|
Post by backonthecoupon on Jul 30, 2014 8:11:20 GMT
Interesting update from on Radox last night.
Bevans going to be sent out on loan.
Hunt could be tried in one of the holding roles in midfield.
|
|
|
Post by tatabanya on Jul 30, 2014 8:28:58 GMT
Go on, expand. What is the point I have missed? Or are you going keep banging your silly drum about how much we need strikers? Yes, we know, and Appleton knows. I find it incredible that you can't see that? You've let me down, I thought you were deliberately ignoring the word "if". The painfully obvious point that the gentleman was making, was that IF the signing of Riley impacted on the budget available for strikers, it was a poor signing as it was not the optimum use of the budget. He also said that IF it didnt impact that budget, it was a good signing. He said "if" it impacted the budget it was a "disastrous" not "poor". And do you not understand that without knowing what the budget for the strikers is or know which strikers we are going to bring in that is a ludicrous call to make? We will still have a hefty chunk of out budget left to spend, that much is clear. Anyone who knows anything about football will know that a 6 month loan of a youngster getting back to fitness will cost us very little. On the off chance that we are paying over the odds (a silly hypothetic scenario) then it is still moronic to call it a disaster as the fact remains that MApp sees this as a position that needs sorting. I think everyone on the planet now knows about your fears about our striking recruitment, but if our manager shared your attitude of spend all our money asap on forwards and ignore other weaknesses in the team, THAT would be disastrous.
|
|
|
Post by Si Bradbury on Jul 30, 2014 9:33:03 GMT
Well Bevans will go out on loan and that should aid his development quicker and further. Productive all round.
Riley looked much improved on both Hunt and Bevans. He looked decent, liked to go forward, positioned himself well both defensively and making himself available down the flank. Quite impressed with that.
George Long is far improved on Max, having watched him last night. Again a very good signing and no doubt it shouldn't have any impact on the offensive players which will be coming through.
|
|
|
Post by bazzer9461 on Jul 30, 2014 10:24:48 GMT
Ah well goals against wont be many then......Neither goals scored! Read it all Bazzer. I read your post ooops misread ljs .... however we still need as you and I agree on 2 strikers preferably with some pedigree.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2014 11:56:30 GMT
I read your post ooops misread ljs .... however we still need as you and I agree on 2 strikers preferably with some pedigree. We need 1 or 2 strikers? If only someone had mentioned this sooner.
|
|
|
Post by m on Jul 30, 2014 12:00:13 GMT
I read your post ooops misread ljs .... however we still need as you and I agree on 2 strikers preferably with some pedigree. We need 1 or 2 strikers? If only someone had mentioned this sooner. Could someone please let Appleton know as I doubt he's aware....
|
|
|
Post by backonthecoupon on Jul 30, 2014 12:59:28 GMT
You've let me down, I thought you were deliberately ignoring the word "if". The painfully obvious point that the gentleman was making, was that IF the signing of Riley impacted on the budget available for strikers, it was a poor signing as it was not the optimum use of the budget. He also said that IF it didnt impact that budget, it was a good signing. He said "if" it impacted the budget it was a "disastrous" not "poor". And do you not understand that without knowing what the budget for the strikers is or know which strikers we are going to bring in that is a ludicrous call to make? We will still have a hefty chunk of out budget left to spend, that much is clear. Anyone who knows anything about football will know that a 6 month loan of a youngster getting back to fitness will cost us very little. On the off chance that we are paying over the odds (a silly hypothetic scenario) then it is still moronic to call it a disaster as the fact remains that MApp sees this as a position that needs sorting. I think everyone on the planet now knows about your fears about our striking recruitment, but if our manager shared your attitude of spend all our money asap on forwards and ignore other weaknesses in the team, THAT would be disastrous. No one said that they should spend all the budget on strikers, or that there wouldnt be any strikers signed Interesting your assertion that it is moronic to question the manager's decisions though.
|
|
|
Post by tatabanya on Jul 30, 2014 15:10:57 GMT
He said "if" it impacted the budget it was a "disastrous" not "poor". And do you not understand that without knowing what the budget for the strikers is or know which strikers we are going to bring in that is a ludicrous call to make? We will still have a hefty chunk of out budget left to spend, that much is clear. Anyone who knows anything about football will know that a 6 month loan of a youngster getting back to fitness will cost us very little. On the off chance that we are paying over the odds (a silly hypothetic scenario) then it is still moronic to call it a disaster as the fact remains that MApp sees this as a position that needs sorting. I think everyone on the planet now knows about your fears about our striking recruitment, but if our manager shared your attitude of spend all our money asap on forwards and ignore other weaknesses in the team, THAT would be disastrous. No one said that they should spend all the budget on strikers, or that there wouldnt be any strikers signed Interesting your assertion that it is moronic to question the manager's decisions though. But you are questioning Appleton's decision before you actually know what his decision is.
|
|