Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×

LeJuge

Members
  • Content Count

    878
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by LeJuge

  1. LeJuge

    Vaughan out for four months?

    [quote user="cityangel"]

    [quote user="Dan Druff"]Terrible news. I fear we''ve bought a crock in Mr. V.[/quote]

    What did we pay for him, thought it was only about £800k

    [/quote]According to Sky Sports, The Daily Mail, and The Guardian, the fee was £2.5m, according to Archant it is "in excess of £1.5m". 
  2. LeJuge

    Attack attack attack ( formation for Man u)

    [quote user="Rob Sims"]I accept that no one is expecting us to get points from the big 4 away games, i am not sure if it would be wise to think "well as we''re not going to get anything lets do this..."

    I''d stick to what might get you something. Although United are nigh on impossible to beat at old trafford points can be earnt.

    I totlaly agree the games that are most important are those against Swansea, QPR, and so on. however if those teams lose to the big 4 and we got a point or two out of them it would put us in the better position when coming up against them. Every game has to be treated as

    Mccarthy has advocated playing weakened sides against the top sides
    to better prepare his team for other game weeks but we have a 2 week break after this so they might aswell go show what they can do (or cant!)[/quote]It has worked for him though in fairness. Before this season started I would have put Lambert down to want to win every game, but after MK Dons I''m not so sure. I agree that because we have a two week break we don''t need to do so, if we didn''t have that two week break however, and had Swansea in a weeks time, then I would be inclined to lean towards ''trying people out'' like McCarthy does. I''d like to see Simeon Jackson given a chance though, up front with either Holt or Morison, so I''d personally like to see a 4-4-2. He deserves his chance to impress, and what better place to get it than Old Trafford.
  3. Has to be better than Stockdale and Fielding, two players in the Championship. The position of Goalkeeper seems to be the new left wing for England. The only English goalkeeper available for selection who is genuinely better than Ruddy is Joe Hart, Ruddy should be the #2, simple as.
  4. LeJuge

    Attack attack attack ( formation for Man u)

    [quote user="lincoln canary"]

    Fudge its not our hardest game of the season, six pointers against teams likw WBA &Swansea are. We have absolutely no pressure on this game. As for Morison after playing well against sunderland he should keep his place. He still has an awfull lot to prove though and I personally dont think he will cut it.

     I dont think im bipolar no, but thanks for your concern x

    [/quote]What is your definition of cutting it though? Are you going to judge him by goals? I''ve noticed that a big part of the problem when judging strikers is unrealistic expectations.If you would call ''making it'' to score 15 goals and move to Spurs for £9m, then no, he probably won''t ''make it''. If your definition of ''making it'' is playing a key role in our survival, scoring 7 or 8 goals on the way, much like Davies does at Bolton then there is a good chance that you will be proved wrong. It depends on what your level of expectation is with a £2.5 million pound signing from the Championship. If you can define what he will have to do to win your approval, then we can all monitor his progress and determine whether you have been proved right or wrong.At current we are left with Morison, Holt, Jackson, and Martin. If any two of them can score 7-8 goals each this year then our strikers would have scored enough goals to achieve our objective of remaining in the division, as long as the midfielders score goals too and we remain solid enough at the back.Goals from strikers aren''t the key to survival, if in doubt ask Ian Holloway. Results and points are the key to survival, and we are doing a pretty good job of getting results right now.
  5. LeJuge

    Vaughan out for four months?

    [quote user="lincoln canary"][quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="lincoln canary"][quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="lincoln canary"]

    [quote user="LeJuge"]I will never understand why we gave this bloke a three year contract. I can''t help but feel that we won''t ever be recouping any of his transfer fee either. He clearly has talent, but it was pretty obvious that he wasn''t going to manage many games for us, he won''t be any more than a bit player as a result. Good luck to him, but I wasn''t expecting many games from him when he signed and this injury doesn''t surprise me at all. You never ever completely recover from a cruciate injury, it''s an injury that never goes away. Somebody on here said that Everton would have bitten their hand off for £1.5m and they are right, just like we bit Leicesters hand off for £3m when we sold Eadie, and precisely why we took just £750k for Keith O''Neill.Eadie and O''Neill were both incredible talents, but we shifted them both on whilst we could take a bit of cash. Everton have done the same. A fully fit Vaughan with no injury problems would be an £8m player just like a fully fit Eadie with no injury problems would have been an £8m player. That''s an argument that I keep seeing on here, the one that says that Vaughan would cost a fortune if he didn''t have injury issues. That is true, but Vaughan would also still be at Everton as their number 1 striker if that was the case.Lambert took a big gamble on Vaughan, a few of us said it at the time. It doesn''t look like it will pay off. Can we afford to have him at the club if we don''t stay up? I try not to be negative, but I''ve never been positive about this transfer, he''s not a player that Everton should have recieved any cash for, he''s a player that should be on 12-18 month deals or pay as you play contracts. [/quote]

    Fudge I think Vaughan proved his fitness at Palace last season, He played nearly half a season without injury.

    [/quote]You really are a dispicable little cretin. I take it that you didn''t see the other Vaughan thread on the front page then? The one which was posted by you and bumped by me?http://services.pinkun.com/FORUMS/PINKUN/CS/forums/2587496/ShowPost.aspxThat was written BY YOU, and it says:

    Is swollen after a few pre season games, that''s not great is it?! I can''t see vaughan playing more then 20 games this season, an absolute huge gamble by lambert.

    Words can''t describe what I currently think about your integrity Lincoln, after that Hoolahan thing, and now this. [/quote]Lincoln Canary, I think it has pretty much concluded that nobody should believe a single word that you type from now on. I have had plenty of disagreements with people on here, but at least I know that those people are honest. It seems as if you can''t even trust your own opinion, it''s almost as if you argue with yourself. So what is it? Vaughan has proved his fitness or he was a huge gamble? Clearly you believe it was a gamble, you would just rather switch sides like a politician for the argument. If you were a man of integrity you would apologise for calling me out for slating Hoolahan when I didn''t, but your not, your a coward who won''t accept ever being proved wrong on any issue. Only this time you aren''t willing to accept being proved right, sounds like you need theraphy sunshine. [/quote]

     

    OMG your difficult!

    1. it was a gamble as is siging any player particulary with a poor fitness record.

    2. Lambert believed the risk was low and not so much of a gamble as many thought as he''d had him scouted playing half a season of injury free football at palace.

    Clearer now!!

    [/quote]Yes that is clearer, but it doesn''t change my point at all, because I''ve already said that it was a gamble. All that you have done is agreed that it was a gamble. It was a rubbish signing and these injuries were inevitable, Lambert knowingly took a big risk, and it is one that could hurt the club in the long run if we play Championship football whilst he is under contract. [/quote]

     

    You keep missing my point!! Lambert did not Knowingly take a big risk. He evaluated the risk by watching him play injury free for palace. During this risk assesment he no doubt consulted numerous medical professionals and put him through a medical. Lambert had perfect justification to sign vaughan and class it as low risk.

    As a supporter and not ever seeing him for palace or having any medical assesments at hand I like many deemed it a gamble. I still do but fully understand Lamberts justifacations.

    [/quote]You and me have both said that it was a big gamble, there is a thread which shows us saying so in July.We said that because he spent the whole of the 2005/06 season out with a knee ligament injury, a whole year. He has had surgery on his knee a couple of times since too. It doesn''t make us geniuses to worry about those knee injuries, because every time it weakens the knee, it never gets better. So whilst you understand why Lambert took the risk, you knew that it was a risk nonetheless, and if you and me know that.... then so did Lambert.When you take a risk you know that things can either go well or go wrong. That is what a risk is. If this risk goes wrong, it won''t be my fault and it won''t be your fault, it will be the fault of the person who takes the risk. Or the people. He/they made the decision to take the high risk option, rather than a low risk option. They took a gamble. All I am saying is that it was a silly gamble to take at this period in our history.If things don''t work out, and we go down with Vaughan, we have a crock on the payroll for the whole duration of our two years of parachute payments. A little like Hull going down with Jimmy Bullard, only not quite as bad, and he has actually remained fit for most of it. It really messed them up financially though.Lambert has made some fantastic signings, but I don''t think that Vaughan is one of them, that is all I am saying. Lambert himself has said that he has been restricted in the transfer market because of the actions of past managers. If we were to go down, and Lambert was to leave, the next manager may end up entitled to say much the same thing.We could have had DJ Campbell for the same money, that would have been a lower risk signing, that''s what I''m trying to say. He didn''t HAVE to sign Vaughan, because the likes of DJ Campbell, Leroy Lita, and Jay Bothroyd were on the market for new clubs. I am stating my personal opinion when I say that I would rather him have signed one of those three players with the money that he spent on Vaughan.
  6. LeJuge

    Vaughans knee

    [quote user="lincoln canary"][quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="LeJuge"][quote user=""]

    I really don''t mean this as an ''attack'' of any sort, more an observation...

    But in the 3 years you''ve been on this board Lincoln, i genuinely can''t remember a single positive post that you''ve made. It really is just all doom and gloom.

    Lighten up, chap. It''s just a swollen knee, and we have over 2 weeks ''til the season starts yet.

    [/quote]This is completely true, but he called this one right![/quote]Forget that, Lincoln Canary is now arguing with himself and saying that Vaughan proved his fitness before we signed him. Sigh.[/quote]

     

    Check lamberts quote toady you idiot, Lambert didnt see it as a risk!

    [/quote]I don''t know if your thick or not, but I''ve never asked WHY Lambert signed Vaughan. I''m saying that it was a GAMBLE. He signed him, the buck stops at Lambert. I don''t care what HIS reasons are, if he spends his three years at this club in the physio room then it is Lamberts mistake.
  7. LeJuge

    Vaughan out for four months?

    [quote user="lincoln canary"][quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="lincoln canary"][quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="lincoln canary"]

    [quote user="LeJuge"]I will never understand why we gave this bloke a three year contract. I can''t help but feel that we won''t ever be recouping any of his transfer fee either. He clearly has talent, but it was pretty obvious that he wasn''t going to manage many games for us, he won''t be any more than a bit player as a result. Good luck to him, but I wasn''t expecting many games from him when he signed and this injury doesn''t surprise me at all. You never ever completely recover from a cruciate injury, it''s an injury that never goes away. Somebody on here said that Everton would have bitten their hand off for £1.5m and they are right, just like we bit Leicesters hand off for £3m when we sold Eadie, and precisely why we took just £750k for Keith O''Neill.Eadie and O''Neill were both incredible talents, but we shifted them both on whilst we could take a bit of cash. Everton have done the same. A fully fit Vaughan with no injury problems would be an £8m player just like a fully fit Eadie with no injury problems would have been an £8m player. That''s an argument that I keep seeing on here, the one that says that Vaughan would cost a fortune if he didn''t have injury issues. That is true, but Vaughan would also still be at Everton as their number 1 striker if that was the case.Lambert took a big gamble on Vaughan, a few of us said it at the time. It doesn''t look like it will pay off. Can we afford to have him at the club if we don''t stay up? I try not to be negative, but I''ve never been positive about this transfer, he''s not a player that Everton should have recieved any cash for, he''s a player that should be on 12-18 month deals or pay as you play contracts. [/quote]

    Fudge I think Vaughan proved his fitness at Palace last season, He played nearly half a season without injury.

    [/quote]You really are a dispicable little cretin. I take it that you didn''t see the other Vaughan thread on the front page then? The one which was posted by you and bumped by me?http://services.pinkun.com/FORUMS/PINKUN/CS/forums/2587496/ShowPost.aspxThat was written BY YOU, and it says:

    Is swollen after a few pre season games, that''s not great is it?! I can''t see vaughan playing more then 20 games this season, an absolute huge gamble by lambert.

    Words can''t describe what I currently think about your integrity Lincoln, after that Hoolahan thing, and now this. [/quote]

     

    The point was that Lamberts reasoning behind the gamble was the fact he played half a season injury free at palace! jeez fudgey stop trying to catch people out! 

    [/quote]You said it was a gamble, I said it was a gamble. Therefore it wasn''t proof enough for us, so why was it proof enough for Lambert?[/quote]

     

    “Since he has arrived at the football club he seems to have had bad luck with injuries. At (Crystal) Palace he never seemed to get injured. That is football at times  - Paul Lambert.

    There you go fudgey from the horses mouth, Lambert believed his injuries were behind him. Now jog on!

     

    [/quote]I couldn''t care less WHY Lambert took the gamble, the fact that it WAS a gamble, and he DID take it. Your quote adds absolutely nothing whatsoever which is in any way meaningful to my post. I don''t care how many games he played at Crystal Palace, Everton saw enough medically to sell him for £1.5m, we should have seen enough medically to not want to buy him for £1.5m. Man City signed Owen Hargreaves on a one year deal, Michael Owen is on a pay as you play. Dishing out a three year deal to James Vaughan could be a very expensive mistake, if Lambert leaves us any time soon then he is lumbering the next manager with a mistake in the same way that he was lumbered with the mistakes of the past.
  8. LeJuge

    Vaughan out for four months?

    [quote user="lincoln canary"][quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="lincoln canary"]

    [quote user="LeJuge"]I will never understand why we gave this bloke a three year contract. I can''t help but feel that we won''t ever be recouping any of his transfer fee either. He clearly has talent, but it was pretty obvious that he wasn''t going to manage many games for us, he won''t be any more than a bit player as a result. Good luck to him, but I wasn''t expecting many games from him when he signed and this injury doesn''t surprise me at all. You never ever completely recover from a cruciate injury, it''s an injury that never goes away. Somebody on here said that Everton would have bitten their hand off for £1.5m and they are right, just like we bit Leicesters hand off for £3m when we sold Eadie, and precisely why we took just £750k for Keith O''Neill.Eadie and O''Neill were both incredible talents, but we shifted them both on whilst we could take a bit of cash. Everton have done the same. A fully fit Vaughan with no injury problems would be an £8m player just like a fully fit Eadie with no injury problems would have been an £8m player. That''s an argument that I keep seeing on here, the one that says that Vaughan would cost a fortune if he didn''t have injury issues. That is true, but Vaughan would also still be at Everton as their number 1 striker if that was the case.Lambert took a big gamble on Vaughan, a few of us said it at the time. It doesn''t look like it will pay off. Can we afford to have him at the club if we don''t stay up? I try not to be negative, but I''ve never been positive about this transfer, he''s not a player that Everton should have recieved any cash for, he''s a player that should be on 12-18 month deals or pay as you play contracts. [/quote]

    Fudge I think Vaughan proved his fitness at Palace last season, He played nearly half a season without injury.

    [/quote]You really are a dispicable little cretin. I take it that you didn''t see the other Vaughan thread on the front page then? The one which was posted by you and bumped by me?http://services.pinkun.com/FORUMS/PINKUN/CS/forums/2587496/ShowPost.aspxThat was written BY YOU, and it says:

    Is swollen after a few pre season games, that''s not great is it?! I can''t see vaughan playing more then 20 games this season, an absolute huge gamble by lambert.

    Words can''t describe what I currently think about your integrity Lincoln, after that Hoolahan thing, and now this. [/quote]Lincoln Canary, I think it has pretty much concluded that nobody should believe a single word that you type from now on. I have had plenty of disagreements with people on here, but at least I know that those people are honest. It seems as if you can''t even trust your own opinion, it''s almost as if you argue with yourself. So what is it? Vaughan has proved his fitness or he was a huge gamble? Clearly you believe it was a gamble, you would just rather switch sides like a politician for the argument. If you were a man of integrity you would apologise for calling me out for slating Hoolahan when I didn''t, but your not, your a coward who won''t accept ever being proved wrong on any issue. Only this time you aren''t willing to accept being proved right, sounds like you need theraphy sunshine. [/quote]

     

    OMG your difficult!

    1. it was a gamble as is siging any player particulary with a poor fitness record.

    2. Lambert believed the risk was low and not so much of a gamble as many thought as he''d had him scouted playing half a season of injury free football at palace.

    Clearer now!!

    [/quote]Yes that is clearer, but it doesn''t change my point at all, because I''ve already said that it was a gamble. All that you have done is agreed that it was a gamble. It was a rubbish signing and these injuries were inevitable, Lambert knowingly took a big risk, and it is one that could hurt the club in the long run if we play Championship football whilst he is under contract.
  9. LeJuge

    Vaughan out for four months?

    [quote user="lincoln canary"][quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="lincoln canary"]

    [quote user="LeJuge"]I will never understand why we gave this bloke a three year contract. I can''t help but feel that we won''t ever be recouping any of his transfer fee either. He clearly has talent, but it was pretty obvious that he wasn''t going to manage many games for us, he won''t be any more than a bit player as a result. Good luck to him, but I wasn''t expecting many games from him when he signed and this injury doesn''t surprise me at all. You never ever completely recover from a cruciate injury, it''s an injury that never goes away. Somebody on here said that Everton would have bitten their hand off for £1.5m and they are right, just like we bit Leicesters hand off for £3m when we sold Eadie, and precisely why we took just £750k for Keith O''Neill.Eadie and O''Neill were both incredible talents, but we shifted them both on whilst we could take a bit of cash. Everton have done the same. A fully fit Vaughan with no injury problems would be an £8m player just like a fully fit Eadie with no injury problems would have been an £8m player. That''s an argument that I keep seeing on here, the one that says that Vaughan would cost a fortune if he didn''t have injury issues. That is true, but Vaughan would also still be at Everton as their number 1 striker if that was the case.Lambert took a big gamble on Vaughan, a few of us said it at the time. It doesn''t look like it will pay off. Can we afford to have him at the club if we don''t stay up? I try not to be negative, but I''ve never been positive about this transfer, he''s not a player that Everton should have recieved any cash for, he''s a player that should be on 12-18 month deals or pay as you play contracts. [/quote]

    Fudge I think Vaughan proved his fitness at Palace last season, He played nearly half a season without injury.

    [/quote]You really are a dispicable little cretin. I take it that you didn''t see the other Vaughan thread on the front page then? The one which was posted by you and bumped by me?http://services.pinkun.com/FORUMS/PINKUN/CS/forums/2587496/ShowPost.aspxThat was written BY YOU, and it says:

    Is swollen after a few pre season games, that''s not great is it?! I can''t see vaughan playing more then 20 games this season, an absolute huge gamble by lambert.

    Words can''t describe what I currently think about your integrity Lincoln, after that Hoolahan thing, and now this. [/quote]

     

    The point was that Lamberts reasoning behind the gamble was the fact he played half a season injury free at palace! jeez fudgey stop trying to catch people out! 

    [/quote]You said it was a gamble, I said it was a gamble. Therefore it wasn''t proof enough for us, so why was it proof enough for Lambert?
  10. LeJuge

    Vaughans knee

    [quote user="LeJuge"][quote user=""]

    I really don''t mean this as an ''attack'' of any sort, more an observation...

    But in the 3 years you''ve been on this board Lincoln, i genuinely can''t remember a single positive post that you''ve made. It really is just all doom and gloom.

    Lighten up, chap. It''s just a swollen knee, and we have over 2 weeks ''til the season starts yet.

    [/quote]This is completely true, but he called this one right![/quote]Forget that, Lincoln Canary is now arguing with himself and saying that Vaughan proved his fitness before we signed him. Sigh.
  11. LeJuge

    Vaughan out for four months?

    [quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="lincoln canary"]

    [quote user="LeJuge"]I will never understand why we gave this bloke a three year contract. I can''t help but feel that we won''t ever be recouping any of his transfer fee either. He clearly has talent, but it was pretty obvious that he wasn''t going to manage many games for us, he won''t be any more than a bit player as a result. Good luck to him, but I wasn''t expecting many games from him when he signed and this injury doesn''t surprise me at all. You never ever completely recover from a cruciate injury, it''s an injury that never goes away. Somebody on here said that Everton would have bitten their hand off for £1.5m and they are right, just like we bit Leicesters hand off for £3m when we sold Eadie, and precisely why we took just £750k for Keith O''Neill.Eadie and O''Neill were both incredible talents, but we shifted them both on whilst we could take a bit of cash. Everton have done the same. A fully fit Vaughan with no injury problems would be an £8m player just like a fully fit Eadie with no injury problems would have been an £8m player. That''s an argument that I keep seeing on here, the one that says that Vaughan would cost a fortune if he didn''t have injury issues. That is true, but Vaughan would also still be at Everton as their number 1 striker if that was the case.Lambert took a big gamble on Vaughan, a few of us said it at the time. It doesn''t look like it will pay off. Can we afford to have him at the club if we don''t stay up? I try not to be negative, but I''ve never been positive about this transfer, he''s not a player that Everton should have recieved any cash for, he''s a player that should be on 12-18 month deals or pay as you play contracts. [/quote]

    Fudge I think Vaughan proved his fitness at Palace last season, He played nearly half a season without injury.

    [/quote]You really are a dispicable little cretin. I take it that you didn''t see the other Vaughan thread on the front page then? The one which was posted by you and bumped by me?http://services.pinkun.com/FORUMS/PINKUN/CS/forums/2587496/ShowPost.aspxThat was written BY YOU, and it says:
    Is swollen after a few pre season games, that''s not great is it?! I can''t see vaughan playing more then 20 games this season, an absolute huge gamble by lambert.

    Words can''t describe what I currently think about your integrity Lincoln, after that Hoolahan thing, and now this. [/quote]Lincoln Canary, I think it has pretty much concluded that nobody should believe a single word that you type from now on. I have had plenty of disagreements with people on here, but at least I know that those people are honest. It seems as if you can''t even trust your own opinion, it''s almost as if you argue with yourself. So what is it? Vaughan has proved his fitness or he was a huge gamble? Clearly you believe it was a gamble, you would just rather switch sides like a politician for the argument. If you were a man of integrity you would apologise for calling me out for slating Hoolahan when I didn''t, but your not, your a coward who won''t accept ever being proved wrong on any issue. Only this time you aren''t willing to accept being proved right, sounds like you need theraphy sunshine.
  12. LeJuge

    Vaughan out for four months?

    [quote user="lincoln canary"]

    [quote user="LeJuge"]I will never understand why we gave this bloke a three year contract. I can''t help but feel that we won''t ever be recouping any of his transfer fee either. He clearly has talent, but it was pretty obvious that he wasn''t going to manage many games for us, he won''t be any more than a bit player as a result. Good luck to him, but I wasn''t expecting many games from him when he signed and this injury doesn''t surprise me at all. You never ever completely recover from a cruciate injury, it''s an injury that never goes away. Somebody on here said that Everton would have bitten their hand off for £1.5m and they are right, just like we bit Leicesters hand off for £3m when we sold Eadie, and precisely why we took just £750k for Keith O''Neill.Eadie and O''Neill were both incredible talents, but we shifted them both on whilst we could take a bit of cash. Everton have done the same. A fully fit Vaughan with no injury problems would be an £8m player just like a fully fit Eadie with no injury problems would have been an £8m player. That''s an argument that I keep seeing on here, the one that says that Vaughan would cost a fortune if he didn''t have injury issues. That is true, but Vaughan would also still be at Everton as their number 1 striker if that was the case.Lambert took a big gamble on Vaughan, a few of us said it at the time. It doesn''t look like it will pay off. Can we afford to have him at the club if we don''t stay up? I try not to be negative, but I''ve never been positive about this transfer, he''s not a player that Everton should have recieved any cash for, he''s a player that should be on 12-18 month deals or pay as you play contracts. [/quote]

    Fudge I think Vaughan proved his fitness at Palace last season, He played nearly half a season without injury.

    [/quote]You really are a dispicable little cretin. I take it that you didn''t see the other Vaughan thread on the front page then? The one which was posted by you and bumped by me?http://services.pinkun.com/FORUMS/PINKUN/CS/forums/2587496/ShowPost.aspxThat was written BY YOU, and it says:
    Is swollen after a few pre season games, that''s not great is it?! I can''t see vaughan playing more then 20 games this season, an absolute huge gamble by lambert.

    Words can''t describe what I currently think about your integrity Lincoln, after that Hoolahan thing, and now this.
  13. LeJuge

    Vaughan out for four months?

    I will never understand why we gave this bloke a three year contract. I can''t help but feel that we won''t ever be recouping any of his transfer fee either. He clearly has talent, but it was pretty obvious that he wasn''t going to manage many games for us, he won''t be any more than a bit player as a result. Good luck to him, but I wasn''t expecting many games from him when he signed and this injury doesn''t surprise me at all. You never ever completely recover from a cruciate injury, it''s an injury that never goes away. Somebody on here said that Everton would have bitten their hand off for £1.5m and they are right, just like we bit Leicesters hand off for £3m when we sold Eadie, and precisely why we took just £750k for Keith O''Neill.Eadie and O''Neill were both incredible talents, but we shifted them both on whilst we could take a bit of cash. Everton have done the same. A fully fit Vaughan with no injury problems would be an £8m player just like a fully fit Eadie with no injury problems would have been an £8m player. That''s an argument that I keep seeing on here, the one that says that Vaughan would cost a fortune if he didn''t have injury issues. That is true, but Vaughan would also still be at Everton as their number 1 striker if that was the case.Lambert took a big gamble on Vaughan, a few of us said it at the time. It doesn''t look like it will pay off. Can we afford to have him at the club if we don''t stay up? I try not to be negative, but I''ve never been positive about this transfer, he''s not a player that Everton should have recieved any cash for, he''s a player that should be on 12-18 month deals or pay as you play contracts.
  14. LeJuge

    Vaughans knee

    [quote user=""]

    I really don''t mean this as an ''attack'' of any sort, more an observation...

    But in the 3 years you''ve been on this board Lincoln, i genuinely can''t remember a single positive post that you''ve made. It really is just all doom and gloom.

    Lighten up, chap. It''s just a swollen knee, and we have over 2 weeks ''til the season starts yet.

    [/quote]This is completely true, but he called this one right!
  15. LeJuge

    Vaughans knee

    [quote user="lincoln canary"]Is swollen after a few pre season games, that''s not great is it?! I can''t see vaughan playing more then 20 games this season, an absolute huge gamble by lambert.[/quote]lincoln canary step up, you were right. Which is good, because I backed you on this thread, which makes me right too.Now if only you could change your mind about Morison and admit that you got the wrong person when you accused me of slating Hoolahan when I never have done, we could even be....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJRS-9A7a3Mfootball frieeeendssss.
  16. LeJuge

    Fancy us @ 20/1 on saturday?

    [quote user="nutty nigel"]

    Norwich or the draw is 9/2 on Stan James Butterbean. I did wonder about a small bet on that because I''d be gutted if I bet the draw and we actually managed the upset!!

     

    Realistically these big prices are available for a reason. Man U home defeats against newly promoted teams are as rare as hens teeth!! But we can dream and sometimes he who dreams  wins[;)]

     [/quote]

    If it''s 20/1 for the win and 6/1 for the draw, then surely you would put £1 on the win, and £1 on the draw, instead of putting £1 on win or draw at 9/2?

    I''m not a betting man, but surely you would get £4.50 back for your £1 if we win or draw at 9/2, rather than either £6 or £20 back for your £1. That would surely make it more sensible to stick £1 on both win and draw, rather than £2 on win or draw?

    Personally I wouldn''t bet on either win or draw, because I would consider it easy money for the bookies, I prefer bets that are dead certs!

  17. LeJuge

    January Transfer Window

    [quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="J.Warman"]i have already picked my targets that i would want to sign(because im really cool ), although i do not know how much money Lambert has got to use so i don''t know if they sound reasonable but here we go:

    centre backs - Philippe Senderos - fulham - he seems out of favour under martin jol at fulham, could give us more experience at the back and a bit more height.

    thomas rogne - celtic - he is a young, tall, strong, fast norwegian international who would be perfect for norwich, he has made a good 20 appearances for celtic and maybe with lamberts relationship with the club he could have an advantage over other clubs that are interested.

    strikers - lewandowski - borussia dortmund - he is a fast reasonable tall striker with an incredible finish, with dortmund doing terrible in their league he maybe looking for an exit strategy but i highly doubt it would be norwich tbh.

    creativity - wingers - junior hoillett - blackburn - he is in his final year at blackburn and they maybe willing to sell in january for a cut price

    victor moses - wigan - again he is in his final year and in my opinion amazing, both the wingers i listed can play either side and in the hole so they are what we need for creativity.[/quote]I think some of your targets are way beyond the realm of little old Norwich. Do you seriously think that we would have a chance of signing Holliet? They are talking about him signing a deal at Blackburn with an £18m release clause, that''s higher than the one given to Phil Jones. If he refuses to sign a contract at Blackburn they are still entitled to compensation, set by a tribunal, because he has been offered a deal equal or higher than his existing deal (most likely). They aren''t exactly going to to give him to us for half a million quid, and he will be joining the likes of Arsenal or Man Utd if he goes anywhere.Victor Moses is not in the last year of his deal, he has two years to run on his current deal, Wigan have just offered to extend it. Lewandowski isn''t going to leave the current champions of the German league to play in a relegation battle in England just because they have had a shakey start to their season. That would be like Van Persie signing for Norwich because Arsenal have had a bad start. Never head of Rogne. The only one that I think is the slightest bit realistic is Senderos, but to say that he is out of favour under Jol is a bit weird, because he played 3 times all season last year under Mark Hughes, and yet has played 7 games for Fulham so far this season. So out of 10 appearances for Fulham in 15 months at the club, 7 have come under Jol in the past month and a half...... Jol seems to have reserected his career, contrary to leaving him out in the cold![/quote]It looks like Senderos was out for a whole season after tearing his achilles. But he played for the 8th time tonight in Fulhams win away at Odense, so definitely not out of favour under Jol. That was their first win in 8 games.
  18. LeJuge

    January Transfer Window

    [quote user="J.Warman"]i have already picked my targets that i would want to sign(because im really cool ), although i do not know how much money Lambert has got to use so i don''t know if they sound reasonable but here we go:

    centre backs - Philippe Senderos - fulham - he seems out of favour under martin jol at fulham, could give us more experience at the back and a bit more height.

    thomas rogne - celtic - he is a young, tall, strong, fast norwegian international who would be perfect for norwich, he has made a good 20 appearances for celtic and maybe with lamberts relationship with the club he could have an advantage over other clubs that are interested.

    strikers - lewandowski - borussia dortmund - he is a fast reasonable tall striker with an incredible finish, with dortmund doing terrible in their league he maybe looking for an exit strategy but i highly doubt it would be norwich tbh.

    creativity - wingers - junior hoillett - blackburn - he is in his final year at blackburn and they maybe willing to sell in january for a cut price

    victor moses - wigan - again he is in his final year and in my opinion amazing, both the wingers i listed can play either side and in the hole so they are what we need for creativity.[/quote]I think some of your targets are way beyond the realm of little old Norwich. Do you seriously think that we would have a chance of signing Holliet? They are talking about him signing a deal at Blackburn with an £18m release clause, that''s higher than the one given to Phil Jones. If he refuses to sign a contract at Blackburn they are still entitled to compensation, set by a tribunal, because he has been offered a deal equal or higher than his existing deal (most likely). They aren''t exactly going to to give him to us for half a million quid, and he will be joining the likes of Arsenal or Man Utd if he goes anywhere.Victor Moses is not in the last year of his deal, he has two years to run on his current deal, Wigan have just offered to extend it. Lewandowski isn''t going to leave the current champions of the German league to play in a relegation battle in England just because they have had a shakey start to their season. That would be like Van Persie signing for Norwich because Arsenal have had a bad start. Never head of Rogne. The only one that I think is the slightest bit realistic is Senderos, but to say that he is out of favour under Jol is a bit weird, because he played 3 times all season last year under Mark Hughes, and yet has played 7 games for Fulham so far this season. So out of 10 appearances for Fulham in 15 months at the club, 7 have come under Jol in the past month and a half...... Jol seems to have reserected his career, contrary to leaving him out in the cold!
  19. [quote user="Rob Sims"]I''m not sure about the regulations regarding the loanee''s. If someone got injured badly and went back to parent club and so on, would your quota still have been used and so on.

    If loan is completely not available option then i don''t know what i''d do!! I can''t see buying a lower division striker in january resolving the issue of consistent goal scoring. morrison, holt, martin are all from the lower divs and aren''t _likely_ (although i hope they will be) the answer to the 12-15+ goals a season to keep you in the division. Mind you if you don''t conceed many you might not need it.

    Go super R.Martin! (and Tierney, Naughton, Barney et al)[/quote]You don''t need a 15 goal a season striker to stay in the division, and frankly we aren''t going to be able to afford a player with that capability until we have been in this division for a good four or five years.What we do need is for the players all over the pitch to continue to score goals, and the midfield is doing OK with that so far, Pilkington, Johnson, and Hoolahan have already stuck one each in the back of the net. Barnett popped up with one out of nowhere. Everton finished 7th last season without a single player hitting double figures in the league, they had Saha with 7, Beckford with 8, and Cahill with 9. In fact only one Everton player has scored 15 goals in the past 15 years, Yakubu did it a few years ago and it was the first time since Kanchelskis in 1996! Stoke, obviously as you say they don''t concede many, had Jones (9) and Walters (6) as their top scorers. Bolton squeezed 8 out of Davies and 8 out of Sturridge. Fulhams lead scorer last year was a midfielder, Dempsey managed to score 12. There next top scorer was Hangeland, a centre back, with 6. What I''m trying to say is that you don''t need a goal machine as long as you get the goals from somewhere in the team, and Lambert says that all the time. We could easily get away with two strikers scoring 8 each, I would think that any two out of Morison, Holt and Jackson are capable of that, as long as the other 8 outfield players in any one game pose a goal threat themselves.I think we have got enough goals in the team, we know that Pilkington and Bennett are capable of scoring goals, we know that Hoolahan is capable of scoring goals, Johnson is getting in there with some shots, Crofts scored a few last year. In fact I would say that the only players that we probably won''t see goals from are Marc Tierney and David Fox (the major thing missing from his game). Even Russell Martin has that mean shot of his when playing right back, and went gung-ho the other day. Goodness knows how Leon Barnett got into the position that he did last week. I reckon we have got goals well and truly covered to be honest, it''s the clean sheets that we need to work on. We''ve scored more away goals than Liverpool, Newcastle, Chelsea, and Villa, all above us in the table, and only three of the 11 teams below us have scored more goals this season.OP, have faith!
  20. [quote user="Yorkshire Canary"]Already the 3 promoted clubs have made reasonable starts and many of their players have made reasonable starts in the premiership.

    The single exception to this though seems to be the strikers.We know the position of the Norwich strikers who are finding it hards. danny Graham is not off the mark yet and sinclair and Lita only have 1 each. Shane Long probably the pick of championship strikers could be the exception to this with 2 in his first 2 starts but even he has found it hard thereafter.

    This does pose a problem for the future, where do any of the 3 promoted clubs go for a striker in January and what is left in the championship would they be able to make a difference?

    This is probably the one position where shrewd purchases from overseas at reasonable rates is the order of the day but you need the contacts/spotters which we have yet to develop[/quote]Lita has never really been prolific in the Championship, he has only reached 15 goals in one season once, last year he only scored 12, the year before that 10.I think he is seriously over rated by Norwich fans, because a half decent striker was a luxury at the time. The 7 in 16 that he scored for us is his best strike rate so far in that league, actually by far his best strike rate for any team.
  21. [quote user="Jimmy Smith"]The Ayala thread got me thinking, if all our centre backs are fit, who would Lambert ultimately settle on as they all appear to have a case?

    Elliott Ward - Was first team before he got injured, yet to be seen this season

    Leon Barnett - Our most consistent CB this season

    Zac Whitbread - Was starting games before he got injured

    Daniel Ayala - Appeared to be a starter until his injury

    Ritchie De Laet - Arguably our most talented centre back, just needs to be more disciplined at times

    Russell Martin - Called into the centre as emergency 6th choice centre back but has had two absolute stormers and others may have to wait until their next opportunity.

    Hmm, great problem to have i guess! I''d keep it the same for Old Trafford though.[/quote]Not sure how you can say that Ayala looked like a starter before getting injured, he came on as a sub as a result of Barnett getting red carded, and then played against MK Dons with pretty much a second string team, a game in which he got injured?I think that his preferred back two would be Barnett and Ward. My preferred back two last year was Whitbread and Ward, but I''m not convinced that Whitbread can do it at this level, time will tell.
  22. LeJuge

    Holty

    I actually thought that he looked quite sharp, when Vaughan had his shot he could have played Holt through. You have to remember that for a period we had 10 men and he was up front alone, Holt has never been effective as a loan striker which is probably why Lambert brought them both on at the same time. I watched the game back on Sky, and he found it very difficult once Vaughan went off. I think that''s the best thing about Morison, the ability to play up there on his own, I''ve never seen that in Holt -  a big part of Holts game is playing in his strike partner.
  23. [quote user="lincoln canary"]le fudge? No we cant blame Lambert for that one.[/quote]Until you admit that you were wrong, then you remain a lying scumbag. A lying scumbag who doesn''t know anything about football and wants to see Tierney dropped, I must add.
  24. Stephen Elliott, didn''t understand what he was supposed to offer to the team at the time, was certainly no better than Cody Mac or Oli Johnson.
  25. [quote user="Paul Cluckbert "]Of all the rurally based teams in England... only City and Ipswich get the media abuse. I''d like to see both of us in the top flight doing well and carrying the flag for East Anglia.... but getting hammered by us each time we met.We''re all of the same Anglo Saxon blood and Boudicca didn''t have County Council boundaries to worry about when she thrashed the Romans.[/quote]I''d settle for Ipswich as a yo-yo team, with the 6 points we win from them being the difference between them getting relegated and staying up every year, and us being comfortably in the top half with decent cup runs once and a while.
×