Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
a1canary

Where we waiting for coo pee ahh to show their hand...

Recommended Posts

...before going in for Hooper? Get them to do all the negs then come in with an additional quarter mil? If so our CEO has been really living up to his name.

Wonder what was going on with that transfer. Awesome watching us pull off these signings!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe Celtic "asked" ''Arry to start spouting off to kick us into action!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, it was obvious we were waiting for someone else to have a bid accepted, then match it. Saves a bidding war.

If no one else bid am sure we would have jumped in at the 11th hour with a low bid.

Good work by the board

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Vaughans Stiff Upper Lip"]We bidded more than 5 in January, so if we''re coming in with anther bid we both already know what we''ve bidded previously, so waiting for another team to bid makes it easier as we would now know what they want[/quote]Just LOL! [:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bidded??  Everyone knows it''s "bade". The level of English today....[:S]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Vaughans Stiff Upper Lip"]Pretty sad that you have to criticise grammar of other posters, just trying to make a point I didn''t realise it was some sort of contest[/quote]Just trying to be helpful VSUL. It clearly wasn''t a typo as you repeated

it so, by highlighting it, you won''t make the same mistake again will

you? [:)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldnt be surprised if qpr forced our hand. In that hooper is seen more as a back striker and weve got got bigger irons in the fire, but they are stalling and when qpr we didn''t want another january situation - and being left with no one. Hopefully this is the case anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Vaughans Stiff Upper Lip"]Pretty sad that you have to criticise grammar of other posters, just trying to make a point I didn''t realise it was some sort of contest[/quote]Just trying to be helpful VSUL. It clearly wasn''t a typo as you repeated

it so, by highlighting it, you won''t make the same mistake again will

you? [:)][/quote]

If you were trying to be helpful you wouldn''t have put "just lol!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Vaughans Stiff Upper Lip"]If correcting somebody else''s mistakes makes you feel better about yourself then by all means continue. I''m pretty sure your probobly perfect yourself.

Idiot.[/quote]you''re probably

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so sure really. My opinion on the saga is that Hooper was by no means our first choice striker to bring in after RVW. I believe we have seen some of our top targets turn us down or perhaps waiting too long for a better option and Hughton and McNally thought it may be less risky if we signed Hooper up before he decided to join QPR. I expect QPR bidding forced our hand.
In Jan i think it was RVW or Hooper. Both play in the same position and with the 4 51 being Hughton''s preferred formation I don''t expect Hooper will start more than 20 games next season.
I hope i am wrong though and we got the man we wanted, i just have a little niggly feeling we rushed this transfer due to concerns on missing out on other targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it was RVW or Hooper in January then we failed on both counts.

I''m not sure that we were not in for Hooper. I think he was on our list of targets still from January. You wouldn''t bid up to the amount we did back then only to let him drop off the radar altogether.

I think we were interested in him earlier in the summer too, a few clubs were and were knocked back. I think one thing that has become clearer more recently is that he was not going to sign a new contract. That has forced their hand.

I think Hooper will play a fair bit.

I know I have been banging on about it all summer but I think Hughton wants choice and flexibility. He wants players that can start as well as that can offer him something from the bench.

Last season players like Jackson were never really starters, sure they could bring something from the bench with that added pace and energy. But at this level you want to be able to rest players from time to time, rotate things a bit and change/adapt tactics.

It wouldn''t surprise me to see us play a 4-4-1-1, RVW up top and a deeper lying player. The deeper striker role could then easily change. Perhaps away from home being a more creative passer who will more often than not drop back to midfield. At home we could play Hooper in that role and push him further forward so that you have him in and around RVW for knock downs and clever balls he can burst onto.

I think Johnson will play alongside Fer who will be asked to be the muscle when we haven''t got the ball and to use his strength, pace and guile to get forward when we have. A bit like how Yaya Toure plays in that he takes up a deeper position but motors forward when he has the chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="priceyrice"]Not so sure really. My opinion on the saga is that Hooper was by no means our first choice striker to bring in after RVW. I believe we have seen some of our top targets turn us down or perhaps waiting too long for a better option and Hughton and McNally thought it may be less risky if we signed Hooper up before he decided to join QPR. I expect QPR bidding forced our hand.


In Jan i think it was RVW or Hooper. Both play in the same position and with the 4 51 being Hughton''s preferred formation I don''t expect Hooper will start more than 20 games next season.


I hope i am wrong though and we got the man we wanted, i just have a little niggly feeling we rushed this transfer due to concerns on missing out on other targets.

[/quote]

I disagree. Respectfully!

I am really really relieved we''ve got Hooper and i think he has been our number one target in the summer window. Let me explain why. Hooper is our Holt replacement. Not RvW. RvW represents how we want to play or how we want to be able to play. But i would be concerned about making the leap from how we played last season to a more continental style that would be epitomised by RvW. It''s not something that you can just switch to from one season to the next. Our early pre-season games have shown that it won''t be a case of just throwing these new signings on the pitch and waiting for something to happen.

As such, Hooper gives us the option to play like we did last year (when we were winning i hasten to add) and i think it''s really important to have that as an option because the new boys and a new style are unlikely to be a rip roaring success straight from the off and you don''t want to put the added pressure on them of expecting them to be an instant hit in the EPL. As the previous post says, we definitely need options. Last season we only found one option that worked for us which was Holt up in a 4-5-1 and it''s a miracle we got away with just having that. Hoops, Becchio, RvW and a midfield bristling with talent and even more options means that we should be far better equipped this season.

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...