Paul Gallacher / Marc Edworthy

[Rossi 0]

Does anyone else feels it is strange that Gallacher has had his contract ready to sign for over a month now but the club havent withdrawn the offer? After what happened to the best free transfer we''ve ever had at this club, and a right back that was so desperately needed last season, it smacks of double standards, and favouristism

[still holding out for new heroes 0]

or having learnt the lesson from that mess...lets hope they''ve learnt a few othr lessons

[Drurys Left Nut 0]

Gallagher is never going to be in front of Robert Green for the No. 1 spot. Gallagher wants to be No.1 whereas Joe Lewis for example is happy to be a reserve at the moment. Gallagher is waiting upon whether Green will go so he will be No.1. If Green goes (or it is made very clear that there is a club waiting to buy him in January once he is over his injury) he will sign. If Green stays, Gallagher will go.

This as I see it is quite a reasonable position for both club and player and nothing like the Edworthy sit-u-a-shun. Edworthy was desperately needed last season, he however completely refused (not waited upon some other factor) to sign his contract.

On a different note, I sincerely hope that attitudes change for the start of next season. The current situation of people trying to find more and more obscure and bizarre ways of creating a notion of the club as some factory of spin, trying to trick you out of your money to line their own pockets and the manager as some eveil genius is in itself bizarre and quite unbelievable by most.

[Rossi 0]

I dont ever recall Edworthy refusing the contract, he asked to think about it, and then when he asked to sign it worthy said it was no longer available.

[Saint Canary 0]

[quote user="ROSSI 46"]I dont ever recall Edworthy refusing the contract, he asked to think about it, and then when he asked to sign it worthy said it was no longer available.[/quote]

I think a contract was still on offer but the terms had changed.

[chicken 0]

Edworthy was offered two contracts.The first of a years extension which he declined to sign and was subsequently withdrawn. He refused to sign it because of its length - as a pro over 30 he wanted at least two years.Towards the end of the season he was offered another contract which he looked at but never signed for two years although with a wage decrease. He chose to go to Derby where he would get his two years and better money.Make of that what you want but they were the facts made available for the press at the time. He has even said that in interviews since - at least that the contract offered to him was not right so he chose to leave.Mercenary - yes, miss him? We missed a good solid right back, whether that would have been him last season we will never know. The same as we wont know untill some point through next season if Luis-Jean would have been missed also.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

He was offered a 2 year deal midway through the season, which he decided he wanted to wait on.  He was offered 1 year at the end of the season which he refused to sign it because of its length - as a pro over 30 he wanted at least two years.  He wasnt offered a 2 year deal at the end of the season.

"Mercenary "- 4 years at plymouth 3 years at palace 4 years at coventry followed by a year at wolves and being free trransferred.  Not really much of a mercenary in todays football world.

"miss him?" - well we conceded 65 goals, and have looked shocking in the right back department all season, I think we could have done with a solid if unspectacular right back...

"Whether that would have been him last season we will never know "- well it wasnt Colin, and Louis Jean looked poor in his two games since his move from Forest where he was part of a defense conceding 66 goals in getting relegated.  How many is that did you say??  66 goals??  Wow thats only 1 more goal conceded than we managed this season!!!!

[chicken 0]

Mercenary because for someone that so desperately wanted to stay here that he wanted to wait untill January when he could speak to other clubs to see what they were offering. Come the time when he decided he wasnt going to get a better offer elsewhere he wanted to sign an extension with us the contract had been changed to reflect his loyalty. I think mercenary is fine.Miss him - nope. Had we signed a decent enough right back we would not have missed him. Like I say we missed a player of his quality in that position, whether that be him or another player or Luis-Jean who knows. Its conjecture.And as for you saying that Luis-Jean was rubbish in his first two games - I seem to remember you basing a defence on behalf of Helveg who was equaly unimpressive in his first two games yet because he had a decent run at the end of the season should have meant we stuck with him throughout the entire season. And that two games is not enough. So which is it to be? One rule for all or none at all - thats fair I think.You cant blast a player for not being any good after two games and then say that another player needed more than two games to show the class he has and settle in. A very very obvious contradiction.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="chicken"]Mercenary because for someone that so desperately wanted to stay here that he wanted to wait untill January when he could speak to other clubs to see what they were offering. Come the time when he decided he wasnt going to get a better offer elsewhere he wanted to sign an extension with us the contract had been changed to reflect his loyalty. I think mercenary is fine.

Miss him - nope. Had we signed a decent enough right back we would not have missed him. Like I say we missed a player of his quality in that position, whether that be him or another player or Luis-Jean who knows. Its conjecture.

And as for you saying that Luis-Jean was rubbish in his first two games - I seem to remember you basing a defence on behalf of Helveg who was equaly unimpressive in his first two games yet because he had a decent run at the end of the season should have meant we stuck with him throughout the entire season. And that two games is not enough. So which is it to be? One rule for all or none at all - thats fair I think.

You cant blast a player for not being any good after two games and then say that another player needed more than two games to show the class he has and settle in. A very very obvious contradiction.
[/quote]

Fair play about Louis Jean I agree you cant judge after 2 games (but worthy did with Helveg) - But Helveg came from AC Milan/Inter Milan as a known international and had to adjust to English football.  Louis Jean was in no way a standout player for Relegated from the championship Nottingham Forest.

Miss him - nope. Had we signed a decent enough right back we would not have missed him. - BUT WE HAVE MISSED HIM OTHERWISE WE WOULDNT BE TALKING ABOUT HIM NOW!!!!!

And if we arent challenging for promotion next season I think Roberty Earnshaw will show you the true meaning of a mercenary player.

 

[Jerzy Krukowski 5]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]

And if we arent challenging

for promotion next season I think Roberty Earnshaw will show you the

true meaning of a mercenary player.

[/quote]

What possible evidence do you have for that statement? He''s done

absolutely nothing except score a good few goals and state that he

wants to be playing in the premiership, which he''s good enough to do.

[0King Juan of SpainddMMyyyy0Falseen-USTrue 0]

Call me a nerd (nerd)...

But careful studying of our premiership season video proves that Edworthy was responsible for around 70% of  goals conceded from set pieces (terrible marking) and many, many goals in free play. Teams knew to attack him and Fleming and it was pretty easy.

Loyal and hard working he was; any longer up to the job? No.

[Rossi 0]

in the prem we used that software that tracked players movements etc, and I can promise you that the biggest culprit for goals being shipped in was a certain D. Huckerby.

[Hampshire Yella 0]

[quote user="King Juan of Spain"]

Call me a nerd (nerd)...

But careful studying of our premiership season video proves that Edworthy was responsible for around 70% of  goals conceded from set pieces (terrible marking) and many, many goals in free play. Teams knew to attack him and Fleming and it was pretty easy.

Loyal and hard working he was; any longer up to the job? No.

[/quote]

I have to slightly disagree with you Juan, Many of our goals were conceded due to Darren Huckerby.  Drury, although superb at this level, couldn''t bear the burden of defending the left side on his own in the premiership.

Also, Edworthy although not a premiership player, is solid at this level.  I was always surprised our manager disnt give Helveg more of a chance.  A seasoned international playing for Milan the previous year yet dropped after two games for a championship player at best......  Strange.

[0King Juan of SpainddMMyyyy0Falseen-USTrue 0]

I take the point about Hucks but I was speaking more specifically about set pieces (from which we conceded a frightening amount of goals). Edworthy would often be too far off his man, which would pull Flem out and essentially leave to heads free to go for the ball. That was why we did better with Helveg (yes it was criminal he didn''t play enough, but remember the amount of fans who moaned about him without giving him a chance?) because he could organise a defence as well as keep position. Once again, Worthy went for the ''hard workers'' until it was too late. 

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="ROSSI 46"]in the prem we used that software that tracked players movements etc, and I can promise you that the biggest culprit for goals being shipped in was a certain D. Huckerby.[/quote]

"head down and go" lost poessesion and not tracking back... With Drury pushing forward to support the attack we therefore didnt have a left side...

Consequently the Center back on that side went over to cover the left, the other center back went to cover the Far Post, Leaving poor old Eddy to deal with any in rushing threat at the far post.. where most crosses are delivered... and Worthington was a Defender!!!??? surely then he can spot the Bloody obvious!

Also, with a lack of a right winger dropping back to support in the above situation then Eddy was always going to be exposed.

jas :)

[Hampshire Yella 0]

[quote user="King Juan of Spain"]

I take the point about Hucks but I was speaking more specifically about set pieces (from which we conceded a frightening amount of goals). Edworthy would often be too far off his man, which would pull Flem out and essentially leave to heads free to go for the ball. That was why we did better with Helveg (yes it was criminal he didn''t play enough, but remember the amount of fans who moaned about him without giving him a chance?) because he could organise a defence as well as keep position. Once again, Worthy went for the ''hard workers'' until it was too late. 

[/quote]

I understand your point about the fans, but Nigel has proven time and time again that he picks the side.  And after 2 games I am sure it was his own decision to drop Helveg and had nothing to do with the whingers in the crowd.  I was one whom thought the main problem with Helveg was that he was used to passing to players moving to the ball.  Whereas at Norwich you have to pass to the player.  He certainly had improved his passsing when given games in midfield midway through the season.  Having said that he certainly looked no midfielder.

As for set peices, I never thought he would be up to the premiership but Malky Mackay''s presense was sorely missed at set peices both attacking and defensively.