Rusty

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

Coyle thinks Burnley could use Daryl Russell in the Premiership.

Gunn doesn''t think Norwich can use him in the Third Division.

Hmmm..........

OTBC

 

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Coyle thinks Burnley could use Daryl Russell in the Premiership.

Gunn doesn''t think Norwich can use him in the Third Division.

Hmmm..........

OTBC

 

I think that''s one that Gunny''s got right, to be honest. Did you think Russell performed well in the games you went to last season?

[/quote]

[chicken 0]

Surely Bly both could use him if he stayed on the pitch long enough?

[jimidack 0]

Sounds like good business to me, all these people who are saying that they''d let him go for £100k just to get rid of him obviously don''t quite get the idea of football now being a business game. To be honest, he didn''t impress me at all last season and wouldn''t be missed if he went considering the amount of midfielders we currently have on our books!Good luck to Burnley if they can get a good player out of him!

[City 2nd 191]

BlyBlyBabes wrote the following post at 23/07/2009 12:53 PM:

Coyle thinks Burnley could use Daryl Russell in the Premiership.

Gunn doesn''t think Norwich can use him in the Third Division.

When have you heard Gunn state that he does not want Russell.......only last week Gunn stated that Rusty would be part of his plans if no one came in for him......I think its more the commitment of the player himself!!!!!!!!!!

[djc 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Coyle thinks Burnley could use Daryl Russell in the Premiership.

Gunn doesn''t think Norwich can use him in the Third Division.

Hmmm..........

OTBC

 

[/quote]

Perhaps a tad unfair. Maybe Gunn thinks Norwich could use him in Third Division. Maybe Rusty is of opinion he is too good for Third Division, and wants to jump ship. Hasnt got the spine for a promotion fight.

[McCanary 0]

Stoke didn`t think he was Prem standard.

An if his attitude is wrong then get rid. I don`t think he will be missed.

[dhickl 0]

[quote user="porkyp"]BlyBlyBabes wrote the following post at 23/07/2009 12:53 PM: Coyle thinks Burnley could use Daryl Russell in the Premiership. Gunn doesn''t think Norwich can use him in the Third Division. When have you heard Gunn state that he does not want Russell.......only last week Gunn stated that Rusty would be part of his plans if no one came in for him......I think its more the commitment of the player himself!!!!!!!!!![/quote]True, but if he put that in a post he couldn''t have a moan about Gunn, Delia or the club.

[timncfc 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Coyle thinks Burnley could use Daryl Russell in the Premiership.

Gunn doesn''t think Norwich can use him in the Third Division.

Hmmm..........

OTBC

 

[/quote]

Yeah but whos the mug here, I dont think its Gunny, I would be happy if Russell went for next to nothing.If Russell is good enough for the prem then so am I.

[Inch High aka Inchy.. 405]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Coyle thinks Burnley could use Daryl Russell in the Premiership.

Gunn doesn''t think Norwich can use him in the Third Division.

Hmmm..........

OTBC

 

[/quote]I can''t find Gunnys saying that Bly, can you point out the link please.Thanks.

[macdougalls perm 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Coyle thinks Burnley could use Daryl Russell in the Premiership.

Gunn doesn''t think Norwich can use him in the Third Division.

Hmmm..........

OTBC

 

[/quote]

You''re an extremely mischievous old boy aren''t you [:)]

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

It''s quite simple really. He''s got one year left on his contract.

If you want him you offer to renegotiate an extended contract.

If you don''t really want him you sell him for as much as you can get before he becomes a Bosman freebie like Croft.

Obviously Team Gunn doesn''t fancy him that much. Coyle sees something there and is willing to take a punt.

Hmmm.....

For the lads sake I hope Coyle is right; for City''s sake I hope Gunn is right.

We''ll see.

OTBC

 

 

 

[BobbyLo 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

It''s quite simple really. He''s got one year left on his contract.

If you want him you offer to renegotiate an extended contract.

If you don''t really want him you sell him for as much as you can get before he becomes a Bosman freebie like Croft.

Obviously Team Gunn doesn''t fancy him that much. Coyle sees something there and is willing to take a punt.

Hmmm.....

For the lads sake I hope Coyle is right; for City''s sake I hope Gunn is right.

We''ll see.

OTBC

 

 

 

[/quote]Yeah, I wasn''t impressed with Rustys contribution last year although I don''t mind him as a player. He gets stuck in and although that may not fit in an NCFC side who want to play a "passing" game, it may work at Burnley. I would say Coyle and Co have been lookin at Stoke and wondering how a side that plays the most BORING football I''ve ever had the misfortune to witness have managed to stay in the Prem. It''s because their side is full of utter bruisers, with the odd bit of flair chucked in (Lawrence, Fuller). Maybe Coyle wants to build a similar side that is more robust and survive on nicking 1-0 results?? Russell might do ok there, seeing as though you generally have more time on the ball in the Prem. Still, I hope we accept their offer.

[First Jedi 0]

If we were desperate to get rid of him, because we don''t think he could do a job, we''d not be knocking back bids for him, we''d be biting their hands off.

And you nailed with the contract - he won''t re-negotiate, hence we will need to sell him. We will have offered a contract as it''s business sense to cover your investments - and you can''t suggest that the board isn''t money orientated - in fact it''s usually one of your biggest complaints.

I''m glad we''re not going to sell him for less than he is worth.

[Yelverton Yella 0]

I''m actually amazed and delighted to see City knocking back a (reported) bid of £500k for Russell. Amazed because I thought we were completely cash-strapped and delighted because I am fed up to the back teeth with us being an easy touch in the transfer market.Combined with the series of strong rumours about talks with players who are likely to cost fairly significant fees, it suggests both that we have more money than we have let on and that, at last, we have somebody competent overseeing the deals. Let''s hope we''ve seen the last of ''get out'' clauses and contracts being allowed to run down.Other than the ''prurients'' or whatever thay call themselves, if all the pending deals are done, I would think most people will be pleasantly surprised.Of course, before anyone reminds me, part two (and the only part that counts!) of the rebuilding starts on the field against Colchester and the jury is still out at the moment but, at this stage, I am certainly more optimistic than I expected to be [:D]

[pete_norw 0]

for what its worth I think we should let him go to Palace and we have Lee, at least Lee will have a go at goal from outside the box,instead of Rusty''s perthetic little taps wide

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="CashCasinoCrane"] Russell might do ok there, seeing as though you generally have more time on the ball in the Prem.
[/quote]

I can''t see how giving Darel Russell more time on the ball could ever be considered a good thing. He could have all day on the ball and would still manage to send his first touch ten yards behind him before launching an ugly two footed challenge in a vain attempt to win the ball back. If he signs for a Premiership team I might just dust my boots of and wander up to Turf Moor myself [:P]

[Snoots 0]

[quote user="ob1"]If we were desperate to get rid of him, because we don''t think he could do a job, we''d not be knocking back bids for him, we''d be biting their hands off. And you nailed with the contract - he won''t re-negotiate, hence we will need to sell him. We will have offered a contract as it''s business sense to cover your investments - and you can''t suggest that the board isn''t money orientated - in fact it''s usually one of your biggest complaints. I''m glad we''re not going to sell him for less than he is worth.[/quote]

 

I think that this post sums up the situation pretty accurately.

IMO Russell is a very decent player. Yes, he gets hot headed from time to time but that''s consistent with the way he plays the game. I''ve always liked him as a player and I will always remember him bossing the game at Portsmouth on a wet, muddy Sunday afternoon the season that Portsmouth got promoted. Fact is that he is too good for League One but I must admit that I am surprised that a Premiership Club would want him. In order for Gunn to keep Russell he would have to offer Russell a new contract with improved remuneration commencing now but even if he has done that, as ob1 suggests Russell is looking to go and who can blame him. 

[Canary Man of Kent 0]

That was the season before Pompey were promoted wasn''t it? I thought it was our play off year, we won 2-1, Roberts, Harper equaliser and then a Tiler o.g. to win it.

In their promotion year we lost 3-2. They went a goal up twice and each time we equalised within a minute. Todorov got the winner.

In any case, your point is a valid one, albeit I think he lets his temper get to him far too much, was incredibly lucky not to be sent off away at Swansea last season and I found as a rule he tends to adjust his performance level to be just that little bit worse than the opposition. He''s certainly no Damien Francis, more Lee Marshall.

[shortfatb 0]

He seemed off the pace last season, which made him frustrated so he then upped the aggression to compensate and kept getting sent off. I think League 1 would probably be about his level, unless he was carrying an injury last year that he is now over.    

[Paul Spector 0]

Russell looked very poor in a side that got relegated last season from the Championship - there is no way he has anywhere near enough about him to make it in the big leagues.

If we get a reasonable offer we have to get rid - if he is likely to upset team harmony, or not likely to play then we are better off getting him off the wage bill asap.