Indy_Bones

This is one of the most ridiculous statements I've read on here (and that's saying a LOT)! A goalkeeper doesn't have to 'get rid of the ball' purely because someone might decide to barge them into the net, and the officials would be too dumb to correctly call the foul and not give the goal! What's next? Cantwell running at a defender who simply smashes him to the floor without even trying to get the ball and you're going to blame Todd for not passing/shooting before it happens????

I think you've missed my point TVB. We have a number of very promising young keepers who desperately need playing time to help develop, and unless they're all getting loaned out, at least 1 of them will likely be the primary keeper for the U23's, as there's FAR more likelihood of outfield players needing to regain fitness than a 2nd choice keeper. This isn't to say that Gunn won't ever play U23 games, but there''s way more chance that players like Barden will be used there than Gunn (or even Krul for that matter), not to mention there's also McGovern to fit into the mix.

And Gunn will be on the bench behind Krul, certainly not in the U23's...

Yes, that awful 62% winrate must have been terrible for their fans to have to bear, so much worse than the previous appointments of Bosz (33%), Stöger (42%), Klopp (56%) and was a FULL 1% lower than Tuchel who's now at Chelsea... Favre is one of the best managers in the modern game IMHO, he turned round Hertha, BMG and Nice, not to mention getting Zurich their first league title in 25 years! He even got the record of being the first Dortmund manager to go their first 15 games unbeaten, but you say they were better without him...?!? Probably one of the most under recognised managers in the game, but with fantastic tactical knowledge, the ability to develop youth, and work within relatively tough constraints, and easily better than many of the names being bandied around for higher profile jobs such as Spurs etc.

Yes, but look at Angus, was with us from being very young, his dad is a club legend here, but he was still willing to move to other clubs for his career, which is also why he's back with us. Skipp may well decide he wants to hold on, see who the new manager is and IF he can force his way into their plans, but they're not exactly know for giving a lot of youth players extended pitch time, and there's a clear argument that he'd be better getting 40+ games for us than maybe a handful at Spurs if he's lucky. As suggested, a potential buy-back clause would arguably work for both sides if it was an option, but boyhood club or not, no player wants to be sat on a bench for extended periods when you could be getting regular matches at another side in the same league, whilst enhancing your profile in the process...

I Wanted Favre as our manager before we appointed Hughton, think he's absolute class, would be a great signing for them if as BYG says they recruit suitably to complement his style.

True, but the key factor is that McGovern doesn't, so we're increasing our homegrown quota beyond what we currently had.

Haha, yes, Webber inserted a cheeky buy-back clause when we sold him to Leicester, so we're replacing the man who replaced Madders WITH Madders, and for LESS than we got for Emi. Genius stroke from Webber that none of us saw coming 🤪

I hate that argument from players at the top level, because it holds ZERO water. These guys can earn more in a year of playing at 50k+ a week, than the average man earns in 40, and they try to justify it with the whole 'short career' garbage. Makes by blood boil even more with players like Naismith who did nothing to even vaguely justify the sort of money he was on.

I long for the days of a new version of the Esprit, my favourite car of all time and an absolute legend of a machine in the UK car industry.

You can forgive someone and still fire them...

I'm kind of on the fence with this one. I appreciate a number of younger players are being given a chance, and he usually speaks quite well, but there are also what I see as strange choices both in squad and team selection that don't always sit right. Trippier at left back was a bizarre one for me, and I'm sure Luke Shaw saw the teamsheet and thought "WTAF?", it certainly didn't cost us or prove to be a terrible decision, but I'm just not sure what the logic was. Nor in his pre-tournament statement when asked about having 4 right backs and saying he'd have taken a couple more if he could - just what is the plan, a team full of right backs??? The lack of a place in the squad for Lingard is also strange to me, he's been excellent for West Ham since joining on loan in Jan, 9 goals, 5 assists, PL POTM, but apparently that's not good enough and Saka gets picked ahead of him (not saying Saka is a bad player either). An injured Maguire who even if he's technically fit for the final group stage match, won't be 'match fit' probably until AFTER the Euro's have finished, a similar story with Henderson who hasn't played in months but seems to have been included as some sort of cheerleader, and quite how Pickford is still no 1 in goal I'll never know. That being said, the first 25 minutes against Croatia we looked incredibly dangerous and were unlucky not be leading after Foden's cracking effort, but then we had a long period of sitting back and not really doing much of anything, so a real mixed bag, however you can't complain about the result, but I think we'll need to see far more of how we started the match if we want to compete against the truly dangerous and on-form sides. If we don't get at least a semi-final position, then I'd argue it's time for a change, but who that would be, and whether or not they can fundamentally change our approach to take account of players form in recent months is another. I remember sitting in disbelief as Holt didn't get a chance back when he was second highest English scorer behind Rooney, yet Andy Carroll got the nod despite being terrible, and Southgate like Hodgson before him has players that seem to be guaranteed a spot regardless...

Cantwell would like a word with you 😉

How to sidetrack almost an entire page of a thread with crisps... Only on the Pink Un!

Well, to continue in that vein, saw a tweet earlier claiming that there was a potential deal which would see Aarons move to Spurs in exchange for Skipp + Cash. Probably absolute tosh, but how would we feel about that if there was anything to it?

Brighton and Palace both have more financial backing to support numerous players on a higher wage though. As said earlier, there's at least 4-5 of our players who I feel could quite rightly make the argument that they deserve similar bumps in wage based on their contributions and importance to the team, and that's when you starting talking about an extra 10+ mil in wages, or risk players potentially getting hacked off and looking to force a move to someone who WILL pay the increase. It's easy for us to sit here and argue what would or wouldn't happen in terms of potential dissension over wage disparity, but we have to combine this with our financials and that's where the wheels can come off in the event that the issue does arise, and then where does that leave us?

There are ZERO guarantees that would be the case either way. I'm sure some of our top players like Pukki are going to say "No problem with Emi being on twice my wage, as long as I'm in the Prem, I don't care if he's being paid double what I am, after all, it's not like I'm the clubs top goalscorer...oh wait"

Whilst I appreciate when you are coming from and respect your opinion, I think if you asked most neutrals which team was the better (or indeed the bigger), I think you'd find very few choosing us, be this right or wrong. So whilst it may not be a 'massive' step up, it's certainly a step up in wages, they had a decent finish in the PL last season and have signed some very good players and look to continue this trend, are historically much bigger than us, and at this stage are more likely to be safe this coming season in terms of both staying up and finishing in a good position than we are, so it IS a step up, even if we'd have preferred it to be to an Athletico or similar instead.

I might be wrong, but I think we've done ok out of Heise, as I'm sure reading that the loan fees we got for him, eclipsed the wages/signing fee and made us a small profit. Ideally he'd have developed and been another good acquisition that we'd sold for a healthy profit whilst making us better, it wasn't to be but it certainly wasn't a bad situation either, just one of those deals that don't work out, but with no real losers.

Look what happened at Stoke though, they maintained safety for a number of years under Pulis, but the fans hated the football and eventually turned enough to force changes, which then lead to them getting relegated. If somebody offered me only 2 options, be a yo-yo club or be like Stoke under Pulis but stay in the PL, then I'll take the yo-yo option, as Stoke played some of the worst football I've ever seen, only eclipsed by the dross Hughton served up to us in his 2nd season...

I'm pretty sure we could have afforded this, it's the domino effects afterwards that make it unfeasible. Firstly you're likely to have a queue of players all demanding similar upticks to their wages, and can you really tell Pukki his 30 goals a season don't justify it? That Krul's excellence between the sticks doesn't deserve more? That Max shouldn't be expecting more when half a dozen of the very best clubs have shown genuine interest in him? Where does it stop? Suddenly you're not committing an extra 1.5m in wages to Emi, you're committing another 10+m in wages to ensure a degree of parity amongst the top players. Let's say you DON'T agree to pay these guys more, then you've got a recipe for serious animosity and dissension amongst the whole team, with other key players feeling undervalued, at which point the likes of Max, Todd and our other brightest players can quite easily start demanding moves, and the whole house of cards collapses. It's never as simple as "It's only an extra 1.5m in wages to keep Emi", especially if it's not just the wages that prompted his move, but if he sees his career as getting better in the process, we still lose out.

I'm certainly not rejoicing at the sale, nor do I think it's great because transfer record, loads of money etc. Given the choice, I'd much rather we'd had Emi for at least 1 more year, and if that wasn't an option, I'd rather he'd have gone to a bigger club (prefereably Atheltico). But I also genuinely believe that the player wanted out, that some sort of agreement had been made last year regarding this summer, and that he was never going to stay regardless, and as long as an offer came in that we agreed with and Emi was happy with the club to move to, he would go, be it Arsenal, Villa or any other decent sized club who he felt would match his ambitions and wage demands. This isn't about being happy Emi has gone, it's NOT great, but it is what it is, and I have full faith that we'll make some shrewd signings with the money that will enable us to stay up and build again next season.

I love the idea that ANYONE asking for 65k a week isn't a money mercenary! The claims about short careers are a BS argument as if you earn 25k a year and work for 40 years, that's a million, 65k a week gets you the same in just 4 MONTHS! They could play for just a season at that rate and earn 3 times more than the average wage earner gets in a 40 year career ffs!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57388632 Looks like the complaints have had a quick impact!

That's what happens when you've been with the club for 20 years and won 6 Ballon D'or titles (and 5 runner up's), have scored 474 goals in 520 games, and have been regarded as one of the best 2 players in modern football throughout that time...