trigger Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 there is no replacement for anelka, we were a shop window, and to be fair the guy did a job for us this season until he left, and if we stay up, and i firmly believe we will, he contributed to it?! no worries! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jules_darby Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 We "had" to sell him because we promised him a move to a champions league club if one came in for him.One came in for him, and eventually offered a fantastic amount of money to buy him. He has got his move to a major club. If you think he would have knuckled down and played his heart out for the rest of the season then I think you are mistaken. How does a club in the bottom 6 organise a ready replacement for Anelka? We'll have to agree to disagree on Anelka's commitment, either way it's irrelevant really. What isn't, is that if we knew he was going for so long, did we have a plan in place or not? Megson said we did Is this it? If so, it doesn't look great. If not, why not? And why did Megson say we did FFS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_spencer Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 We'll have to agree to disagree on Anelka's commitment, either way it's irrelevant really. What isn't, is that if we knew he was going for so long, did we have a plan in place or not? Megson said we did Is this it? If so, it doesn't look great. If not, why not? And why did Megson say we did FFS? perhaps he thought the gudjohnson deal was closer than it turned out!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jules_darby Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 perhaps he thought the gudjohnson deal was closer than it turned out!? Maybe so, and if that was the case it was a bad mistake. And I'm not saying for one second that I don't think they're trying - I don't subscribe to that theory at all - but in any line of business saying "you tried" doesn't cut the mustard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BossHog Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 nobody here seriously believes Raziak was the best we could have done in the circumstances do they? Megson and Gartside screwed up and left it too late...its obvious.. Raziak might be a good squad player but that is NOT what we need... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BossHog Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Maybe so, and if that was the case it was a bad mistake. And I'm not saying for one second that I don't think they're trying - I don't subscribe to that theory at all - but in any line of business saying "you tried" doesn't cut the mustard. ^this^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackleywhite Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 We'll have to agree to disagree on Anelka's commitment, either way it's irrelevant really. What isn't, is that if we knew he was going for so long, did we have a plan in place or not? Megson said we did Is this it? If so, it doesn't look great. If not, why not? And why did Megson say we did FFS? I'm sorry but it is a 2 way deal. We want a player. We offer an amount of money. It is rejected(offer more til accepted) It is accepted. Offer terms to player. "I dont want to come" We double wages. "I dont want to come" We treble wages etc etc etc " I STILL dont want to come" What next? We cant MAKE players come to the club. Our track record recently has been good when faced with competition. In fact all the players signed this transfer window have had other offers but CHOSEN us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trotter58 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Raziak might be a good squad player but that is NOT what we need... Correct. We now have three target men who don't score goals. Can anyone honestly see Raziak making any real difference? A pointless signing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M'crayons Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 (edited) Correct me if I am wrong but, didn't Anelka have a clause in his contract that said if an ECL qualified team came in for him, he had the right to choose to go? If so, I'd be fairly sure it was the player himself who said yes to the move and the club did the best thing possible in getting the highest price they could. Even if it wasn't actually in his written contract, it seems very likely he had a verbal agreement to that effect. There have been loads of quotes from the Club over time, saying that they wouldn't stand in his way if a Champions League club came in for him. I too believe that the Club had no choice, and that we did well to extract ?15million for him under the circumstances. Edited February 1, 2008 by M'crayons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bolty58 Posted February 1, 2008 Members Share Posted February 1, 2008 Correct. We now have three target men who don't score goals. Can anyone honestly see Raziak making any real difference? A pointless signing. I do hope you will eat those words if he does make an impact. I am saying nothing either way. Wise to say nowt until we see what happens. Could turn out to be a BW legend. Who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanderer13 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 6 goals in half a season and thats in the championship How on earth will we score enough goals to remain in this league We are just above the drop zone even with Anelka's contributrion! Gartside and Megson have hung their hat on this guy and I fear for the worst Premier league survival is rumoured to be worth ?20m+ so if we didn't have a replacement why didn't we just keep Anelka till the end of the season - even if this antagonised Nic and he stropped off at the end of the season for nothing we still would be ?8m better off with the premier league revenue for next season (?20m tv 2008/09 - ?12m Anelka fee) Shortsighted beyond belief! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebells Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 It isnt quite as simple as saying we will be ?8 million better off as there are all sorts of things to take into account. For example, do you really think Chelsea paid us ?15 million up front? No. Do you really think we paid Villa ?5 million up fron for Cahill? No. There are agents fees, parachute payments, bank interest, potential merchandising revenue etc etc to take into account. Before saying things about shortsightedness, perhaps understand that a football club doing business is a bit more complicated than Primary Schol Maths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jules_darby Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 I'm sorry but it is a 2 way deal.We want a player. We offer an amount of money. It is rejected(offer more til accepted) It is accepted. Offer terms to player. "I dont want to come" We double wages. "I dont want to come" We treble wages etc etc etc " I STILL dont want to come" What next? We cant MAKE players come to the club. Our track record recently has been good when faced with competition. In fact all the players signed this transfer window have had other offers but CHOSEN us. You don't seem to get it at all. ffs I'm aware of the above scenario. However The point is, until those negotiations had at least been under way and expectations understood, HOW THE FOOK WERE WE PREPARED FOR ANELKA LEAVING as Megson had said. We're not prepared for someone leaving if we just have an idea of players we might like to have. Get in the real world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philh Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 This is an absolute joke considering we have had over two months to replace Anelka! I fear the worst! I cant see where our next goal is gonan come from Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_spencer Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 This is an absolute joke considering we have had over two months to replace Anelka! I fear the worst! I cant see where our next goal is gonan come from NAME ME A REALISTIC OPTION WHO YOU WOULD SIGN????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Zico Posted February 1, 2008 Moderators Share Posted February 1, 2008 whilst Rasiak is far from my choice of who to sign, under the circumstances it ain't the worst, rather that than Roberts or Lita on permanent deals if they're not first choice targets we look like we tried to get Gudjohnsen in, and with the other signings we can see that the board/managers are targetting players then going out and getting players in, so can't knock em on that front only thing that remains to be seen is Diouf's role when he comes back, I reckon if we played him as the striker then we won't have missed out, whether we will or not though is another matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YATESY Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 We have a 3 week bonus in getting Diouf back early. After watching the shite on Tuesday, it will be very interesting to see how we line up for Portsmouth at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enzo gambaro Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 NAME ME A REALISTIC OPTION WHO YOU WOULD SIGN????? Not so loud, Frank! I'd have taken Defoe, but I'm fairly sure he'd have taken more persuading than we could muster. I'm not that arsed about Benjani - he's scored a bagful this season but I'm still not convinced he's been doing it on purpose. I would definitely have paid ?3m-?4m for Marlon King, though. That's cheap for a decent young striker, and the fact he's gone to Wigan suggests we'd have been in with a shout if we'd been in for him. As for Rasiak, we haven't done too badly shopping at Southampton in recent years, so lets hope he does the business, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Casino Posted February 1, 2008 Moderators Share Posted February 1, 2008 It isnt quite as simple as saying we will be ?8 million better off as there are all sorts of things to take into account. For example, do you really think Chelsea paid us ?15 million up front? No. Do you really think we paid Villa ?5 million up fron for Cahill? No. There are agents fees, parachute payments, bank interest, potential merchandising revenue etc etc to take into account. Before saying things about shortsightedness, perhaps understand that a football club doing business is a bit more complicated than Primary Schol Maths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YATESY Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 We are fcuking laughing stock The Massives at work are having a right laugh at our signing on deadline day. They are all celebrating their deal breaking down and thankful of not paying ?10M for a striker who has had one purple patch in 3 years at Portsmouth. Sod 'em all. Off the bench to notch the winner at Reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Casino Posted February 1, 2008 Moderators Share Posted February 1, 2008 We are fcuking laughing stock The Massives at work are having a right laugh at our signing on deadline day. They are all celebrating their deal breaking down and thankful of not paying ?10M for a striker who has had one purple patch in 3 years at Portsmouth. Sod 'em all. Off the bench to notch the winner at Reading. take it theyre made up at clearing the ecuadorian national debt on a 7 year old? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayne cramp Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 We are fcuking laughing stock The Massives at work are having a right laugh at our signing on deadline day. They are all celebrating their deal breaking down and thankful of not paying ?10M for a striker who has had one purple patch in 3 years at Portsmouth. Sod 'em all. Off the bench to notch the winner at Reading. TELL THE MASSIVES TO HAVE A LOOK ON SKY SPORTS WEBSITE - THE BENJANI DEAL COULD BE BACK ON !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Casino Posted February 1, 2008 Moderators Share Posted February 1, 2008 btw not ra -ze-ak rash-ak casino polish contributor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_spencer Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Not so loud, Frank! I'd have taken Defoe, but I'm fairly sure he'd have taken more persuading than we could muster. I'm not that arsed about Benjani - he's scored a bagful this season but I'm still not convinced he's been doing it on purpose. I would definitely have paid ?3m-?4m for Marlon King, though. That's cheap for a decent young striker, and the fact he's gone to Wigan suggests we'd have been in with a shout if we'd been in for him. As for Rasiak, we haven't done too badly shopping at Southampton in recent years, so lets hope he does the business, eh? king went for 5mil though which is a large chunk of our kitty to risk for a man who failed a medical at flum and is unproven at this level! Rasiak cost us feck all and could do the business if not it's no loss to send him back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enzo gambaro Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 king went for 5mil though which is a large chunk of our kitty to risk for a man who failed a medical at flum and is unproven at this level! Rasiak cost us feck all and could do the business if not it's no loss to send him back. Five million depending on what you're reading at the time! I seen it reported ?5m, ?4m, ?4m rising to ?5m and ?3m rising to ?4m. He is reported to have failed a medical at Fulham, but presumably he passed one at Wigan, and would have to have passed one here before the deal went through. ?3.5m million only got us Dean Holdsworth and that was ten years ago, for Christ's sake, so yes, I'd have had a go at him, even for ?5m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts