The players knew nothing about it and would have the final say on it. Just think it is a daft story - end of. Redknapp did not force his moeny men into a rise for Palacios until last night - so that doesn't fit with the 'agreement' angle at all.
Mr. E Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 Who are these 4 very good strikers? Bellamy and Robinho (who is more of a wing foward) will be the only 2 worth having. + Jo and Bojinov (who they've stuck with despite his injuries and is back in action soon). So unless they want to buy Cruz and keep him in the reserve squad...
Tyrone Shoelaces Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 + Jo and Bojinov (who they've stuck with despite his injuries and is back in action soon). So unless they want to buy Cruz and keep him in the reserve squad... Jo will be lucky to get a game in the reserves. Bojinov won't be match fit for a while. Hughes has wanted to team Roque and Bellamy right from the start. I expect things to move now.
spencey7 Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 + Jo and Bojinov (who they've stuck with despite his injuries and is back in action soon). So unless they want to buy Cruz and keep him in the reserve squad... Jo has got to be up there with the worst buys of all time. £18m?? He cost about the same as our entire starting XI against Newcastle on Saturday.
Ewood and I Would Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 ROQUE - The timing of the Man City offer is sadly down to them. Selling Roque at 23:59 on deadline day is no good to man nor beast. We should have set a deadline of today otherwise it's up yours. I don't undrestand this concern, and I've heard quite a few Rovers fans say it. The fact is Roque's clause doesn't kick in until the summer, there is NOTHING forcing us to sell. The later they leave their bid, the less chance (I would like to think) they have of Sam accepting it. People are acting as if should Citeh make a last minute bid we'd have to accept it.....unless it's £40m I have confidence Sam would say "sorry you've left it too late for us to replace him" and make them wait til the summer.
DasGelb Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 I don't undrestand this concern, and I've heard quite a few Rovers fans say it. The fact is Roque's clause doesn't kick in until the summer, there is NOTHING forcing us to sell. The later they leave their bid, the less chance (I would like to think) they have of Sam accepting it. People are acting as if should Citeh make a last minute bid we'd have to accept it.....unless it's £40m I have confidence Sam would say "sorry you've left it too late for us to replace him" and make them wait til the summer. Don´t you see the possibility that the board will sell at the right price if the correct amount is reached whatever Sam may think of it? It´s absolutely crucial ###### don´t bid that amount when it´s no time for us to get a replacement.
cruz Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 People are acting as if should Citeh make a last minute bid we'd have to accept it.....unless it's £40m I have confidence Sam would say "sorry you've left it too late for us to replace him" and make them wait til the summer. Can you seriously see JW refusing £25m at any stage?
Mr. E Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 Jo has got to be up there with the worst buys of all time. £18m?? He cost about the same as our entire starting XI against Newcastle on Saturday. Jo was a great player for CSKA Moscow, if Hughes pays that much for him and then can't get him to play at least somewhat decent it's his fault. City's owners must be crazy (even business wise) to keep a manager who just throws money at the air.
cruz Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 I was always under the impression Jo was a deal that we virtually done before Hughes joined
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.