Hoolahan wants out (according to Talksport)

[TIL 1010 4,722]

Concerned = conceded.  [:$]

[The Great Mass Debater 1,078]

Can you imagine the backlash if a fans favourite was sold to the pantomime villain for peanuts? And then he did well for Villa. And we got relegated. Not sure the board want to hand that kind of stick to the fans to beat them with

[crabbycanary 2]

If Lambert is that keen on him, why has it taken 18 months to come to this point?

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

[quote user="lake district canary"]Lambert was supposed to be a fantastic manager, but look at him now - struggling and clutching at straws.  [/quote]

Would that be the same Lambert at Villa who have 3 more points than us, who sit 4 places above us in the Premiership, who have scored more and concerned less than us and who also have a goal difference which is 10 better than ours ?

[/quote]

I suppose I am thinking of the attacks he is getting from the Villa fans, who describe in almost identical terms as some do on here  for Hughton.   It ain''t working for him either as far as that goes, three points better off than us/goal difference etc, or not. 

[Warren Hill 0]

[quote user="can u sit down please"]As much as I anti hughton let''s look at this objectively. 1) Wes will probably get more game time. He needs this as its pivotal for his Ireland chances. O''neill rates him and he will want to feature. 2) financially it will "set him up". 31, last "big" move. 3) he played his best football under lambert, (at a lower level) why wouldn''t he want to play for him again. It will massively influence point 1. 4) he hasn''t featured much here. 5) he probably doesn''t enjoy it as much as he previously has. Everybody wants a sense of enjoyment in the job that they do. I really rate Wes and if used right, can be a good PL player. But players come and go. I would only let him go once we have a better replacement in. If he goes he will always be remembered as one if the most influential players we have had.[/quote]

 

I think Wes is awesome and can be worth the entrance money alone on his day, most of those days were at a lower level though and he is the one player that we''ve been crying out for an upgrade on. The probably''s are just speculation. Point 4 is essentially the same as point 1. That leaves point 3, that the move would be money driven, I guess that''s fair enough. [:D]

 

In terms of a replacement, David Silva will do if he''s available....

[YellowNets1901 0]

I don''t buy all this ''Wes was off for treatment'' stuff. If you have a player surrounded by transfer rumours, you make sure he''s at the game with the other injured players, if all is well.

You arrange his treatment for earlier in the day, after all kick off was at 3pm. He''s a Premier League player. If he''s getting treatment outside the club, then people will move schedule''s for him/the club, there''s no real excuse for Wes not to have been at the game.

[crabbycanary 2]

[quote user="YellowNets1901"]I don''t buy all this ''Wes was off for treatment'' stuff. If you have a player surrounded by transfer rumours, you make sure he''s at the game with the other injured players, if all is well.

You arrange his treatment for earlier in the day, after all kick off was at 3pm. He''s a Premier League player. If he''s getting treatment outside the club, then people will move schedule''s for him/the club, there''s no real excuse for Wes not to have been at the game.[/quote]

I do believe you are actually serious with this post Yellownets

[a1canary 0]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="a1canary"][quote user="a1canary"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="a1canary"]

The way i see it, i think he probably does want out and decided that not turning up on Saturday would get the ball rolling (as advised by his agent no doubt).

[/quote]

Probably I am having a senior moment but have I missed something here ? [*-)]

[/quote]

As in he wasn''t at the Fulham game when most of the senior players who weren''t playing were watching the game.

I know that''s reading something in to it but one thing you can be certain of is that Hoolahan/his agent would know full well that not being there would set tongues wagging. The fact that he reported a hitherto unknown injury on Friday doesn''t do a lot to disuade one from this theory!

[/quote]

...also, unless he has broken his leg or something, why does he need to have treatment on an injury at 3pm on a Saturday - seems awfully convenient! No, he wants out, i''m pretty certain of that. But as i''ve said, we needn''t do anything, and in fact it might work in our favour. I think a lot of it has to do with the World Cup which he''s desperate to play in. If we hold on to him and then let him play after January, he''s going to have to play out of his skin to book his place.

 

[/quote]

He''ll also have to get someone to forge him a new passport.

 

Idol speculation about where a player was on a match day doesn''t help anyone - there are many reasons why he might not be required to come to the game and putting 2 and 2 together to make 100 is as foolish as it is naive.

[/quote]

Do you actually think that not turning up to the game when most of your colleagues are there ISN''T going to start the rumour mill?

As YellowNets has just indicated, what''s truly naive is to think otherwise.

 

[Yorkshire Canary 118]

At 31 he is worth very little in financial terms. he has 18 months left on his contract and should stay here until after the end of this season. He can help us gain points and we do not want to let players go to another relegation haunted club which Villa are albeit they have more points in the bag. The way things are going Lambert may not even be Villa manager at the end of the season, and maybe Hughton wont either

[Felixfan 53]

If Mcnally does not want to sell him he will not go.

[BOO 0]

If he is to go then go at the end of the season, unless of course there is a wonder kid lined up to replace him now!

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

[quote user="a1canary"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="a1canary"][quote user="a1canary"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="a1canary"]

The way i see it, i think he probably does want out and decided that not turning up on Saturday would get the ball rolling (as advised by his agent no doubt).

[/quote]

Probably I am having a senior moment but have I missed something here ? [*-)]

[/quote]

As in he wasn''t at the Fulham game when most of the senior players who weren''t playing were watching the game.

I know that''s reading something in to it but one thing you can be certain of is that Hoolahan/his agent would know full well that not being there would set tongues wagging. The fact that he reported a hitherto unknown injury on Friday doesn''t do a lot to disuade one from this theory!

[/quote]

...also, unless he has broken his leg or something, why does he need to have treatment on an injury at 3pm on a Saturday - seems awfully convenient! No, he wants out, i''m pretty certain of that. But as i''ve said, we needn''t do anything, and in fact it might work in our favour. I think a lot of it has to do with the World Cup which he''s desperate to play in. If we hold on to him and then let him play after January, he''s going to have to play out of his skin to book his place.

 

[/quote]

He''ll also have to get someone to forge him a new passport.

 

Idol speculation about where a player was on a match day doesn''t help anyone - there are many reasons why he might not be required to come to the game and putting 2 and 2 together to make 100 is as foolish as it is naive.

[/quote]

Do you actually think that not turning up to the game when most of your colleagues are there ISN''T going to start the rumour mill?

As YellowNets has just indicated, what''s truly naive is to think otherwise.

 

[/quote]

But if he''s off getting treatment how is he suppose to be in two places at once? Plenty of other injured players haven''t come to watch games during their treatment - you only have to look at thier twitter feeds to see that. If it''s a muscle injury then he''ll be attached to one of those compression machines which means he wouldn''t be able to move around.

 

To be honest, I doubt the club really give a crap about ''the rumour mill'' they just want a player who has been featuring recently to fully recover ASAP. To suggest he''s gone AWOL on bequest of his manager is far less believable than injured player goes for treatment.

[can u sit down please 0]

Very true Tilly.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="Felixfan"]If Mcnally does not want to sell him he will not go.[/quote]

So if Hughton tells McNally he is prepared to let him go and he will not figure in the plans for the remainder of this season McNally will be bloody minded and keep him here paying his wages ?

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="a1canary"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="a1canary"][quote user="a1canary"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="a1canary"]

The way i see it, i think he probably does want out and decided that not turning up on Saturday would get the ball rolling (as advised by his agent no doubt).

[/quote]

Probably I am having a senior moment but have I missed something here ? [*-)]

[/quote]

As in he wasn''t at the Fulham game when most of the senior players who weren''t playing were watching the game.

I know that''s reading something in to it but one thing you can be certain of is that Hoolahan/his agent would know full well that not being there would set tongues wagging. The fact that he reported a hitherto unknown injury on Friday doesn''t do a lot to disuade one from this theory!

[/quote]

...also, unless he has broken his leg or something, why does he need to have treatment on an injury at 3pm on a Saturday - seems awfully convenient! No, he wants out, i''m pretty certain of that. But as i''ve said, we needn''t do anything, and in fact it might work in our favour. I think a lot of it has to do with the World Cup which he''s desperate to play in. If we hold on to him and then let him play after January, he''s going to have to play out of his skin to book his place.

 

[/quote]

He''ll also have to get someone to forge him a new passport.

 

Idol speculation about where a player was on a match day doesn''t help anyone - there are many reasons why he might not be required to come to the game and putting 2 and 2 together to make 100 is as foolish as it is naive.

[/quote]

Do you actually think that not turning up to the game when most of your colleagues are there ISN''T going to start the rumour mill?

As YellowNets has just indicated, what''s truly naive is to think otherwise.

 

[/quote]Most. Not all. So Wes wasn''t the only one missing was he? Why is no one mentioning any of the other players who were not there?I don''t think Elliott Bennett was there. He must be going with him to Villa too. Only possible conclusion.

[KeelansGlove 0]

The last manager that wanted to get rid of a fans favourite didn''t get his way.......

Although I cant really see Hoolahan fitting into a Hughton Team really, Doesn''t offer enough going forward and nothing tracking back.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="TIL 1010"]

[quote user="lake district canary"]Lambert was supposed to be a fantastic manager, but look at him now - struggling and clutching at straws. 
[/quote]

Would that be the same Lambert at Villa who have 3 more points than us, who sit 4 places above us in the Premiership, who have scored more and concerned less than us and who also have a goal difference which is 10 better than ours ?

[/quote]


I suppose I am thinking of the attacks he is getting from the Villa fans, who describe in almost identical terms as some do on here  for Hughton.   It ain''t working for him either as far as that goes, three points better off than us/goal difference etc, or not. 


[/quote]

Your flippant, sarcastic original post with regard to Lambert was a pathetic attempt to score points in favour of your desire to make out Hughton is currently the better manager but statistics paint a different picture. You sure love to dish lectures out but are never prepared to accept another view now are you Lakey ?

[YellowNets1901 0]

Hoolahan gives us an important option. A different way. A way that Hughton often fails to risk using.

We need Wes, in my opinion. It would be a double whammy if he left. We''d have no real attacking, creative midfielder, but Villa (our relegation rivals) would have a lovely new one at their disposal.

Yes, he may not score enough, but he''s just special sometimes. A wonderful footballer when he turns it on.

With regards to my pervious post about him not being there on Saturday and this fuelling rumours. I stand by it. Any manager worth his salt knows what a move like this will create - speculation.

[ncfcstar 287]

[quote user="KeelansGlove"]The last manager that wanted to get rid of a fans favourite didn''t get his way.......

Although I cant really see Hoolahan fitting into a Hughton Team really, Doesn''t offer enough going forward and nothing tracking back.[/quote]Now I''m convinced you don''t actually watch any of our games.The one thing that Wes has really improved on since his PL debut is tracking back and defending, and he should be highly commended for doing that.  I don''t love Wes, he''s a frustrating player because he is ''almost'' a lot of the time, but he does offer both forward momentum and defensive stability to the midfield.And to say Hughton doesn''t like him...33 PL appearances under Lambert in 11/1233 PL appearances under Hughton in 12/13But lets not let that get in the way of yet another stick to beat Hughton with eh?

[YellowNets1901 0]

I always felt Lambert knew Wes inside out. Knew when to leave him out, knew when to put him in. Hughton doesn''t know him well enough, which is a concern after 18 months in charge.

So whilst he may have had 33 appearances for PL and 33 for CH last season, he was more effective under Lambert.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="lake district canary"]Lambert was supposed to be a fantastic manager, but look at him now - struggling and clutching at straws. 

[/quote]Would that be the same Lambert at Villa who have 3 more points than us, who sit 4 places above us in the Premiership, who have scored more and concerned less than us and who also have a goal difference which is 10 better than ours ?[/quote]I suppose I am thinking of the attacks he is getting from the Villa fans, who describe in almost identical terms as some do on here  for Hughton.   It ain''t working for him either as far as that goes, three points better off than us/goal difference etc, or not.  [/quote]

Your flippant, sarcastic original post with regard to Lambert was a pathetic attempt to score points in favour of your desire to make out Hughton is currently the better manager but statistics paint a different picture. You sure love to dish lectures out but are never prepared to accept another view now are you Lakey ?

[/quote]Oh give over, Til.   I doubt if Hughton can achieve what Lambert achieved, but he could, given time consolidate and put in a structure that will stand the test of time in the premiership.  As for sarcastic, that is your intepretation.  The fact is that there is similar noise being made about Lambert at Villa as there is on this board about Hughton.  What have statistics got to do with anything?  Some Villa fans'' expectations are not being met anymore than some of our fans'' expectations of Hughton.  And to me, if he wants Wes, then yes, he is clutching at straws - not because Wes isn''t good enough - but because he is harping back to the past success of his previous job instead of looking forward.

[ncfcstar 287]

[quote user="YellowNets1901"]I always felt Lambert knew Wes inside out. Knew when to leave him out, knew when to put him in. Hughton doesn''t know him well enough, which is a concern after 18 months in charge.

So whilst he may have had 33 appearances for PL and 33 for CH last season, he was more effective under Lambert.[/quote]An absolute nothing statement with no basis in fact at all, just another Hughton bashing.

[TheRock 159]

[quote user="KeelansGlove"]The last manager that wanted to get rid of a fans favourite didn''t get his way.......[/quote]This is exactaly what i thought when I heard the rumour on Saturday. If Hughton lets Wes leave, alot of supporters will be unhappy, simply because he such a character at the club and a "fan''s favourite".

[YellowNets1901 0]

Not at all. Felt Hoolahan had more of an impact under Lambert, who knew when and how to use him. Not the same with Hughton.

[KeelansGlove 0]

I didn''t say Hughton didn''t like him in fact I was suggesting even if he didn''t like him that that wouldn''t mean he would be sold.

Personally despite watching him regularly I do not believe any manager has found any formation other than the diamond that plays to his strengths and makes us a cohesive team.

Sure play him on the wing, shoehorn him in behind a striker when he hardly ever shoots this is what has always made him frustrating and as he gets older will he become more productive ?

I am not questioning his will to tackle or track back just that he 4ft nothing and less effective than the player we should be playing in that position.

3 Goals and more importantly 4 assists in the last 2 seasons just isn''t enough regardless of how good he looks on the ball.

[Beefy is a legend 224]

[quote user="YellowNets1901"]Not at all. Felt Hoolahan had more of an impact under Lambert, who knew when and how to use him. Not the same with Hughton.[/quote]

The point is, Yellownets, as others have tried to point out, that your ''feeling'' is irrelevant. You have to look at the evidence. Wes undoubtedly achieved more in the lower leagues, because the standard is lower. You are saying that he achieved more because Lambert was manager, not Hughton. Where is the evidence for that? He played the same number of games for CH last season as he did under PL the season before.

In 2011/12 under PL he made 29 starts and 8 sub appearances, scoring 5 goals and 8 assists.

In 2012/13 under CH he made 29 starts and 7 sub appearances, scoring 4 goals and 3 assists.

The difference is hardly overwhelming, though a slight downtrend perhaps indicates the fact that we were playing one up front through alot of the 2012/13 season.

[a1canary 0]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="a1canary"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="a1canary"][quote user="a1canary"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="a1canary"]

The way i see it, i think he probably does want out and decided that not turning up on Saturday would get the ball rolling (as advised by his agent no doubt).

[/quote]

Probably I am having a senior moment but have I missed something here ? [*-)]

[/quote]

As in he wasn''t at the Fulham game when most of the senior players who weren''t playing were watching the game.

I know that''s reading something in to it but one thing you can be certain of is that Hoolahan/his agent would know full well that not being there would set tongues wagging. The fact that he reported a hitherto unknown injury on Friday doesn''t do a lot to disuade one from this theory!

[/quote]

...also, unless he has broken his leg or something, why does he need to have treatment on an injury at 3pm on a Saturday - seems awfully convenient! No, he wants out, i''m pretty certain of that. But as i''ve said, we needn''t do anything, and in fact it might work in our favour. I think a lot of it has to do with the World Cup which he''s desperate to play in. If we hold on to him and then let him play after January, he''s going to have to play out of his skin to book his place.

[/quote]

He''ll also have to get someone to forge him a new passport.

Idol speculation about where a player was on a match day doesn''t help anyone - there are many reasons why he might not be required to come to the game and putting 2 and 2 together to make 100 is as foolish as it is naive.

[/quote]

Do you actually think that not turning up to the game when most of your colleagues are there ISN''T going to start the rumour mill?

As YellowNets has just indicated, what''s truly naive is to think otherwise.

[/quote]

But if he''s off getting treatment how is he suppose to be in two places at once? Plenty of other injured players haven''t come to watch games during their treatment - you only have to look at thier twitter feeds to see that. If it''s a muscle injury then he''ll be attached to one of those compression machines which means he wouldn''t be able to move around.

To be honest, I doubt the club really give a crap about ''the rumour mill'' they just want a player who has been featuring recently to fully recover ASAP. To suggest he''s gone AWOL on bequest of his manager is far less believable than injured player goes for treatment.

[/quote]

Sorry, who said he went AWOL? He reports an injury on Friday and ''goes for treatment'' on Saturday. At 3pm. If he has a serious injury (that the manager knew nothing about until Wes himself ''reported'' it - Hughton''s words) and therefore HAD to go for treatment between 3 and 5 on Saturday, then fine, i could accept that. But it seems a highly unlikely set of circumstances that just don''t stack up. I believe that we may not have had an offer yet, i believe CH when he says he hasn''t heard anything, i also think it absolutely stacks up that Wes should want out if he isn''t playing - he does want to play in the World Cup and he has got to be playing if he wants to be sure of going.

I reckon his absence v Fulham was his first move at the start of the window to try and get a move away. But i don''t think it''ll work.

If you really think that this is all just a co-incidence that''s fine, you might be right. There''s room for all of us and for different ideas in the broad pinkun church!

[YellowNets1901 0]

I agree with a1canary. The club could''ve avoided speculation by insisting Wes'' treatment took place early on Saturday or after the game. They''ve brought speculation on themselves here.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

[quote user="a1canary"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="a1canary"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="a1canary"][quote user="a1canary"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="a1canary"]

The way i see it, i think he probably does want out and decided that not turning up on Saturday would get the ball rolling (as advised by his agent no doubt).

[/quote]

Probably I am having a senior moment but have I missed something here ? [*-)]

[/quote]

As in he wasn''t at the Fulham game when most of the senior players who weren''t playing were watching the game.

I know that''s reading something in to it but one thing you can be certain of is that Hoolahan/his agent would know full well that not being there would set tongues wagging. The fact that he reported a hitherto unknown injury on Friday doesn''t do a lot to disuade one from this theory!

[/quote]

...also, unless he has broken his leg or something, why does he need to have treatment on an injury at 3pm on a Saturday - seems awfully convenient! No, he wants out, i''m pretty certain of that. But as i''ve said, we needn''t do anything, and in fact it might work in our favour. I think a lot of it has to do with the World Cup which he''s desperate to play in. If we hold on to him and then let him play after January, he''s going to have to play out of his skin to book his place.

[/quote]

He''ll also have to get someone to forge him a new passport.

Idol speculation about where a player was on a match day doesn''t help anyone - there are many reasons why he might not be required to come to the game and putting 2 and 2 together to make 100 is as foolish as it is naive.

[/quote]

Do you actually think that not turning up to the game when most of your colleagues are there ISN''T going to start the rumour mill?

As YellowNets has just indicated, what''s truly naive is to think otherwise.

[/quote]

But if he''s off getting treatment how is he suppose to be in two places at once? Plenty of other injured players haven''t come to watch games during their treatment - you only have to look at thier twitter feeds to see that. If it''s a muscle injury then he''ll be attached to one of those compression machines which means he wouldn''t be able to move around.

To be honest, I doubt the club really give a crap about ''the rumour mill'' they just want a player who has been featuring recently to fully recover ASAP. To suggest he''s gone AWOL on bequest of his manager is far less believable than injured player goes for treatment.

[/quote]

Sorry, who said he went AWOL? He reports an injury on Friday and ''goes for treatment'' on Saturday. At 3pm. If he has a serious injury (that the manager knew nothing about until Wes himself ''reported'' it - Hughton''s words) and therefore HAD to go for treatment between 3 and 5 on Saturday, then fine, i could accept that. But it seems a highly unlikely set of circumstances that just don''t stack up. I believe that we may not have had an offer yet, i believe CH when he says he hasn''t heard anything, i also think it absolutely stacks up that Wes should want out if he isn''t playing - he does want to play in the World Cup and he has got to be playing if he wants to be sure of going.

I reckon his absence v Fulham was his first move at the start of the window to try and get a move away. But i don''t think it''ll work.

If you really think that this is all just a co-incidence that''s fine, you might be right. There''s room for all of us and for different ideas in the broad pinkun church!

[/quote]

Didn''t you say that in your original post - the whole ''decided not to turn up'' line suggests that.

 

I doubt his treatment started perfectly 3pm on Saturday - but treatments for injuries aren''t just a player coming in, getting a massage and a plaster. He probably had treatment on Friday and Saturday. If he wasn''t actually getting treatment during the game he was probably told to go home and rest rather than sitting outside for 90mins in the freezing cold. The players aren''t at the games due to their own free will, they are told to come in and watch the games. Some want to be there and some don''t - same at every club.

 

I''m not sure what World Cup you are talking about - Ireland aren''t in the 2014 one and he''ll be 35 come 2018 (and I doubt he is plotting his transfer activity thinking 4 years ahead).

[can u sit down please 0]

The club are expecting a bid in the next day or two.