modes98 Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 I would rather have 2 of the bigest tossers as owners than some no mark johnny foreigners who know nothing about the club or football...... Yeah who would want one of them.... or even two of them....
This thread is brought to you by theterracestore.com Enter code `BRFCS` at checkout for an exclusive discount!
mickbrown Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 Exactly. G & S are a pair of tossers but at least they understand the club and football. Gave me a skint brit to some no mark foreigner any day of the week.
Kelbo Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 The players should be more worried about their abysmal performances last season that G & S getting involved, if they actually put the effort in the owners wouldn't have to get involved. Not the players they intend to sign, a player needs to know who his manager is and if a particular player satisfies the manager, end of story, shouldnt be those two clowns getting involved, its wrong and they should do the business side of the club and leave football alone.
imy9 Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 Exactly. G & S are a pair of tossers but at least they understand the club and football. Gave me a skint brit to some no mark foreigner any day of the week. But do they really? If you are £110 million in debt and the owners are complaining about the wage levels is it advisable to offer £100K a week for a 33 year old striker or offer £120K a week to a 34 year old striker (RVN), these sort of maths figures should scare you.
mickbrown Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 But do they really? If you are £110 million in debt and the owners are complaining about the wage levels is it advisable to offer £100K a week for a 33 year old striker or offer £120K a week to a 34 year old striker (RVN), these sort of maths figures should scare you. They would work out cheaper than giving Benni McCarthy £50K week and a 3 1/2 year deal plus a £2.5 Million transfer fee. G & S will reduce the wage bill, but we are a team that by rights should have been relegated with the points total we achieved. We need investment in the team otherwise we will be down there again and maybe not be so lucky. Speaking of the wage bill looks like there is a good chance Riquelme will be coming.... http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_6207735,00.html
Veevs Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 They would work out cheaper than giving Benni McCarthy £50K week and a 3 1/2 year deal plus a £2.5 Million transfer fee. G & S will reduce the wage bill, but we are a team that by rights should have been relegated with the points total we achieved. We need investment in the team otherwise we will be down there again and maybe not be so lucky. Speaking of the wage bill looks like there is a good chance Riquelme will be coming.... http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_6207735,00.html Shame he isnt going to Blackburn.. personally I reckon we could get the best out of him.. last thing wham need is another player who likes his night life.. I reckon ge would do well in a smaller town but the bright lights of the city will be too much for him.
bob fleming Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 G & S are a pair of tossers but at least they understand the club and football. Benni McCarthy £50K week and a 3 1/2 year deal plus a £2.5 Million transfer fee. Hmmmmm.
mickbrown Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 Hmmmmm. McCarthy's transfer was the one player Zola said he needed to keep us up. That worked out well......
modes98 Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 McCarthy's transfer was the one player Zola said he needed to keep us up. That worked out well...... Zola didn't offer him the contract or pay the fee. They would have been within their rights to turn around and say the deal wasn't financially viable and have done in the past. You can't blame Zola for the contract, just the fact that you bought him It was a great buy though!
mickbrown Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 Zola didn't offer him the contract or pay the fee. They would have been within their rights to turn around and say the deal wasn't financially viable and have done in the past. You can't blame Zola for the contract, just the fact that you bought him It was a great buy though! I agree, I can blame Zola for saying he was the 1 signing he wanted in January to keep us up....
Hughesy Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 Man City bid for Hangeland apparently... Why!? No offence, but all that money and they move for him?!
neekoy Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 I agree, I can blame Zola for saying he was the 1 signing he wanted in January to keep us up.... Well you stayed up so it must have worked
tcj_jones Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 Why!? No offence, but all that money and they move for him?! He's been superb for Fulham, Hughesy. Arsenal have also been reported as interested for a number of months. Without the lure of Champions League football, he's one of the best options out there.
DeadlyDirk Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 Proven in the Premiership as well which is always a good draw.
LeChuck Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 I think he'd struggle for a game at City though - Toure, Kompany and Lescott are already battling for two places. Maybe one of them is planning to move on, that's the only way a big money move for Hangeland makes sense to me.
Hughesy Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 I think he'd struggle for a game at City though - Toure, Kompany and Lescott are already battling for two places. + Yaya Toure soon on his way (according to some press) Dont forget that young lad they played a few times last season + the lad they signed from Germany too. Hangeland has done well for Fulham, but given their current squad & bigger & better resources, I would expect them to aim higher!
tcj_jones Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 Yaya Toure is a defense-minded CM though, not a CB.
Amo Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 Hangeland has done well for Fulham, but given their current squad & bigger & better resources, I would expect them to aim higher! What would you say if they went for Samba?
Tim Southampton Rover Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 Technically they would have gone "higher"
only2garners Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 Technically they would have gone "higher" According to the ever reliable Wikipedia, Samba is 6" 4" and Hangeland 6' 4.5". Samba's a bit wider though.
Hughesy Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 What would you say if they went for Samba? Id say we are in no pressure to sell....so NO DEAL
Amo Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 Id say we are in no pressure to sell....so NO DEAL But do you consider him good enough for City?
Majiball Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 Not for their first 11, sorry Samba. But he's more than good enough for us.
Barney Blue Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 According to the Telegraph... City have just bid for David Silva for 30m. LINK
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.