Backroom Tom Posted January 6, 2010 Backroom Posted January 6, 2010 I'm guessing it's a striker moving that could result in Benni or Jason moving elsewhere as backup.
This thread is brought to you by theterracestore.com Enter code `BRFCS` at checkout for an exclusive discount!
PAFELL Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 Well spotted PAFELL....and the many other members who also did. Ok what are you suggestting could be the situation? - pm me if you want.
mellison24 Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 Ok what are you suggestting could be the situation? - pm me if you want. I was being sarcastic. Meaning that I felt it was easy for people to spot the bit you highlighted it, without you highlighting it. If this caused you any offense, I apologise.
LeChuck Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 I guess Holden would be the obvious choice for a potential transfer that could affect us after Coyle's move...if we are still/ever were interested.
PAFELL Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 I'm guessing it's a striker moving that could result in Benni or Jason moving elsewhere as backup. You have missed the home truth part. Often a 'home truth' isn't something pleasent. Often something not to laugh about. Sometime painful if not embarrassing. I find it hard to believe that it is ONLY compensation that is holding the Coyle move up. Burnley know he is gone - so just to haggle over money, so called friends etc. I cannot help think there is something else in the pot.
Backroom Tom Posted January 6, 2010 Backroom Posted January 6, 2010 Did he say this move had something to do with a 'home truth'. could have nothing to do with Burnley at all as I read it
PAFELL Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 I was being sarcastic. Meaning that I felt it was easy for people to spot the bit you highlighted it, without you highlighting it. If this caused you any offense, I apologise. Didn't see anything to be offended about to be honest. Nicko hasn't said anything about a transfer, just an interesting move. When Nicko has earlier said about home truths with regards to the coyle situation - how can that be a home truth for us on here. A home truth must mean Rovers. I am only guessing of course.
mellison24 Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 Didn't see anything to be offended about to be honest. Nicko hasn't said anything about a transfer, just an interesting move. When Nicko has earlier said about home truths with regards to the coyle situation - how can that be a home truth for us on here. A home truth must mean Rovers. I am only guessing of course. I think he meant home truths for Burnley myself, but was just telling US. Thereby letting us pick up on it for a chant in the next game?
PAFELL Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 Did he say this move had something to do with a 'home truth'. could have nothing to do with Burnley at all as I read it I was actually refering to Nicko's post about 10am this morning - but re-reading that post, that he is on about how Burnley have handled the situation. I therefore apologise and correct myself.
Atomicrover Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 Didn't see anything to be offended about to be honest. Nicko hasn't said anything about a transfer, just an interesting move. When Nicko has earlier said about home truths with regards to the coyle situation - how can that be a home truth for us on here. A home truth must mean Rovers. I am only guessing of course. Not necessarily about Rovers, I always thought the phrase "home truth" was used when there was something more to a situation than is publically said at the outset, in this case that there may be something more "sinister" or "nefarious" shall we say about Coyle's move than either Bolton or Burnley have revealed so far
Backroom Tom Posted January 6, 2010 Backroom Posted January 6, 2010 Aye I read that as some news about the conduct of Burnley officials in that move. However if you combine the two, Coyle could go to Bolton, maybe take a player or two with him, Nugent back to Pompey and Holden over to Brockhall for a trial.
AJW Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 it may be too early in the coyle reign at bolton for him to start signing players , but i am sure i read somewhere he once tried signing jason scotland from swansea? he's hardly set the world on fire at wigan , i wonder if that move could figure somewhere in nicko's info
Harry Balls Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 Isn't it obvious? Don't worry, I've got my coat already...
Craigman Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 I think that Stoke are to sign a striker and then James Beattie could be in line to join us
begresko Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 I have an odd feeling that it might be pompey related. A further wind up order with an intent to sell players, rovers related could be belhadj.
Tim Southampton Rover Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 Signing Beattie would make sense for when this 'home grown' rule comes into place. The only problem is that if we do sign him then it's about 8 years too late. I don't see how we can improve our strikeforce with an aging injury prone striker.
den Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 I think that Stoke are to sign a striker and then James Beattie could be in line to join us Those were my thoughts. Hope not.
benhben Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/leeds_united/8444552.stm Abit of a gamble at prem level
Tim Southampton Rover Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 Better not sign him. He's from League One. I wouldn't be able to handle yet more grumpy people on this messageboard!
RevidgeBlue Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 Not someone we've ever had any conformed interest in but Newcastle interested in Beckford according to SSN. Edit: Ooops sorry, didn't see the link above.
mellison24 Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 Signing Beattie would make sense for when this 'home grown' rule comes into place. The only problem is that if we do sign him then it's about 8 years too late. I don't see how we can improve our strikeforce with an aging injury prone striker. I can: He plays just like Roberts. Is a bit younger. Is just as strong as Roberts. Supports the rovers and will work much harder than Roberts. Will most likely be on similar wages to Roberts. It's basically replacing Roberts with a like-for-like that might actually DO smething other than collapse to the floor every time John Williams farts in the stand!
JAL Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 I can: He plays just like Roberts. Is a bit younger. Is just as strong as Roberts. Supports the rovers and will work much harder than Roberts. Will most likely be on similar wages to Roberts. It's basically replacing Roberts with a like-for-like that might actually DO smething other than collapse to the floor every time John Williams farts in the stand! Wishful day dreaming mellinson, Beattie is shyte!
Stuart Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 Apologies if this has already been posted but I can't believe we are going to bring in ANOTHER player who won't be ready to play for weeks/months... BLACKBURN Rovers are set to add Algerian midfielder Amine Linganzi to their ranks before the close of the transfer window – but won’t expect him to make any immediate impact.
mellison24 Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 Wishful day dreaming mellison, Beattie is shyte! Corrected my name for you. And I think Beattie is (as I said) a Roberts like-for-like in terms of playing. He'll just work a bit harder for the club he supports. He won't be a world beater, but he'll be decent. he'll get us more goals from up front than we currently have from any individual striker (how ironic that it's Roberts!)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.