Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Chunky Norwich

Vaughan out for four months?

Recommended Posts

I never believe anything until I''ve heard it officially from the club and is seems odd that the Sun would have had that story yesterday ( believe the sun is printing the night before)  re his operation before the club have made a statement.

Hope its not right as I''m guessing if it is that the lad will be even more upset than he was Monday night.

We''re all routing for you James.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CA, 4 months is probably the best we can hope for. I think its fairly safe to assume its a fairly serious injury, he was pretty upset and probably wouldn''t have looked quite that upset if it wasn''t serious.

I doubt the Sun actually know anything, will we hear on Friday about the injury?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Gingerpele"]CA, 4 months is probably the best we can hope for. I think its fairly safe to assume its a fairly serious injury, he was pretty upset and probably wouldn''t have looked quite that upset if it wasn''t serious. I doubt the Sun actually know anything, will we hear on Friday about the injury?[/quote]

 

I was really hoping that after the scan it wouldn''t turn out to be as serious as it looks, really felt for the lad when I saw how upset he was near the home dug out.

He hasn''t had any luck has he, hope he comes back strong and positive ready for our final few months when we may need him.

Shame [:''(]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[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.aspx

That 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! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[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.aspx

That 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!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[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.aspx

That 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!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[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.aspx

That 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A hazard is somthing that has potential to cause harm ( Vaughans Knee ) The risk is the likelihood of that hazard happening. A Risk assesment is carried out by a competent person/s (Lambert&Medical team) to determine the risk factor using information available to them. The reslult of this assesment had to have been low or the transfer would not have happend due to the money involved. If the result is high then unless the commercial aspect is low then it is simply not viable.

Although I believed it to be a risk im not a person with the correct competency to determine such risk. I refuse to believe Lambert knowingly took a risk, I believe he thought cost/risk was viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[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". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="LeJuge"][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".
 
[/quote]

 

At the time The Guardian, which knows its north-western football, and is generally reliable, said the basic fee was £1.5m with potential add-on of another £1m. And that sounded about right; that the adds-on should be considerable, given his injury record, and his comparitive youth. By contrast the fee for Morison (older and with a better injury record) was given as a basic £2.1m, with only another £700,000 in add-ons.

 

Of course you have to treat all such figures cautiously, but those quoted for Vaughan and Morison do seem to hang together, in terms of other similar players (what Swansea paid for Graham, for example), in terms of the basic and total fees, and in terms of the markedly different percentages that the two add-ons represent. A much larger percentage in the case of Vaughan than in the case of Morison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not only sad but a blow for the club a lot was expected of him. Lambert will need to fill this position in January if he can get either a quality loan of a purchase at a price that we can afford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Dan Druff"]Terrible news. I fear we''ve bought a crock in Mr. V.[/quote]Win a few lose a few......Trying to unearth talent on a shoestring will always be a gamble. Sadly football is littered with such short lived careers and always will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not content in spamming up one Vaughan thread I see the chuckle brothers are at it again !Guys... no one gives a damn...

In good news, the last crock we got turned out to be a class defender..... when fit !!Feel bad for Vaughan he was starting to look interesting. Now we gotta wait till 2011 to see if he can hack it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well being that it is a three year contract we will see some time with vaughan back, he may come back in January and scroe some important goals for us.

I don''t think it was a huge risk if you look at the three years we will have vaughan. For this season we are now a striker down, but he has not featured a great deal and now jackson has to prove his worth.

I do think we may still look to buy a forward in the summer, but Vaughan will hopefully be back at that time too and add to our squad

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  

×