Rhodes linked again

[# 0]

Bite the bullet City and go get him.[Y]

[jaemae2 0]

[quote user="Newton"]Darth Catbeard wrote the following post at 07/07/2014 3:43 PM:

I''d rather we persevere with RVW as our main striker than Hooper or Rhodes.

You want us to end up in League 1 then

Please tell me one game where Wolf played well ?[/quote]

Name one Hooper played well in...

[Yellowbeagle 0]

10m on a player who does very little but score goals, I''d rather stick with what we have. Would be a gamble even if we were in the prem, which is probably why there isn''t a big queue.

[Highland Canary 76]

I would have thought if Rhodes does nothing other than score goals that is exactly what we need.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Yellowbeagle"]10m on a player who does very little but score goals, I''d rather stick with what we have. Would be a gamble even if we were in the prem, which is probably why there isn''t a big queue.[/quote]

Yep.  We only paid £4 million for a player who just scores goals and little else........

Snodgrass, in case you were wondering.........

[splutcho 173]

The fact that you have to tell everyone who you were talking about, should show you that you''re talking absolute b*llocks as per.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="splutcho"]The fact that you have to tell everyone who you were talking about, should show you that you''re talking absolute b*llocks as per.[/quote]

Twas tongue in cheek, but as you mentioned it - how many assists? How many quality crosses (quality, not quantity)?  How many corners that led to goals? How many penalties that he shouldn''t have been taking missed?   Goals, yes - a few - but precious little else apart from huff and puff.

[Newton 0]

give u 2 games

Swansea & Palace at home

[Yellowbeagle 0]

[quote user="Highland Canary"]I would have thought if Rhodes does nothing other than score goals that is exactly what we need.[/quote]

You should know as well as I, that no player is guaranteed to score for a new club. 10m and to not have a better all round game is a huge risk for a club like ours. One bad season for us and he could well be a bigger flop than RVW. I like Rhodes but for 10m, no thanks.

[Herman 9,713]

You forget his really good first season LDC. I am not his biggest fan after last year either, but let''s not neglect his major influence the year before.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"], but as you mentioned it - how many assists? How many quality crosses (quality, not quantity)?  How many corners that led to goals? How many penalties that he shouldn''t have been taking missed?   Goals, yes - a few - but precious little else apart from huff and puff.

[/quote]Bl**dy hell Lake. You used to have a pop at me for moaning about Hughton after he''d passed his sell-by date, but unless I''m very much mistaken, you are whining on about a player who is now on Hull City''s books.

[chicken 0]

Lake District - Snodgrass did not cost us £4million. If he did at that point he would have been the club record signing. He wasn''t.The rumours were that he cost in the region of £2-£2.5million.Plus he was one of the most influential players season before last - the reason people thought he was poor this season is mainly due to not living up to the success of the previous one which in part could be put down to injuries.If Snodgrass is that rubbish, why would anyone in the premier league come sniffing for him? We already know at least two other clubs had made concrete offers/approaches for him but were knocked back by our club.

[Cheap Cheap Cheap Canaries 0]

How is it a gamble if we were selling Hooper and Wolf ? in fact you would probably call it downgrading as the transfer fees of both would cover his purchase and his wages would be less than their two put together surely .A £10 million pound striker sounds extravagant but if your offloading £13.5 millions worth of striker then its really not the case .

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="chicken"]Plus he was one of the most influential players season before last - the reason people thought he was poor this season is mainly due to not living up to the success of the previous one which in part could be put down to injuries.If Snodgrass is that rubbish, why would anyone in the premier league come sniffing for him? We already know at least two other clubs had made concrete offers/approaches for him but were knocked back by our club.[/quote][quote user="Herman "]You forget his really good first season LDC. I am

not his biggest fan after last year either, but let''s not neglect his

major influence the year before.[/quote]I take your points guys, but that season the goals dried up too after Christmas - due to being unable to create anything of note in a midfield in which he was prominent.   As for Snodgrass at another club, it will be a major interest to see how he does and whether he can be effective in a better team, or if that team has similar problems to us. When Leeds lost one or two players and he was made captain the goals dried up then............the record speaks for itself. 

 

[Yellow Wal 314]

What will be interesting will be the position he plays for Hull.

I bet it isn''t right wing.

[Billabong 0]

For someone who spent 85 mins whining and complaining and 5 mis running - I don''t reckon it matters where Snodgrass plays for Hull

He might have huffed and puffed a bit and had two or three memorable moments but lets get real.

When I think of him, I see a whining player, complaining to the ref, being negative to his own players, getting knocked off the ball, more complaining slow build up, looking for free kicks and going down, more complaining! losing the ball - big negative frown, more complaining and demonstrations to the ref and his own players

Just losing his negative attitude is like gaining an extra player in my opinion - he won''t be missed, that''s one thing I''m sure about

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Billabong"]For someone who spent 85 mins whining and complaining and 5 mis running - I don''t reckon it matters where Snodgrass plays for Hull

He might have huffed and puffed a bit and had two or three memorable moments but lets get real.

When I think of him, I see a whining player, complaining to the ref, being negative to his own players, getting knocked off the ball, more complaining slow build up, looking for free kicks and going down, more complaining! losing the ball - big negative frown, more complaining and demonstrations to the ref and his own players

Just losing his negative attitude is like gaining an extra player in my opinion - he won''t be missed, that''s one thing I''m sure about[/quote]

Spoken like a true Aussie.  I''ve criticised him the whole time he was at Norwich for his attitude and waste of energy arguing and moaning and also think we''ll be better without him, but time will tell......

[Yellow Wal 314]

There are quite a few who feel that way.

I cannot think of a better piece of business that we have ever negotiated than his sale for the price we are to get.

I would have been happy with half the reported amount.

Time will tell if we are right.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

How will time tell if you were right?? Are we going to replay last season without Snoddy? The fact that we got the reported fee for him suggests Steve Bruce doesn''t think you''re right. But he''s probably just another PL manager you know better than....

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]How will time tell if you were right?? Are we going to replay last season without Snoddy? The fact that we got the reported fee for him suggests Steve Bruce doesn''t think you''re right. But he''s probably just another PL manager you know better than....[/quote]

The proof of the pudding will be how well Snoddy does at Hull.   If they struggle for goals, if their attack slows down, if he can''t get a game, or if he does well and Hull prosper with him in the team - then we will have a better idea.  Why do we have to have these "another PL manager we know better than" comments?   Its all about opinions and YW and me are entitled to ours and give reasons as is any critic or fan of any player. 

[chicken 0]

Whilst I won''t disagree with what some have said - Yellow Wall, you really need to consider the current market.2 years ago, Matt Jarvis was signed, aged 26, by West Ham for a club record fee which was undisclosed but rumoured to be £7.5 million, rising to £10.75 million.Whilst it''s almost certain that some people are going to say that he is a better player as he has more pace etc he has scored 4 goals in 57 appearances. In the same period Snodgrass has made 74 appearances and scored 14 goals. Scoring 6 league goals in each of the last two seasons, last year managing that feat despite playing less games than the year before.Slate him all you like, but if a team want a goal scoring midfielder, he is pretty consistent. Personally, and I have said this for a while, I''d have liked to have seen him given a role like Wes'' in behind the striker. I think he has the ability to hit a shot, play a pass and to win free kicks in better positions in that position.His attitude may well have been poor at times, but there were a few you could have said that about last season, and he certainly stood up to be counted when needed where as others didn''t.He goes with my best wishes, but to say he is only worth £3.5-£4million is ridiculous. That''s the sort of deal that would leave us high and dry.

[Yellow Wal 314]

Time will tell whether we are right during next season and how Snodgrass fits in and plays at Hull.

If he is an outstanding success, on the right wing, then I will undoubtedly be wrong.

I don''t know better than Steve Bruce, as you well know. But you should also be able to remember that Steve Bruce paid £8M for Connor Wickham three years ago in a deal that could potentially rise to £12M so perhaps, like all managers, just as posters on here, they are not always right.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

But it doesn''t work like that. If it did how do you explain the failure to remain in the prem of so many of our stars from the Lambert era and even lambert himself. Players and managers rarely perform the same for their various clubs throughout their careers. That''s why transfers and managerial appointments are always a bit of a lottery.

[Yellow Wal 314]

Chicken - I did not say he was only worth £3.5 - £4 million - I said that I would be happy to have got that for him - there is a difference!

I have also said for quite a while that I do not consider him to be a poor player but I also said that I would never want to see him on the right wing again for us, I have continually pointed out that he does not play there for Scotland where he has success.

I do not like what I see of his attitude on the pitch and feel that we will be better off without some of his antics.

I do not believe Matt Jarvis has ever been looked upon as a goalscoring midfielder/winger, more of a supplier. Even so I do not believe that West Ham supporters will feel they got their money''s worth at that price.

[lharman7 39]

Nutty, you have just answered your own argument.

[splutcho 173]

Also, Wickham just paid for his transfer fee and more at the end of last season when his goals kept them up.

[Canary fun and games 0]

No matter how many goals he could score for us he is unacceptable.

Get real he is an ex binner. It is bad enough we have one on the management team as well as putting one on the pitch!

[Highland Canary 76]

Wickham was largely responsible for securing £100m for Sunderland which, will cover a £10m transfer fee. I suspect a manager of Bruce''s experience will leverage even more from our former best player. He might start by playing Snodgrass through the centre or on the left? With their other signings Hull will stay up again this season.

For us key is now hanging on to Hooper. But a swap for Rhodes involving RvW (and Becchio) and cash would be well worth considering. However, I suspect RvW''s market value is not much more than seven figures now so would not make much of a dent in the required fee.

[chuggs 0]

Thank goodness some one got back to the thread about Rhodes after reading 2 pages about Snodgrass, get over it great business by the club, so do you think we will go back in for Rhodes? I would be well happy to see Hooper go whuch would then generate the extra money for Rhodes. :)

[Canary fun and games 0]

[quote user="chuggs"]Thank goodness some one got back to the thread about Rhodes after reading 2 pages about Snodgrass, get over it great business by the club, so do you think we will go back in for Rhodes? I would be well happy to see Hooper go whuch would then generate the extra money for Rhodes. :)[/quote]

Thanks Chuggs I am one of the few posters who never sends a thread off topic