Jump to content

Recommended Posts

No clue what Gerrard doesnt see in him, only reason they beat us when he came on to be honest. Only thing that I can think of is his perosnality, after all he is rather hot headed and despite playing very well in his cameo against us was getting all riled up and was itching for a fight just minutes in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

1-0 villa  ,now 1-1 6 mins

Edited by Mengo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mengo said:

1-0 villa

Liverpool really slipping up the title chances.. You know, beacause Gerrard managing Liverpool now and the slip and.. Ok I'll stop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought he galvanised Villa when he came on.

Wasted at Villa. Apart from the money, he should have stayed with us. We might have survived, he would almost certainly have been very good, and he could have moved to a much better team than Villa after this season.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extraordinary to leave him out tonight after his performance on Saturday. 

I would say I'm sure Gerrard knows what he's doing but the table would suggest otherwise. 

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Emi go back to Spain in the summer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Extraordinary to leave him out tonight after his performance on Saturday. 

I would say I'm sure Gerrard knows what he's doing but the table would suggest otherwise. 

 

He knows exactly what he's doing. Liverpool to score a load tonight. There's no way Stevie will hinder liverpools title chances. Same as the other day when Chelsea played so badly. They wouldn't want poor Frank's team to go down would they. I'm glad we're out of that corrupt cesspit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rottingdean canary said:

Outstanding I would say

Desevers to be at a top six club. Said it when he left for Villa and I got laughed at 'Ohh but Villa are big and spendng tons and will finish top 10!' And not despite being their best player he's on the bench and they are what, 15th?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it suits us this way. 

We got a large transfer fee , which the club have said was more than we expected. 

Plus if he moves to a bigger club / again we get a slice. 

Great business for us.  

Once a player wants to leave i dont care where they go tbh.  

Move on nothing to see here

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

But it suits us this way. 

We got a large transfer fee , which the club have said was more than we expected. 

Plus if he moves to a bigger club / again we get a slice. 

Great business for us.  

Once a player wants to leave i dont care where they go tbh.  

Move on nothing to see here

Have to disagree  Greavsyo, if i liked a player while he was with us i generally enjoy watching them play  for bigger and better , or smaller and worse teams. We rarely know the truth about players and how they engineer moves, only different sides of a story . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Greavsy said:

But it suits us this way. 

We got a large transfer fee , which the club have said was more than we expected. 

Plus if he moves to a bigger club / again we get a slice. 

Great business for us.  

Once a player wants to leave i dont care where they go tbh.  

Move on nothing to see here

Balance that versus what would have happened if we held him to his contract. We may still be in the PL. never in my 60 years of watching Norwich has any one player been missed so much.

That fact is the club just could not wait to sell him.  Then they could not wait to waste the proceeds.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bradwell canary said:

Balance that versus what would have happened if we held him to his contract. We may still be in the PL. never in my 60 years of watching Norwich has any one player been missed so much.

That fact is the club just could not wait to sell him.  Then they could not wait to waste the proceeds.

you're forgetting the fact he wanted to leave, and made that point very strongly. We had him for a year longer than he wanted to be here. 

Holding player to their contract never works out well - would be another TC situation, with no suitors and value plummeting.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

you're forgetting the fact he wanted to leave, and made that point very strongly. We had him for a year longer than he wanted to be here. 

Holding player to their contract never works out well - would be another TC situation, with no suitors and value plummeting.  

Exactly this. Especially when our model depends on selling players when they've reached a probable maximum level of profit. We might not like the extent to which players have power, but it is folly to think we're immune to it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

you're forgetting the fact he wanted to leave, and made that point very strongly. We had him for a year longer than he wanted to be here. 

Holding player to their contract never works out well - would be another TC situation, with no suitors and value plummeting.  

Dont forget the time he supposedly walked into Webber office uninvited and told him that he never wanted to play for us again unless we sold him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Dont forget the time he supposedly walked into Webber office uninvited and told him that he never wanted to play for us again unless we sold him.

So he wanted to be sold and then come back again on loan?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Dont forget the time he supposedly walked into Webber office uninvited and told him that he never wanted to play for us again unless we sold him.

isnt that what I said? 

29 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

you're forgetting the fact he wanted to leave, and made that point very strongly

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, overthebordercanary said:

Villa have just made Coutinho a permanent signing in the summer for nearly half the price of emi. So he will get less game time next year. 

Careful. It would far more accurate to assess the cost of the deal. Wages mostly dwarf transfer fees, so using headline transfer fees - which in themselves are typically heavily clause-based - is to often give a false impression of true cost or indeed investment. 

x: £30m transfer fee, £60k per week, 3 year contract, total = c£40m

Y: £10m transfer fee, £200k per week, 4 year contract, total = c£50m

’y only cost £10m!’…

‘We could have bought 3y for the cost of 1x!’

No. And no.  

Parma 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Careful. It would far more accurate to assess the cost of the deal. Wages mostly dwarf transfer fees, so using headline transfer fees - which in themselves are typically heavily clause-based - is to often give a false impression of true cost or indeed investment. 

x: £30m transfer fee, £60k per week, 3 year contract, total = c£40m

Y: £10m transfer fee, £200k per week, 4 year contract, total = c£50m

’y only cost £10m!’…

‘We could have bought 3y for the cost of 1x!’

No. And no.  

Parma 

Hate to be Pedantic, but I recall that although the base transfer fee for Emi was £32M, it could rise to £38M dependent on meeting the odd milestone - so potentially only a couple of million difference between the total cost of the two.  Trouble is that is irrelevant when Gerrard seems to have decided he can't play them both together in the same side.  If only England managers in the past could have reached the same conclusion regarding Gerrard & Lampard?  At least Gerrard seems to have learnt a lesson or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@shefcanary

I deliberately called them x and y to differentiate between actual players and the general point I was making.

They are approximations of a Buendia-Coutinho scenario, though apply to any transfer.

I could have gone much deeper to emphasise the point, including when cash is actually received - in the particular Buendia case I understand that villa paid a considerable part of the deal up front, allowing us to pursue our main targets and close those deals. 

Hence Farke’s comment : ‘We chose to sell Buendia’ 

Parma 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

@shefcanary

I deliberately called them x and y to differentiate between actual players and the general point I was making.

They are approximations of a Buendia-Coutinho scenario, though apply to any transfer.

I could have gone much deeper to emphasise the point, including when cash is actually received - in the particular Buendia case I understand that villa paid a considerable part of the deal up front, allowing us to pursue our main targets and close those deals. 

Hence Farke’s comment : ‘We chose to sell Buendia’ 

Parma 

They've still got two "good" players for one critical position in the team.   Shows what we are up against when that position needs a minimum total of £100m spending on it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, shefcanary said:

They've still got two "good" players for one critical position in the team.   Shows what we are up against when that position needs a minimum total of £100m spending on it!

I can just about - not really - see how we might have thought that we could amortise Buendia’s loss in that position via Cantwell, Rashica, Dowell, Tzolis, maybe Sargent+Pukki somehow…

…though I just cannot see how we thought we could amortise Skipp’s loss via what we had and bought. It only makes sense if you think we were going to dominate possession and somehow create a pocket of space for Gilmour to play in between defence and midfield (without much defending)

In fact I think Smith is referring to exactly that - and the rather flawed loan of Gilmour - when he poignantly talked of previous squad building based on a belief in being ‘a possession-based team’. That was a bizarre leap of faith at the top level.

If you refer to the ‘Where did it all go wrong Delia, Daniel, Stuart?’ topic you will see it was stated clearly proctor hoc. ‘Football people’ were all saying the same. 

Ignoring the noise indeed.

Parma 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...