The ArgusAlbion sign Manchester United whizz kid (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Albion sign Manchester United whizz kid

The Argus: Jesse Lingard Jesse Lingard

Albion have boosted their challenge for the Championship play-offs by landing hot prospect Jesse Lingard on loan from Manchester United.

The 21-year-old striker has signed for the Seagulls for the rest of the season on a 93-day deal, including the play-offs, and goes straight into contention for Saturday's trip to Millwall.

Lingard scored six goals in 13 games on loan to Championship rivals Birmingham earlier this season, including four in the space of 31 minutes on his full League debut in a 4-1 home win against Sheffield Wednesday in September.

He also netted in a 4-0 home win against Millwall the following month.

Birmingham wanted him back but Albion have beaten off interest from them and other Championship clubs to capture the England under 21 international.

Head coach Oscar Garcia said: "We are delighted we have finally secured Jesse until the end of the season. He is one of the most exciting young English strikers and has already created a lot of interest following his successful loan spell at Birmingham City earlier this season.

"We worked hard to secure a talent who has already shown he can play at Championship level, and I am very pleased to have added Jesse to our striking options for the rest of the season.

"He has an excellent pedigree, having come through the academy at Old Trafford, and there is no doubt that he has a lot of talent and ability; I am really looking forward to working with him.

"There were many clubs interested in signing him, so we are very grateful to David Moyes and all those at Manchester United for allowing him to come to us here at Brighton & Hove Albion."

Lingard is highly regarded by Moyes. He top scored with four goals in as many games on United's pre-season tour of Australia and Asia and was an unused sub for last month's Premier League fixture against Swansea.

Albion tried to sign Lingard in January, when he was also linked with a move to Fulham.

Albion's head of football operations David Burke said: "Jesse has a lot of natural ability and is someone we have been aware of for some time, along with several other Premier League and Championship clubs he was one of our main targets during the transfer window.

"However, he wasn't available to us at that stage, but knowing that he was likely to become available we made the decision to wait as we felt we had a good chance of bringing him here.

"It was a case of convincing him and Manchester United that Brighton & Hove Albion was the next step for Jesse's development. We are delighted that hard work and patience has paid off."

Lingard joins Albion fresh from scoring the only goal for Manchester United's under 21's against Sunderland on Monday night, which prompted coach Warren Joyce to label him "different class".

Comments (123)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:35pm Thu 27 Feb 14

dave from bexill says...

Suddenly the suns come out again. Good thing is as well, OG certain to have been aware of this player and seen him against us for Birmingham. Brilliant.
Suddenly the suns come out again. Good thing is as well, OG certain to have been aware of this player and seen him against us for Birmingham. Brilliant. dave from bexill
  • Score: 29

12:36pm Thu 27 Feb 14

WestStander17 says...

Sounds like a good prospect. Interesting to see how he fits in. Playing from wide, to share time with Leo or play alongside him.
Sounds like a good prospect. Interesting to see how he fits in. Playing from wide, to share time with Leo or play alongside him. WestStander17
  • Score: 14

12:36pm Thu 27 Feb 14

daveyboy35 says...

Boom!!!
Boom!!! daveyboy35
  • Score: 20

12:38pm Thu 27 Feb 14

DuncanThickett says...

That's pretty darn great, a young talented striker. If he fits in well, maybe a perm deal can be done over the summer. Happy.
That's pretty darn great, a young talented striker. If he fits in well, maybe a perm deal can be done over the summer. Happy. DuncanThickett
  • Score: 22

12:40pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Albion In Staffs says...

And all achieved within the structure.
Isn't FFP a wonderful thing?
And all achieved within the structure. Isn't FFP a wonderful thing? Albion In Staffs
  • Score: 14

12:41pm Thu 27 Feb 14

john newman says...

If he was that good would he not be in Man U team at the moment.?
If he was that good would he not be in Man U team at the moment.? john newman
  • Score: -95

12:42pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Quiterie says...

Now you're talking!!!!! This is much more like it!!!!

4 goals in the space of 31 minutes on his League debut..... that'll do for me!!!!
Now you're talking!!!!! This is much more like it!!!! 4 goals in the space of 31 minutes on his League debut..... that'll do for me!!!! Quiterie
  • Score: 18

12:45pm Thu 27 Feb 14

DuncanThickett says...

DuncanThickett wrote:
That's pretty darn great, a young talented striker. If he fits in well, maybe a perm deal can be done over the summer. Happy.
Wow, a thumbs down immediately on my message of positivity. Some people are never happy and thrive in stories of gloom obviously.
[quote][p][bold]DuncanThickett[/bold] wrote: That's pretty darn great, a young talented striker. If he fits in well, maybe a perm deal can be done over the summer. Happy.[/p][/quote]Wow, a thumbs down immediately on my message of positivity. Some people are never happy and thrive in stories of gloom obviously. DuncanThickett
  • Score: -5

12:50pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Hugothepug says...

Watched him a bit during utds per season games. Him and janezi were stand out players for me. Unlike Birmingham we create many more chances so think he will be in an the amongst the Goals. Great signing - just what we needed!! Well happy!!
Watched him a bit during utds per season games. Him and janezi were stand out players for me. Unlike Birmingham we create many more chances so think he will be in an the amongst the Goals. Great signing - just what we needed!! Well happy!! Hugothepug
  • Score: 23

12:51pm Thu 27 Feb 14

albionfan33 says...

john newman wrote:
If he was that good would he not be in Man U team at the moment.?
hes good but i doubt he will shift rooney or rvp atm dumb@rse
[quote][p][bold]john newman[/bold] wrote: If he was that good would he not be in Man U team at the moment.?[/p][/quote]hes good but i doubt he will shift rooney or rvp atm dumb@rse albionfan33
  • Score: 34

12:56pm Thu 27 Feb 14

SecondReserve says...

He certainly looks good - surely a huge improvement on Rodriguez and Obika. Just don't let him take any penalties!
He certainly looks good - surely a huge improvement on Rodriguez and Obika. Just don't let him take any penalties! SecondReserve
  • Score: 13

1:03pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Zamora251 says...

Very happy that Brighton have signed Jesse Lingard, proven goal scorer at championship level, this is exactly what Brighton needed, now I think there is a realistic chance the seagulls could make the play-offs, roll on Saturday!! UTA
Very happy that Brighton have signed Jesse Lingard, proven goal scorer at championship level, this is exactly what Brighton needed, now I think there is a realistic chance the seagulls could make the play-offs, roll on Saturday!! UTA Zamora251
  • Score: 18

1:14pm Thu 27 Feb 14

brightonup says...

DuncanThickett wrote:
DuncanThickett wrote:
That's pretty darn great, a young talented striker. If he fits in well, maybe a perm deal can be done over the summer. Happy.
Wow, a thumbs down immediately on my message of positivity. Some people are never happy and thrive in stories of gloom obviously.
Perhaps you are getting the thumbs down and not your comment......
[quote][p][bold]DuncanThickett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DuncanThickett[/bold] wrote: That's pretty darn great, a young talented striker. If he fits in well, maybe a perm deal can be done over the summer. Happy.[/p][/quote]Wow, a thumbs down immediately on my message of positivity. Some people are never happy and thrive in stories of gloom obviously.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you are getting the thumbs down and not your comment...... brightonup
  • Score: -9

1:14pm Thu 27 Feb 14

brightonup says...

DuncanThickett wrote:
DuncanThickett wrote:
That's pretty darn great, a young talented striker. If he fits in well, maybe a perm deal can be done over the summer. Happy.
Wow, a thumbs down immediately on my message of positivity. Some people are never happy and thrive in stories of gloom obviously.
Perhaps you are getting the thumbs down and not your comment......
[quote][p][bold]DuncanThickett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DuncanThickett[/bold] wrote: That's pretty darn great, a young talented striker. If he fits in well, maybe a perm deal can be done over the summer. Happy.[/p][/quote]Wow, a thumbs down immediately on my message of positivity. Some people are never happy and thrive in stories of gloom obviously.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you are getting the thumbs down and not your comment...... brightonup
  • Score: -7

1:16pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Steveg1958 says...

Good news at last, all we need now is decent attacking midfielder for the run in and send Obika back and I will be happy that we have given it a go, hopefully he won't sit warming the bench while we play one up front !. Cmon Albion go for it PLEEEEEEAS...
Good news at last, all we need now is decent attacking midfielder for the run in and send Obika back and I will be happy that we have given it a go, hopefully he won't sit warming the bench while we play one up front !. Cmon Albion go for it PLEEEEEEAS... Steveg1958
  • Score: 10

1:18pm Thu 27 Feb 14

brightonup says...

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=2HMDCgRj1
xA
http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=2HMDCgRj1 xA brightonup
  • Score: 4

1:19pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Far gull says...

At last a positive move.
At last a positive move. Far gull
  • Score: 7

1:20pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Barney123 says...

Positive to a point.

We just need to play one striker at a time now for more than 2 minutes at the end of the game!!!!!
Positive to a point. We just need to play one striker at a time now for more than 2 minutes at the end of the game!!!!! Barney123
  • Score: 9

1:23pm Thu 27 Feb 14

VegasSeagull says...

Come the summer clear out and rebuild this is they type of lad one would hope we can afford to buy, or take on a season long loan deal. This kid has a talent for scoring, there are others who play different positions that are young and highly rated too. Moyes has some rebuilding to do and if he signs a marquee striker to add to Van and Roo, he just might be prepared to sell this kid.
Come the summer clear out and rebuild this is they type of lad one would hope we can afford to buy, or take on a season long loan deal. This kid has a talent for scoring, there are others who play different positions that are young and highly rated too. Moyes has some rebuilding to do and if he signs a marquee striker to add to Van and Roo, he just might be prepared to sell this kid. VegasSeagull
  • Score: 9

1:23pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Tonyuk175 says...

Let's hope we start with 2 up front starting this weekend UTA
Let's hope we start with 2 up front starting this weekend UTA Tonyuk175
  • Score: 9

1:24pm Thu 27 Feb 14

russellsnr2 says...

OK at last someone that seems to fit the bill (A goal scorer) but!! is he going to be played alongside Ulloa or sit on the bench waiting his turn?. I hope at last we can play two up front and get the ball in the net more often!!!
OK at last someone that seems to fit the bill (A goal scorer) but!! is he going to be played alongside Ulloa or sit on the bench waiting his turn?. I hope at last we can play two up front and get the ball in the net more often!!! russellsnr2
  • Score: 13

1:25pm Thu 27 Feb 14

kwaidam says...

perhaps now nathan jones can offload his mate obika on yeovil?
perhaps now nathan jones can offload his mate obika on yeovil? kwaidam
  • Score: 11

1:36pm Thu 27 Feb 14

namgo49 says...

He is actually described as an attacking midfielder/winger but does this mean taxi for young Obika whose signing appears to be money wasted. Same with Lita's signing and too Rodiguez, who has singularly failed to impress. There appears to have been a lack of clarity in formulating the squad game plan with hap hazard desperation like signings. This does look to be a good one though.

Where will this leave the recovering Hoskins and CMS?

I wonder what guarantees there has had to be made regarding starts? He walked in to Birmingham's starting 11. How will it be with us? Will we have to change formation!!

Not being negative but the signing raises a lot of questions. Interesting to see how it all pans out though.
He is actually described as an attacking midfielder/winger but does this mean taxi for young Obika whose signing appears to be money wasted. Same with Lita's signing and too Rodiguez, who has singularly failed to impress. There appears to have been a lack of clarity in formulating the squad game plan with hap hazard desperation like signings. This does look to be a good one though. Where will this leave the recovering Hoskins and CMS? I wonder what guarantees there has had to be made regarding starts? He walked in to Birmingham's starting 11. How will it be with us? Will we have to change formation!! Not being negative but the signing raises a lot of questions. Interesting to see how it all pans out though. namgo49
  • Score: 13

1:44pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Eddy B says...

Totally agree Namgo - feel bemused at the scattergun approach to signings particularly up front and in midfield where personally I think the defence needs strengthening. Thus confused where this signing leaves Obika, CMS, Hoskins, Rodriguez, the other lad from Arsenal, March etc (if he's a winger), Lita and Dobbie before them. BUT all this bemusement will be forgotten if this chap is the real deal and gets off to a flyer. - in which case sign him up permanently and clear out the surplus in the summer.

I say to my son, oh, Brighton have signed a new centre forward from... Spurs, Spain, Swansea etc etc - should be good, and then we never see them again. I'll say nothing this time and he can have a nice surprise when Jesse starts the next home game!
Totally agree Namgo - feel bemused at the scattergun approach to signings particularly up front and in midfield where personally I think the defence needs strengthening. Thus confused where this signing leaves Obika, CMS, Hoskins, Rodriguez, the other lad from Arsenal, March etc (if he's a winger), Lita and Dobbie before them. BUT all this bemusement will be forgotten if this chap is the real deal and gets off to a flyer. - in which case sign him up permanently and clear out the surplus in the summer. I say to my son, oh, Brighton have signed a new centre forward from... Spurs, Spain, Swansea etc etc - should be good, and then we never see them again. I'll say nothing this time and he can have a nice surprise when Jesse starts the next home game! Eddy B
  • Score: 12

1:46pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Ellen Street says...

namgo49 wrote:
He is actually described as an attacking midfielder/winger but does this mean taxi for young Obika whose signing appears to be money wasted. Same with Lita's signing and too Rodiguez, who has singularly failed to impress. There appears to have been a lack of clarity in formulating the squad game plan with hap hazard desperation like signings. This does look to be a good one though.

Where will this leave the recovering Hoskins and CMS?

I wonder what guarantees there has had to be made regarding starts? He walked in to Birmingham's starting 11. How will it be with us? Will we have to change formation!!

Not being negative but the signing raises a lot of questions. Interesting to see how it all pans out though.
An attacking midfield player is exactly what we need.Wonderful.
[quote][p][bold]namgo49[/bold] wrote: He is actually described as an attacking midfielder/winger but does this mean taxi for young Obika whose signing appears to be money wasted. Same with Lita's signing and too Rodiguez, who has singularly failed to impress. There appears to have been a lack of clarity in formulating the squad game plan with hap hazard desperation like signings. This does look to be a good one though. Where will this leave the recovering Hoskins and CMS? I wonder what guarantees there has had to be made regarding starts? He walked in to Birmingham's starting 11. How will it be with us? Will we have to change formation!! Not being negative but the signing raises a lot of questions. Interesting to see how it all pans out though.[/p][/quote]An attacking midfield player is exactly what we need.Wonderful. Ellen Street
  • Score: 11

1:51pm Thu 27 Feb 14

VegasSeagull says...

namgo49 wrote:
He is actually described as an attacking midfielder/winger but does this mean taxi for young Obika whose signing appears to be money wasted. Same with Lita's signing and too Rodiguez, who has singularly failed to impress. There appears to have been a lack of clarity in formulating the squad game plan with hap hazard desperation like signings. This does look to be a good one though.

Where will this leave the recovering Hoskins and CMS?

I wonder what guarantees there has had to be made regarding starts? He walked in to Birmingham's starting 11. How will it be with us? Will we have to change formation!!

Not being negative but the signing raises a lot of questions. Interesting to see how it all pans out though.
I recll that at about this time last year Gus swithced it up a bit, he sent out slightly more attacking teams, I forget his actual words but it was something on the lines of, 'he is prepared to take more risks with his team selections and style of play.' The arrival of this lad might signal a similar shift by Oscar.
[quote][p][bold]namgo49[/bold] wrote: He is actually described as an attacking midfielder/winger but does this mean taxi for young Obika whose signing appears to be money wasted. Same with Lita's signing and too Rodiguez, who has singularly failed to impress. There appears to have been a lack of clarity in formulating the squad game plan with hap hazard desperation like signings. This does look to be a good one though. Where will this leave the recovering Hoskins and CMS? I wonder what guarantees there has had to be made regarding starts? He walked in to Birmingham's starting 11. How will it be with us? Will we have to change formation!! Not being negative but the signing raises a lot of questions. Interesting to see how it all pans out though.[/p][/quote]I recll that at about this time last year Gus swithced it up a bit, he sent out slightly more attacking teams, I forget his actual words but it was something on the lines of, 'he is prepared to take more risks with his team selections and style of play.' The arrival of this lad might signal a similar shift by Oscar. VegasSeagull
  • Score: 8

1:58pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Albion In Staffs says...

namgo49 wrote:
He is actually described as an attacking midfielder/winger but does this mean taxi for young Obika whose signing appears to be money wasted. Same with Lita's signing and too Rodiguez, who has singularly failed to impress. There appears to have been a lack of clarity in formulating the squad game plan with hap hazard desperation like signings. This does look to be a good one though.

Where will this leave the recovering Hoskins and CMS?

I wonder what guarantees there has had to be made regarding starts? He walked in to Birmingham's starting 11. How will it be with us? Will we have to change formation!!

Not being negative but the signing raises a lot of questions. Interesting to see how it all pans out though.
It leaves Hoskins and CMS able to rehabilitate at a leisurely pace.
The key to the 'hap hazard' approach you suggest is surely in the story? We wanted him in January but couldn't get him, so decided to wait and try again. In the meantime, we needed guaranteed cover.
I don't think there's been a lack of clarity at all. You wouldn't sign Rodriguez and say; "Well we're glad he's here because he'll be useful if we don't get the bloke we REALLY want."
You could argue the club were prepared to sign two instead of gambling on signing just one. But some, of course, won't see it like that. They prefer to moan about lack of clarity and strategy.
Bless them...
[quote][p][bold]namgo49[/bold] wrote: He is actually described as an attacking midfielder/winger but does this mean taxi for young Obika whose signing appears to be money wasted. Same with Lita's signing and too Rodiguez, who has singularly failed to impress. There appears to have been a lack of clarity in formulating the squad game plan with hap hazard desperation like signings. This does look to be a good one though. Where will this leave the recovering Hoskins and CMS? I wonder what guarantees there has had to be made regarding starts? He walked in to Birmingham's starting 11. How will it be with us? Will we have to change formation!! Not being negative but the signing raises a lot of questions. Interesting to see how it all pans out though.[/p][/quote]It leaves Hoskins and CMS able to rehabilitate at a leisurely pace. The key to the 'hap hazard' approach you suggest is surely in the story? We wanted him in January but couldn't get him, so decided to wait and try again. In the meantime, we needed guaranteed cover. I don't think there's been a lack of clarity at all. You wouldn't sign Rodriguez and say; "Well we're glad he's here because he'll be useful if we don't get the bloke we REALLY want." You could argue the club were prepared to sign two instead of gambling on signing just one. But some, of course, won't see it like that. They prefer to moan about lack of clarity and strategy. Bless them... Albion In Staffs
  • Score: 20

2:02pm Thu 27 Feb 14

B rian Tawses left foot says...

Suddenly OG has made a sparkling signing. Surely this is not the same man who was hopeless in the transfer market, capable of signing only humdrum 'journeymen'? Is that a queue I see forming outside the humble pie shop ?
Suddenly OG has made a sparkling signing. Surely this is not the same man who was hopeless in the transfer market, capable of signing only humdrum 'journeymen'? Is that a queue I see forming outside the humble pie shop ? B rian Tawses left foot
  • Score: 11

2:07pm Thu 27 Feb 14

VegasSeagull says...

B rian Tawses left foot wrote:
Suddenly OG has made a sparkling signing. Surely this is not the same man who was hopeless in the transfer market, capable of signing only humdrum 'journeymen'? Is that a queue I see forming outside the humble pie shop ?
I guess, 'this,' signing will be credited to Oscar, where as those that have not fullfilled the hopes of the fans on here were all down to Jones and Burke, God I hope this lad scores goals, if he doesn't he will get moved to the Burke and Jones list.
[quote][p][bold]B rian Tawses left foot[/bold] wrote: Suddenly OG has made a sparkling signing. Surely this is not the same man who was hopeless in the transfer market, capable of signing only humdrum 'journeymen'? Is that a queue I see forming outside the humble pie shop ?[/p][/quote]I guess, 'this,' signing will be credited to Oscar, where as those that have not fullfilled the hopes of the fans on here were all down to Jones and Burke, God I hope this lad scores goals, if he doesn't he will get moved to the Burke and Jones list. VegasSeagull
  • Score: 7

2:16pm Thu 27 Feb 14

AlanDuffy says...

Probably happy to be moving to a better club :-)
Probably happy to be moving to a better club :-) AlanDuffy
  • Score: 15

2:17pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Albion In Staffs says...

VegasSeagull wrote:
B rian Tawses left foot wrote:
Suddenly OG has made a sparkling signing. Surely this is not the same man who was hopeless in the transfer market, capable of signing only humdrum 'journeymen'? Is that a queue I see forming outside the humble pie shop ?
I guess, 'this,' signing will be credited to Oscar, where as those that have not fullfilled the hopes of the fans on here were all down to Jones and Burke, God I hope this lad scores goals, if he doesn't he will get moved to the Burke and Jones list.
And hey presto, a swift thumbs down.
There is clearly a danger that a touch of decent sounding news will ruin people's long term happiness.
So note to all: If you're one of those who're only motivated to comment by failure and incompetence, please do us all a favour and start supporting Cardiff.
Thanks.
[quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]B rian Tawses left foot[/bold] wrote: Suddenly OG has made a sparkling signing. Surely this is not the same man who was hopeless in the transfer market, capable of signing only humdrum 'journeymen'? Is that a queue I see forming outside the humble pie shop ?[/p][/quote]I guess, 'this,' signing will be credited to Oscar, where as those that have not fullfilled the hopes of the fans on here were all down to Jones and Burke, God I hope this lad scores goals, if he doesn't he will get moved to the Burke and Jones list.[/p][/quote]And hey presto, a swift thumbs down. There is clearly a danger that a touch of decent sounding news will ruin people's long term happiness. So note to all: If you're one of those who're only motivated to comment by failure and incompetence, please do us all a favour and start supporting Cardiff. Thanks. Albion In Staffs
  • Score: 0

2:17pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Ex-pat Arnie says...

VegasSeagull wrote:
B rian Tawses left foot wrote:
Suddenly OG has made a sparkling signing. Surely this is not the same man who was hopeless in the transfer market, capable of signing only humdrum 'journeymen'? Is that a queue I see forming outside the humble pie shop ?
I guess, 'this,' signing will be credited to Oscar, where as those that have not fullfilled the hopes of the fans on here were all down to Jones and Burke, God I hope this lad scores goals, if he doesn't he will get moved to the Burke and Jones list.
The Rodriguez signing was attributed on here to OG until he failed to find an instant rhythm and score goals, at which point he became a Burke signing.

I can't understand how fans still don't 'get' the system at the club. It baffles me as it has been explained so very many times.
[quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]B rian Tawses left foot[/bold] wrote: Suddenly OG has made a sparkling signing. Surely this is not the same man who was hopeless in the transfer market, capable of signing only humdrum 'journeymen'? Is that a queue I see forming outside the humble pie shop ?[/p][/quote]I guess, 'this,' signing will be credited to Oscar, where as those that have not fullfilled the hopes of the fans on here were all down to Jones and Burke, God I hope this lad scores goals, if he doesn't he will get moved to the Burke and Jones list.[/p][/quote]The Rodriguez signing was attributed on here to OG until he failed to find an instant rhythm and score goals, at which point he became a Burke signing. I can't understand how fans still don't 'get' the system at the club. It baffles me as it has been explained so very many times. Ex-pat Arnie
  • Score: 3

2:20pm Thu 27 Feb 14

namgo49 says...

Albion In Staffs wrote:
namgo49 wrote:
He is actually described as an attacking midfielder/winger but does this mean taxi for young Obika whose signing appears to be money wasted. Same with Lita's signing and too Rodiguez, who has singularly failed to impress. There appears to have been a lack of clarity in formulating the squad game plan with hap hazard desperation like signings. This does look to be a good one though.

Where will this leave the recovering Hoskins and CMS?

I wonder what guarantees there has had to be made regarding starts? He walked in to Birmingham's starting 11. How will it be with us? Will we have to change formation!!

Not being negative but the signing raises a lot of questions. Interesting to see how it all pans out though.
It leaves Hoskins and CMS able to rehabilitate at a leisurely pace.
The key to the 'hap hazard' approach you suggest is surely in the story? We wanted him in January but couldn't get him, so decided to wait and try again. In the meantime, we needed guaranteed cover.
I don't think there's been a lack of clarity at all. You wouldn't sign Rodriguez and say; "Well we're glad he's here because he'll be useful if we don't get the bloke we REALLY want."
You could argue the club were prepared to sign two instead of gambling on signing just one. But some, of course, won't see it like that. They prefer to moan about lack of clarity and strategy.
Bless them...
My point is that why did we bother to sign the likes of Lita, Obika, Dobbie, Rodriguez et al when we must have known they were second rate and probably not up to it. Stephens has very much to do to demonstrate he was money well spent.

If you're not 80/90% convinced the person can do the job for you, then don't spend your money. To my mind CMS was money poorly spent, not because of his ability but because we tried to get him to play the way he can't play.
[quote][p][bold]Albion In Staffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]namgo49[/bold] wrote: He is actually described as an attacking midfielder/winger but does this mean taxi for young Obika whose signing appears to be money wasted. Same with Lita's signing and too Rodiguez, who has singularly failed to impress. There appears to have been a lack of clarity in formulating the squad game plan with hap hazard desperation like signings. This does look to be a good one though. Where will this leave the recovering Hoskins and CMS? I wonder what guarantees there has had to be made regarding starts? He walked in to Birmingham's starting 11. How will it be with us? Will we have to change formation!! Not being negative but the signing raises a lot of questions. Interesting to see how it all pans out though.[/p][/quote]It leaves Hoskins and CMS able to rehabilitate at a leisurely pace. The key to the 'hap hazard' approach you suggest is surely in the story? We wanted him in January but couldn't get him, so decided to wait and try again. In the meantime, we needed guaranteed cover. I don't think there's been a lack of clarity at all. You wouldn't sign Rodriguez and say; "Well we're glad he's here because he'll be useful if we don't get the bloke we REALLY want." You could argue the club were prepared to sign two instead of gambling on signing just one. But some, of course, won't see it like that. They prefer to moan about lack of clarity and strategy. Bless them...[/p][/quote]My point is that why did we bother to sign the likes of Lita, Obika, Dobbie, Rodriguez et al when we must have known they were second rate and probably not up to it. Stephens has very much to do to demonstrate he was money well spent. If you're not 80/90% convinced the person can do the job for you, then don't spend your money. To my mind CMS was money poorly spent, not because of his ability but because we tried to get him to play the way he can't play. namgo49
  • Score: 1

2:27pm Thu 27 Feb 14

VegasSeagull says...

namgo49 wrote:
Albion In Staffs wrote:
namgo49 wrote:
He is actually described as an attacking midfielder/winger but does this mean taxi for young Obika whose signing appears to be money wasted. Same with Lita's signing and too Rodiguez, who has singularly failed to impress. There appears to have been a lack of clarity in formulating the squad game plan with hap hazard desperation like signings. This does look to be a good one though.

Where will this leave the recovering Hoskins and CMS?

I wonder what guarantees there has had to be made regarding starts? He walked in to Birmingham's starting 11. How will it be with us? Will we have to change formation!!

Not being negative but the signing raises a lot of questions. Interesting to see how it all pans out though.
It leaves Hoskins and CMS able to rehabilitate at a leisurely pace.
The key to the 'hap hazard' approach you suggest is surely in the story? We wanted him in January but couldn't get him, so decided to wait and try again. In the meantime, we needed guaranteed cover.
I don't think there's been a lack of clarity at all. You wouldn't sign Rodriguez and say; "Well we're glad he's here because he'll be useful if we don't get the bloke we REALLY want."
You could argue the club were prepared to sign two instead of gambling on signing just one. But some, of course, won't see it like that. They prefer to moan about lack of clarity and strategy.
Bless them...
My point is that why did we bother to sign the likes of Lita, Obika, Dobbie, Rodriguez et al when we must have known they were second rate and probably not up to it. Stephens has very much to do to demonstrate he was money well spent.

If you're not 80/90% convinced the person can do the job for you, then don't spend your money. To my mind CMS was money poorly spent, not because of his ability but because we tried to get him to play the way he can't play.
So not so much as money not spent well on CMS, more a case of ill use by Poyet, surely it can't be both, can it? We spent the money and then Poyet got it wrong in his tactics. The flip side of that is, if Oscar allows CMS to play, 'his,' game, then perhaps the money was well spent if CMS makes an impact by being used in his correct role.
[quote][p][bold]namgo49[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion In Staffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]namgo49[/bold] wrote: He is actually described as an attacking midfielder/winger but does this mean taxi for young Obika whose signing appears to be money wasted. Same with Lita's signing and too Rodiguez, who has singularly failed to impress. There appears to have been a lack of clarity in formulating the squad game plan with hap hazard desperation like signings. This does look to be a good one though. Where will this leave the recovering Hoskins and CMS? I wonder what guarantees there has had to be made regarding starts? He walked in to Birmingham's starting 11. How will it be with us? Will we have to change formation!! Not being negative but the signing raises a lot of questions. Interesting to see how it all pans out though.[/p][/quote]It leaves Hoskins and CMS able to rehabilitate at a leisurely pace. The key to the 'hap hazard' approach you suggest is surely in the story? We wanted him in January but couldn't get him, so decided to wait and try again. In the meantime, we needed guaranteed cover. I don't think there's been a lack of clarity at all. You wouldn't sign Rodriguez and say; "Well we're glad he's here because he'll be useful if we don't get the bloke we REALLY want." You could argue the club were prepared to sign two instead of gambling on signing just one. But some, of course, won't see it like that. They prefer to moan about lack of clarity and strategy. Bless them...[/p][/quote]My point is that why did we bother to sign the likes of Lita, Obika, Dobbie, Rodriguez et al when we must have known they were second rate and probably not up to it. Stephens has very much to do to demonstrate he was money well spent. If you're not 80/90% convinced the person can do the job for you, then don't spend your money. To my mind CMS was money poorly spent, not because of his ability but because we tried to get him to play the way he can't play.[/p][/quote]So not so much as money not spent well on CMS, more a case of ill use by Poyet, surely it can't be both, can it? We spent the money and then Poyet got it wrong in his tactics. The flip side of that is, if Oscar allows CMS to play, 'his,' game, then perhaps the money was well spent if CMS makes an impact by being used in his correct role. VegasSeagull
  • Score: 12

2:34pm Thu 27 Feb 14

jaybee68 says...

VegasSeagull wrote:
B rian Tawses left foot wrote:
Suddenly OG has made a sparkling signing. Surely this is not the same man who was hopeless in the transfer market, capable of signing only humdrum 'journeymen'? Is that a queue I see forming outside the humble pie shop ?
I guess, 'this,' signing will be credited to Oscar, where as those that have not fullfilled the hopes of the fans on here were all down to Jones and Burke, God I hope this lad scores goals, if he doesn't he will get moved to the Burke and Jones list.
Unbelievable comments from some........
We've been crying out for someone to come in with pace (tick), youth (tick), and eye for goals (tick), an attacker/attacking midfielder (tick).
I'm no Man U fan but no one can argue that they haven't developed many of the best English players over the last 15 years. So we sign one of their best young prospects who has proven this season that he can score goals at Championship level and who scored in 30 odd minutes as many as most of our midfield combined have done all season and we find reasons to moan....
Wow!
Welcome Jesse
UTA and here's to the prospect of top 6
[quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]B rian Tawses left foot[/bold] wrote: Suddenly OG has made a sparkling signing. Surely this is not the same man who was hopeless in the transfer market, capable of signing only humdrum 'journeymen'? Is that a queue I see forming outside the humble pie shop ?[/p][/quote]I guess, 'this,' signing will be credited to Oscar, where as those that have not fullfilled the hopes of the fans on here were all down to Jones and Burke, God I hope this lad scores goals, if he doesn't he will get moved to the Burke and Jones list.[/p][/quote]Unbelievable comments from some........ We've been crying out for someone to come in with pace (tick), youth (tick), and eye for goals (tick), an attacker/attacking midfielder (tick). I'm no Man U fan but no one can argue that they haven't developed many of the best English players over the last 15 years. So we sign one of their best young prospects who has proven this season that he can score goals at Championship level and who scored in 30 odd minutes as many as most of our midfield combined have done all season and we find reasons to moan.... Wow! Welcome Jesse UTA and here's to the prospect of top 6 jaybee68
  • Score: 16

2:44pm Thu 27 Feb 14

B rian Tawses left foot says...

I wouldn't write off Rodriguez just yet. He wasn't playing prior to joining us and is undoubtedly lacking match fitness. Also he has never played in England before and will need to adjust. There is plenty of video evidence that proves his ability to score goals. To write him off after a handful of games is foolish.
I wouldn't write off Rodriguez just yet. He wasn't playing prior to joining us and is undoubtedly lacking match fitness. Also he has never played in England before and will need to adjust. There is plenty of video evidence that proves his ability to score goals. To write him off after a handful of games is foolish. B rian Tawses left foot
  • Score: 28

2:46pm Thu 27 Feb 14

VegasSeagull says...

B rian Tawses left foot wrote:
I wouldn't write off Rodriguez just yet. He wasn't playing prior to joining us and is undoubtedly lacking match fitness. Also he has never played in England before and will need to adjust. There is plenty of video evidence that proves his ability to score goals. To write him off after a handful of games is foolish.
agreed and I think Stephens could prove to be a very good signing given time.
[quote][p][bold]B rian Tawses left foot[/bold] wrote: I wouldn't write off Rodriguez just yet. He wasn't playing prior to joining us and is undoubtedly lacking match fitness. Also he has never played in England before and will need to adjust. There is plenty of video evidence that proves his ability to score goals. To write him off after a handful of games is foolish.[/p][/quote]agreed and I think Stephens could prove to be a very good signing given time. VegasSeagull
  • Score: 30

2:50pm Thu 27 Feb 14

namgo49 says...

VegasSeagull wrote:
namgo49 wrote:
Albion In Staffs wrote:
namgo49 wrote:
He is actually described as an attacking midfielder/winger but does this mean taxi for young Obika whose signing appears to be money wasted. Same with Lita's signing and too Rodiguez, who has singularly failed to impress. There appears to have been a lack of clarity in formulating the squad game plan with hap hazard desperation like signings. This does look to be a good one though.

Where will this leave the recovering Hoskins and CMS?

I wonder what guarantees there has had to be made regarding starts? He walked in to Birmingham's starting 11. How will it be with us? Will we have to change formation!!

Not being negative but the signing raises a lot of questions. Interesting to see how it all pans out though.
It leaves Hoskins and CMS able to rehabilitate at a leisurely pace.
The key to the 'hap hazard' approach you suggest is surely in the story? We wanted him in January but couldn't get him, so decided to wait and try again. In the meantime, we needed guaranteed cover.
I don't think there's been a lack of clarity at all. You wouldn't sign Rodriguez and say; "Well we're glad he's here because he'll be useful if we don't get the bloke we REALLY want."
You could argue the club were prepared to sign two instead of gambling on signing just one. But some, of course, won't see it like that. They prefer to moan about lack of clarity and strategy.
Bless them...
My point is that why did we bother to sign the likes of Lita, Obika, Dobbie, Rodriguez et al when we must have known they were second rate and probably not up to it. Stephens has very much to do to demonstrate he was money well spent.

If you're not 80/90% convinced the person can do the job for you, then don't spend your money. To my mind CMS was money poorly spent, not because of his ability but because we tried to get him to play the way he can't play.
So not so much as money not spent well on CMS, more a case of ill use by Poyet, surely it can't be both, can it? We spent the money and then Poyet got it wrong in his tactics. The flip side of that is, if Oscar allows CMS to play, 'his,' game, then perhaps the money was well spent if CMS makes an impact by being used in his correct role.
Poyet knew the way CMS was successful as a player, spent the money and then got him to play the way he wanted him to rather than playing to his undoubted strengths. To draw an analogy to assist your understanding, he bought a toasted sandwich maker then tried to use it as a toaster. Hence money largely wasted, so far anyway.
[quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]namgo49[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion In Staffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]namgo49[/bold] wrote: He is actually described as an attacking midfielder/winger but does this mean taxi for young Obika whose signing appears to be money wasted. Same with Lita's signing and too Rodiguez, who has singularly failed to impress. There appears to have been a lack of clarity in formulating the squad game plan with hap hazard desperation like signings. This does look to be a good one though. Where will this leave the recovering Hoskins and CMS? I wonder what guarantees there has had to be made regarding starts? He walked in to Birmingham's starting 11. How will it be with us? Will we have to change formation!! Not being negative but the signing raises a lot of questions. Interesting to see how it all pans out though.[/p][/quote]It leaves Hoskins and CMS able to rehabilitate at a leisurely pace. The key to the 'hap hazard' approach you suggest is surely in the story? We wanted him in January but couldn't get him, so decided to wait and try again. In the meantime, we needed guaranteed cover. I don't think there's been a lack of clarity at all. You wouldn't sign Rodriguez and say; "Well we're glad he's here because he'll be useful if we don't get the bloke we REALLY want." You could argue the club were prepared to sign two instead of gambling on signing just one. But some, of course, won't see it like that. They prefer to moan about lack of clarity and strategy. Bless them...[/p][/quote]My point is that why did we bother to sign the likes of Lita, Obika, Dobbie, Rodriguez et al when we must have known they were second rate and probably not up to it. Stephens has very much to do to demonstrate he was money well spent. If you're not 80/90% convinced the person can do the job for you, then don't spend your money. To my mind CMS was money poorly spent, not because of his ability but because we tried to get him to play the way he can't play.[/p][/quote]So not so much as money not spent well on CMS, more a case of ill use by Poyet, surely it can't be both, can it? We spent the money and then Poyet got it wrong in his tactics. The flip side of that is, if Oscar allows CMS to play, 'his,' game, then perhaps the money was well spent if CMS makes an impact by being used in his correct role.[/p][/quote]Poyet knew the way CMS was successful as a player, spent the money and then got him to play the way he wanted him to rather than playing to his undoubted strengths. To draw an analogy to assist your understanding, he bought a toasted sandwich maker then tried to use it as a toaster. Hence money largely wasted, so far anyway. namgo49
  • Score: 2

2:57pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Piglet1 says...

All those people who moaned and groaned about no-one coming in can now be assured that things were happening behind the scenes as most of us knew would be the case.
Get behind the club, the team, the manager and smile and be happy for we are blessed to be supporting this club at this time.
All those people who moaned and groaned about no-one coming in can now be assured that things were happening behind the scenes as most of us knew would be the case. Get behind the club, the team, the manager and smile and be happy for we are blessed to be supporting this club at this time. Piglet1
  • Score: 18

3:00pm Thu 27 Feb 14

WestStander17 says...

namgo49 wrote:
He is actually described as an attacking midfielder/winger but does this mean taxi for young Obika whose signing appears to be money wasted. Same with Lita's signing and too Rodiguez, who has singularly failed to impress. There appears to have been a lack of clarity in formulating the squad game plan with hap hazard desperation like signings. This does look to be a good one though.

Where will this leave the recovering Hoskins and CMS?

I wonder what guarantees there has had to be made regarding starts? He walked in to Birmingham's starting 11. How will it be with us? Will we have to change formation!!

Not being negative but the signing raises a lot of questions. Interesting to see how it all pans out though.
The clips on the other thread make him look like a striker although, as someone said, there is a little bit of Thierry Henry about him which could see him play on the left.

If Oscar was to put him up top with Leo, I think it would mean only one or maybe no out-and-out wingers but, with Bruno and Ward providing width, it'd be an interesting option.

Otherwise, he is here to time share with Leo but hopefully with Oscar having more faith in him than Lita and Obika.
[quote][p][bold]namgo49[/bold] wrote: He is actually described as an attacking midfielder/winger but does this mean taxi for young Obika whose signing appears to be money wasted. Same with Lita's signing and too Rodiguez, who has singularly failed to impress. There appears to have been a lack of clarity in formulating the squad game plan with hap hazard desperation like signings. This does look to be a good one though. Where will this leave the recovering Hoskins and CMS? I wonder what guarantees there has had to be made regarding starts? He walked in to Birmingham's starting 11. How will it be with us? Will we have to change formation!! Not being negative but the signing raises a lot of questions. Interesting to see how it all pans out though.[/p][/quote]The clips on the other thread make him look like a striker although, as someone said, there is a little bit of Thierry Henry about him which could see him play on the left. If Oscar was to put him up top with Leo, I think it would mean only one or maybe no out-and-out wingers but, with Bruno and Ward providing width, it'd be an interesting option. Otherwise, he is here to time share with Leo but hopefully with Oscar having more faith in him than Lita and Obika. WestStander17
  • Score: 5

3:01pm Thu 27 Feb 14

bruce beckett says...

Excellent loan signing...and just in the nick of time. I'm not sure about the players but I know the fans needed a boost after the disappointments of Wigan and Hull. Get him in the starting XI alongside big Len at Millwall on Saturday and let's go for goals!
Excellent loan signing...and just in the nick of time. I'm not sure about the players but I know the fans needed a boost after the disappointments of Wigan and Hull. Get him in the starting XI alongside big Len at Millwall on Saturday and let's go for goals! bruce beckett
  • Score: 8

3:05pm Thu 27 Feb 14

VegasSeagull says...

Hey Namego, I have asked this question on the, 'five in a row,' thread, but so far no replies, perhaps you might offer a comment on this thread, and others.

We were told that we lost 8 million during the our first year at the Amex. We were then told that we lost close to 9 million during year two, now we are told that we are predicted to lose 14 million this year.
Is it your understanding that we lost 8+9+ predicted 14 or 14 in total for all three years? I accept that the 14 is expected to be cut to 8 this year.
Hey Namego, I have asked this question on the, 'five in a row,' thread, but so far no replies, perhaps you might offer a comment on this thread, and others. We were told that we lost 8 million during the our first year at the Amex. We were then told that we lost close to 9 million during year two, now we are told that we are predicted to lose 14 million this year. Is it your understanding that we lost 8+9+ predicted 14 or 14 in total for all three years? I accept that the 14 is expected to be cut to 8 this year. VegasSeagull
  • Score: -8

3:11pm Thu 27 Feb 14

dave from bexill says...

jaybee68 wrote:
VegasSeagull wrote:
B rian Tawses left foot wrote:
Suddenly OG has made a sparkling signing. Surely this is not the same man who was hopeless in the transfer market, capable of signing only humdrum 'journeymen'? Is that a queue I see forming outside the humble pie shop ?
I guess, 'this,' signing will be credited to Oscar, where as those that have not fullfilled the hopes of the fans on here were all down to Jones and Burke, God I hope this lad scores goals, if he doesn't he will get moved to the Burke and Jones list.
Unbelievable comments from some........
We've been crying out for someone to come in with pace (tick), youth (tick), and eye for goals (tick), an attacker/attacking midfielder (tick).
I'm no Man U fan but no one can argue that they haven't developed many of the best English players over the last 15 years. So we sign one of their best young prospects who has proven this season that he can score goals at Championship level and who scored in 30 odd minutes as many as most of our midfield combined have done all season and we find reasons to moan....
Wow!
Welcome Jesse
UTA and here's to the prospect of top 6
Who's actually moaning?
[quote][p][bold]jaybee68[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]B rian Tawses left foot[/bold] wrote: Suddenly OG has made a sparkling signing. Surely this is not the same man who was hopeless in the transfer market, capable of signing only humdrum 'journeymen'? Is that a queue I see forming outside the humble pie shop ?[/p][/quote]I guess, 'this,' signing will be credited to Oscar, where as those that have not fullfilled the hopes of the fans on here were all down to Jones and Burke, God I hope this lad scores goals, if he doesn't he will get moved to the Burke and Jones list.[/p][/quote]Unbelievable comments from some........ We've been crying out for someone to come in with pace (tick), youth (tick), and eye for goals (tick), an attacker/attacking midfielder (tick). I'm no Man U fan but no one can argue that they haven't developed many of the best English players over the last 15 years. So we sign one of their best young prospects who has proven this season that he can score goals at Championship level and who scored in 30 odd minutes as many as most of our midfield combined have done all season and we find reasons to moan.... Wow! Welcome Jesse UTA and here's to the prospect of top 6[/p][/quote]Who's actually moaning? dave from bexill
  • Score: -1

3:13pm Thu 27 Feb 14

fratsomrover says...

Wow, this kid is something special. Never thought we'd be tapping up Man Utd for one of their best. Well done Burke & Garcia, I'd call this something of a coup.
He's an instinctive striker who should be the perfect partner up alongside Leo.
Lets hope he starts on Sat.
I fancy:
Kuz
Bruno
Greer
Upson
Ward
Ince
Stephens
Orlandi
Buckley
Ulloa
Lingard

That would show an attacking intent.
Wow, this kid is something special. Never thought we'd be tapping up Man Utd for one of their best. Well done Burke & Garcia, I'd call this something of a coup. He's an instinctive striker who should be the perfect partner up alongside Leo. Lets hope he starts on Sat. I fancy: Kuz Bruno Greer Upson Ward Ince Stephens Orlandi Buckley Ulloa Lingard That would show an attacking intent. fratsomrover
  • Score: 16

3:19pm Thu 27 Feb 14

mikeygit says...

Like most I know nothing about this lad--who cares if he plays well, fits in and scores loads of goals. Just what I said yesterday, we need someone with drive and enthusiasm and who can score goals, if he does that then no doubt it will rub off onto other players. As Vegas said hope we can either buy him or have a season long loan if he IS the business. I would think that if Saha cannot get into the Man U team and is on loan this lad should be easy to get on loan?? Good luck to him and hope he is what we have been looking for for some time. Saturday should be interesting.
Like most I know nothing about this lad--who cares if he plays well, fits in and scores loads of goals. Just what I said yesterday, we need someone with drive and enthusiasm and who can score goals, if he does that then no doubt it will rub off onto other players. As Vegas said hope we can either buy him or have a season long loan if he IS the business. I would think that if Saha cannot get into the Man U team and is on loan this lad should be easy to get on loan?? Good luck to him and hope he is what we have been looking for for some time. Saturday should be interesting. mikeygit
  • Score: 4

3:21pm Thu 27 Feb 14

DuncanThickett says...

brightonup wrote:
DuncanThickett wrote:
DuncanThickett wrote:
That's pretty darn great, a young talented striker. If he fits in well, maybe a perm deal can be done over the summer. Happy.
Wow, a thumbs down immediately on my message of positivity. Some people are never happy and thrive in stories of gloom obviously.
Perhaps you are getting the thumbs down and not your comment......
Well if it's not my comment that thumbs up/down are based on, not entirely sure what they WOULD be based on....my name?! (which isn't actually my name, i just like it!)
[quote][p][bold]brightonup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DuncanThickett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DuncanThickett[/bold] wrote: That's pretty darn great, a young talented striker. If he fits in well, maybe a perm deal can be done over the summer. Happy.[/p][/quote]Wow, a thumbs down immediately on my message of positivity. Some people are never happy and thrive in stories of gloom obviously.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you are getting the thumbs down and not your comment......[/p][/quote]Well if it's not my comment that thumbs up/down are based on, not entirely sure what they WOULD be based on....my name?! (which isn't actually my name, i just like it!) DuncanThickett
  • Score: -7

3:26pm Thu 27 Feb 14

dave from bexill says...

fratsomrover wrote:
Wow, this kid is something special. Never thought we'd be tapping up Man Utd for one of their best. Well done Burke & Garcia, I'd call this something of a coup.
He's an instinctive striker who should be the perfect partner up alongside Leo.
Lets hope he starts on Sat.
I fancy:
Kuz
Bruno
Greer
Upson
Ward
Ince
Stephens
Orlandi
Buckley
Ulloa
Lingard

That would show an attacking intent.
Perfect
[quote][p][bold]fratsomrover[/bold] wrote: Wow, this kid is something special. Never thought we'd be tapping up Man Utd for one of their best. Well done Burke & Garcia, I'd call this something of a coup. He's an instinctive striker who should be the perfect partner up alongside Leo. Lets hope he starts on Sat. I fancy: Kuz Bruno Greer Upson Ward Ince Stephens Orlandi Buckley Ulloa Lingard That would show an attacking intent.[/p][/quote]Perfect dave from bexill
  • Score: 10

3:31pm Thu 27 Feb 14

gordongull says...

The remaining 15 matches are suddenly looking winnable.
The remaining 15 matches are suddenly looking winnable. gordongull
  • Score: 4

3:32pm Thu 27 Feb 14

DougRouvie says...

I wonder if Worzal will now have to have another Team Talk.
I wonder if Worzal will now have to have another Team Talk. DougRouvie
  • Score: 5

3:47pm Thu 27 Feb 14

VegasSeagull says...

mikeygit wrote:
Like most I know nothing about this lad--who cares if he plays well, fits in and scores loads of goals. Just what I said yesterday, we need someone with drive and enthusiasm and who can score goals, if he does that then no doubt it will rub off onto other players. As Vegas said hope we can either buy him or have a season long loan if he IS the business. I would think that if Saha cannot get into the Man U team and is on loan this lad should be easy to get on loan?? Good luck to him and hope he is what we have been looking for for some time. Saturday should be interesting.
Trouble is that if he is that good, probably he becomes a target for one of the teams that get promoted this season, that is if Moyes would even let him go, we would need United to sign a big name striker so as to free this lad up, and then hope we can get him.
[quote][p][bold]mikeygit[/bold] wrote: Like most I know nothing about this lad--who cares if he plays well, fits in and scores loads of goals. Just what I said yesterday, we need someone with drive and enthusiasm and who can score goals, if he does that then no doubt it will rub off onto other players. As Vegas said hope we can either buy him or have a season long loan if he IS the business. I would think that if Saha cannot get into the Man U team and is on loan this lad should be easy to get on loan?? Good luck to him and hope he is what we have been looking for for some time. Saturday should be interesting.[/p][/quote]Trouble is that if he is that good, probably he becomes a target for one of the teams that get promoted this season, that is if Moyes would even let him go, we would need United to sign a big name striker so as to free this lad up, and then hope we can get him. VegasSeagull
  • Score: 0

3:48pm Thu 27 Feb 14

wiseman of hove says...

dave from bexill wrote:
fratsomrover wrote:
Wow, this kid is something special. Never thought we'd be tapping up Man Utd for one of their best. Well done Burke & Garcia, I'd call this something of a coup.
He's an instinctive striker who should be the perfect partner up alongside Leo.
Lets hope he starts on Sat.
I fancy:
Kuz
Bruno
Greer
Upson
Ward
Ince
Stephens
Orlandi
Buckley
Ulloa
Lingard

That would show an attacking intent.
Perfect
That is the team exactly. All sorted for Oscar.
[quote][p][bold]dave from bexill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fratsomrover[/bold] wrote: Wow, this kid is something special. Never thought we'd be tapping up Man Utd for one of their best. Well done Burke & Garcia, I'd call this something of a coup. He's an instinctive striker who should be the perfect partner up alongside Leo. Lets hope he starts on Sat. I fancy: Kuz Bruno Greer Upson Ward Ince Stephens Orlandi Buckley Ulloa Lingard That would show an attacking intent.[/p][/quote]Perfect[/p][/quote]That is the team exactly. All sorted for Oscar. wiseman of hove
  • Score: 9

3:58pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Claude Back says...

VegasSeagull wrote:
namgo49 wrote:
He is actually described as an attacking midfielder/winger but does this mean taxi for young Obika whose signing appears to be money wasted. Same with Lita's signing and too Rodiguez, who has singularly failed to impress. There appears to have been a lack of clarity in formulating the squad game plan with hap hazard desperation like signings. This does look to be a good one though.

Where will this leave the recovering Hoskins and CMS?

I wonder what guarantees there has had to be made regarding starts? He walked in to Birmingham's starting 11. How will it be with us? Will we have to change formation!!

Not being negative but the signing raises a lot of questions. Interesting to see how it all pans out though.
I recll that at about this time last year Gus swithced it up a bit, he sent out slightly more attacking teams, I forget his actual words but it was something on the lines of, 'he is prepared to take more risks with his team selections and style of play.' The arrival of this lad might signal a similar shift by Oscar.
I flaming hope so.
If Garcia does no't play him and Leo up front we will know for certain he has lost the plot. However, I have a feeling he will play Jesse as a wider player, perhaps instead of Buckley.
[quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]namgo49[/bold] wrote: He is actually described as an attacking midfielder/winger but does this mean taxi for young Obika whose signing appears to be money wasted. Same with Lita's signing and too Rodiguez, who has singularly failed to impress. There appears to have been a lack of clarity in formulating the squad game plan with hap hazard desperation like signings. This does look to be a good one though. Where will this leave the recovering Hoskins and CMS? I wonder what guarantees there has had to be made regarding starts? He walked in to Birmingham's starting 11. How will it be with us? Will we have to change formation!! Not being negative but the signing raises a lot of questions. Interesting to see how it all pans out though.[/p][/quote]I recll that at about this time last year Gus swithced it up a bit, he sent out slightly more attacking teams, I forget his actual words but it was something on the lines of, 'he is prepared to take more risks with his team selections and style of play.' The arrival of this lad might signal a similar shift by Oscar.[/p][/quote]I flaming hope so. If Garcia does no't play him and Leo up front we will know for certain he has lost the plot. However, I have a feeling he will play Jesse as a wider player, perhaps instead of Buckley. Claude Back
  • Score: 4

4:00pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Ex-pat Arnie says...

Claude Back wrote:
VegasSeagull wrote:
namgo49 wrote:
He is actually described as an attacking midfielder/winger but does this mean taxi for young Obika whose signing appears to be money wasted. Same with Lita's signing and too Rodiguez, who has singularly failed to impress. There appears to have been a lack of clarity in formulating the squad game plan with hap hazard desperation like signings. This does look to be a good one though.

Where will this leave the recovering Hoskins and CMS?

I wonder what guarantees there has had to be made regarding starts? He walked in to Birmingham's starting 11. How will it be with us? Will we have to change formation!!

Not being negative but the signing raises a lot of questions. Interesting to see how it all pans out though.
I recll that at about this time last year Gus swithced it up a bit, he sent out slightly more attacking teams, I forget his actual words but it was something on the lines of, 'he is prepared to take more risks with his team selections and style of play.' The arrival of this lad might signal a similar shift by Oscar.
I flaming hope so.
If Garcia does no't play him and Leo up front we will know for certain he has lost the plot. However, I have a feeling he will play Jesse as a wider player, perhaps instead of Buckley.
He doesn't seem to be an out and out striker, and given OG's favoured formation I presume he will play outside him, but maybe not as wide as Kaz or Buckers.
[quote][p][bold]Claude Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]namgo49[/bold] wrote: He is actually described as an attacking midfielder/winger but does this mean taxi for young Obika whose signing appears to be money wasted. Same with Lita's signing and too Rodiguez, who has singularly failed to impress. There appears to have been a lack of clarity in formulating the squad game plan with hap hazard desperation like signings. This does look to be a good one though. Where will this leave the recovering Hoskins and CMS? I wonder what guarantees there has had to be made regarding starts? He walked in to Birmingham's starting 11. How will it be with us? Will we have to change formation!! Not being negative but the signing raises a lot of questions. Interesting to see how it all pans out though.[/p][/quote]I recll that at about this time last year Gus swithced it up a bit, he sent out slightly more attacking teams, I forget his actual words but it was something on the lines of, 'he is prepared to take more risks with his team selections and style of play.' The arrival of this lad might signal a similar shift by Oscar.[/p][/quote]I flaming hope so. If Garcia does no't play him and Leo up front we will know for certain he has lost the plot. However, I have a feeling he will play Jesse as a wider player, perhaps instead of Buckley.[/p][/quote]He doesn't seem to be an out and out striker, and given OG's favoured formation I presume he will play outside him, but maybe not as wide as Kaz or Buckers. Ex-pat Arnie
  • Score: 3

4:00pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Claude Back says...

wiseman of hove wrote:
dave from bexill wrote:
fratsomrover wrote:
Wow, this kid is something special. Never thought we'd be tapping up Man Utd for one of their best. Well done Burke & Garcia, I'd call this something of a coup.
He's an instinctive striker who should be the perfect partner up alongside Leo.
Lets hope he starts on Sat.
I fancy:
Kuz
Bruno
Greer
Upson
Ward
Ince
Stephens
Orlandi
Buckley
Ulloa
Lingard

That would show an attacking intent.
Perfect
That is the team exactly. All sorted for Oscar.
Agreed.... but as likely as two alike snowflakes.
[quote][p][bold]wiseman of hove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dave from bexill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fratsomrover[/bold] wrote: Wow, this kid is something special. Never thought we'd be tapping up Man Utd for one of their best. Well done Burke & Garcia, I'd call this something of a coup. He's an instinctive striker who should be the perfect partner up alongside Leo. Lets hope he starts on Sat. I fancy: Kuz Bruno Greer Upson Ward Ince Stephens Orlandi Buckley Ulloa Lingard That would show an attacking intent.[/p][/quote]Perfect[/p][/quote]That is the team exactly. All sorted for Oscar.[/p][/quote]Agreed.... but as likely as two alike snowflakes. Claude Back
  • Score: -3

4:01pm Thu 27 Feb 14

gordongull says...

VegasSeagull wrote:
Hey Namego, I have asked this question on the, 'five in a row,' thread, but so far no replies, perhaps you might offer a comment on this thread, and others.

We were told that we lost 8 million during the our first year at the Amex. We were then told that we lost close to 9 million during year two, now we are told that we are predicted to lose 14 million this year.
Is it your understanding that we lost 8+9+ predicted 14 or 14 in total for all three years? I accept that the 14 is expected to be cut to 8 this year.
I have to ask you why you need to know, Vegas, because the figures you quote might not be relevant.
The level of loss that a club reports in their financial accounts will not be the same figure that is used in the FFP Break Even calculations. This is because of the permitted exclusion of infrastructure and youth development costs.
Also would it be over-simplistic to point out that if £14m was the total losses for all three years, then years one and two could not have been £8m and £9m respectively?
[quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: Hey Namego, I have asked this question on the, 'five in a row,' thread, but so far no replies, perhaps you might offer a comment on this thread, and others. We were told that we lost 8 million during the our first year at the Amex. We were then told that we lost close to 9 million during year two, now we are told that we are predicted to lose 14 million this year. Is it your understanding that we lost 8+9+ predicted 14 or 14 in total for all three years? I accept that the 14 is expected to be cut to 8 this year.[/p][/quote]I have to ask you why you need to know, Vegas, because the figures you quote might not be relevant. The level of loss that a club reports in their financial accounts will not be the same figure that is used in the FFP Break Even calculations. This is because of the permitted exclusion of infrastructure and youth development costs. Also would it be over-simplistic to point out that if £14m was the total losses for all three years, then years one and two could not have been £8m and £9m respectively? gordongull
  • Score: 4

4:01pm Thu 27 Feb 14

JoeBlow says...

Lingard has just been named in the England U-21 squad again. As a midfielder, of course.
Lingard has just been named in the England U-21 squad again. As a midfielder, of course. JoeBlow
  • Score: 4

4:02pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Jimmy Langley says...

fratsomrover wrote:
Wow, this kid is something special. Never thought we'd be tapping up Man Utd for one of their best. Well done Burke & Garcia, I'd call this something of a coup.
He's an instinctive striker who should be the perfect partner up alongside Leo.
Lets hope he starts on Sat.
I fancy:
Kuz
Bruno
Greer
Upson
Ward
Ince
Stephens
Orlandi
Buckley
Ulloa
Lingard

That would show an attacking intent.
This would be an exciting line up and one with both experience and youthful flair. Here's hoping that Oscar has the same thoughts.
[quote][p][bold]fratsomrover[/bold] wrote: Wow, this kid is something special. Never thought we'd be tapping up Man Utd for one of their best. Well done Burke & Garcia, I'd call this something of a coup. He's an instinctive striker who should be the perfect partner up alongside Leo. Lets hope he starts on Sat. I fancy: Kuz Bruno Greer Upson Ward Ince Stephens Orlandi Buckley Ulloa Lingard That would show an attacking intent.[/p][/quote]This would be an exciting line up and one with both experience and youthful flair. Here's hoping that Oscar has the same thoughts. Jimmy Langley
  • Score: 10

4:04pm Thu 27 Feb 14

wiseman of hove says...

Claude Back wrote:
wiseman of hove wrote:
dave from bexill wrote:
fratsomrover wrote:
Wow, this kid is something special. Never thought we'd be tapping up Man Utd for one of their best. Well done Burke & Garcia, I'd call this something of a coup.
He's an instinctive striker who should be the perfect partner up alongside Leo.
Lets hope he starts on Sat.
I fancy:
Kuz
Bruno
Greer
Upson
Ward
Ince
Stephens
Orlandi
Buckley
Ulloa
Lingard

That would show an attacking intent.
Perfect
That is the team exactly. All sorted for Oscar.
Agreed.... but as likely as two alike snowflakes.
You have me worried Claude. What's Oscar's team?
[quote][p][bold]Claude Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wiseman of hove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dave from bexill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fratsomrover[/bold] wrote: Wow, this kid is something special. Never thought we'd be tapping up Man Utd for one of their best. Well done Burke & Garcia, I'd call this something of a coup. He's an instinctive striker who should be the perfect partner up alongside Leo. Lets hope he starts on Sat. I fancy: Kuz Bruno Greer Upson Ward Ince Stephens Orlandi Buckley Ulloa Lingard That would show an attacking intent.[/p][/quote]Perfect[/p][/quote]That is the team exactly. All sorted for Oscar.[/p][/quote]Agreed.... but as likely as two alike snowflakes.[/p][/quote]You have me worried Claude. What's Oscar's team? wiseman of hove
  • Score: 0

4:08pm Thu 27 Feb 14

namgo49 says...

VegasSeagull wrote:
Hey Namego, I have asked this question on the, 'five in a row,' thread, but so far no replies, perhaps you might offer a comment on this thread, and others.

We were told that we lost 8 million during the our first year at the Amex. We were then told that we lost close to 9 million during year two, now we are told that we are predicted to lose 14 million this year.
Is it your understanding that we lost 8+9+ predicted 14 or 14 in total for all three years? I accept that the 14 is expected to be cut to 8 this year.
I think it's year on year so cumulatively 31 mill, in which case it makes you wonder how we can afford anyone!! But then Bolton lost that in a year in spite of parachute payments so that may be puts it into some sort of perspective.

I think the club, like all the aspirational Championship sides, sees the P.L. as the panacear of financial security. But then how many of the also rans in the P.L.make profit? Indeed how many of the elite do, only Arsenal & Man. U.

The FFP must be the way forward provided it is with points deductions for those who do not comply. There must be something in it, otherwise the leech like Agents would not be taking court action against UEFA.

On the wages front it is madness that Rooney gets £300k pw. I see RVP now is starting to get twitchy and may do a Rooney. He's just getting the gun out to hold to the Manager's head.

Albion as an entity needs to boost commercial revenue. It can do little more on the gate receipts unless they bring in the standing and reduce the prices to drive sales through volume rather than margin a la the Bundesliga. Not sure that would work anyway as they would only do the North Stand and most of them stand up anyway to the annoyance of the non-season ticket holders who want to stay seated. They could go in the South East & West corners though with the away fans in the South stand converted to standing and priced accordingly.

Starting to ramble now, time for my afternoon knap.
[quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: Hey Namego, I have asked this question on the, 'five in a row,' thread, but so far no replies, perhaps you might offer a comment on this thread, and others. We were told that we lost 8 million during the our first year at the Amex. We were then told that we lost close to 9 million during year two, now we are told that we are predicted to lose 14 million this year. Is it your understanding that we lost 8+9+ predicted 14 or 14 in total for all three years? I accept that the 14 is expected to be cut to 8 this year.[/p][/quote]I think it's year on year so cumulatively 31 mill, in which case it makes you wonder how we can afford anyone!! But then Bolton lost that in a year in spite of parachute payments so that may be puts it into some sort of perspective. I think the club, like all the aspirational Championship sides, sees the P.L. as the panacear of financial security. But then how many of the also rans in the P.L.make profit? Indeed how many of the elite do, only Arsenal & Man. U. The FFP must be the way forward provided it is with points deductions for those who do not comply. There must be something in it, otherwise the leech like Agents would not be taking court action against UEFA. On the wages front it is madness that Rooney gets £300k pw. I see RVP now is starting to get twitchy and may do a Rooney. He's just getting the gun out to hold to the Manager's head. Albion as an entity needs to boost commercial revenue. It can do little more on the gate receipts unless they bring in the standing and reduce the prices to drive sales through volume rather than margin a la the Bundesliga. Not sure that would work anyway as they would only do the North Stand and most of them stand up anyway to the annoyance of the non-season ticket holders who want to stay seated. They could go in the South East & West corners though with the away fans in the South stand converted to standing and priced accordingly. Starting to ramble now, time for my afternoon knap. namgo49
  • Score: 3

4:08pm Thu 27 Feb 14

fratsomrover says...

VegasSeagull wrote:
mikeygit wrote:
Like most I know nothing about this lad--who cares if he plays well, fits in and scores loads of goals. Just what I said yesterday, we need someone with drive and enthusiasm and who can score goals, if he does that then no doubt it will rub off onto other players. As Vegas said hope we can either buy him or have a season long loan if he IS the business. I would think that if Saha cannot get into the Man U team and is on loan this lad should be easy to get on loan?? Good luck to him and hope he is what we have been looking for for some time. Saturday should be interesting.
Trouble is that if he is that good, probably he becomes a target for one of the teams that get promoted this season, that is if Moyes would even let him go, we would need United to sign a big name striker so as to free this lad up, and then hope we can get him.
VEGAS You miss the point entirely !!

He's here on loan. He's not a purchase, Man Utd have lent him to us so he can get first team experience in The Championship.
There is not the slightest indication he'll be available to buy.
At the end of the season he returns to Old Trafford.

It's a fantastic opportunity for the club to reap the benefit of being able to play a "star in the making".
Remember, Lukaku & Sturridge were all sent out on loan to gain first team experience by their parent club. Look at them now !!
The loan system is a major factor in player's development as it gives them first team opportunities they would not likely get at their parent club.

How can you refer to him as being " Trouble is that if he's that good"
If he is that good, we reap the benefits. How is that Trouble ??
You say the weirdest things sometimes !!!
[quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikeygit[/bold] wrote: Like most I know nothing about this lad--who cares if he plays well, fits in and scores loads of goals. Just what I said yesterday, we need someone with drive and enthusiasm and who can score goals, if he does that then no doubt it will rub off onto other players. As Vegas said hope we can either buy him or have a season long loan if he IS the business. I would think that if Saha cannot get into the Man U team and is on loan this lad should be easy to get on loan?? Good luck to him and hope he is what we have been looking for for some time. Saturday should be interesting.[/p][/quote]Trouble is that if he is that good, probably he becomes a target for one of the teams that get promoted this season, that is if Moyes would even let him go, we would need United to sign a big name striker so as to free this lad up, and then hope we can get him.[/p][/quote]VEGAS You miss the point entirely !! He's here on loan. He's not a purchase, Man Utd have lent him to us so he can get first team experience in The Championship. There is not the slightest indication he'll be available to buy. At the end of the season he returns to Old Trafford. It's a fantastic opportunity for the club to reap the benefit of being able to play a "star in the making". Remember, Lukaku & Sturridge were all sent out on loan to gain first team experience by their parent club. Look at them now !! The loan system is a major factor in player's development as it gives them first team opportunities they would not likely get at their parent club. How can you refer to him as being " Trouble is that if he's that good" If he is that good, we reap the benefits. How is that Trouble ?? You say the weirdest things sometimes !!! fratsomrover
  • Score: 20

4:16pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Mancgulled says...

There you go -- a gift from the city of my birth to the city of my domicile and I can tell you I have seen Mr. Lingaard play on more than one occasion and I will stand by my words here - he is a good player! Roll on Saturday .......
There you go -- a gift from the city of my birth to the city of my domicile and I can tell you I have seen Mr. Lingaard play on more than one occasion and I will stand by my words here - he is a good player! Roll on Saturday ....... Mancgulled
  • Score: 9

4:18pm Thu 27 Feb 14

tez1959 says...

needs something at the albion to get there a...s into gear lets hope for a few more and get rid of the dead wood that dont want to play proper football for brighton...........
needs something at the albion to get there a...s into gear lets hope for a few more and get rid of the dead wood that dont want to play proper football for brighton........... tez1959
  • Score: -9

4:51pm Thu 27 Feb 14

daughter-of-manag says...

john newman wrote:
If he was that good would he not be in Man U team at the moment.?
John Newman, you truly are a turkey.

Exciting signing :)
[quote][p][bold]john newman[/bold] wrote: If he was that good would he not be in Man U team at the moment.?[/p][/quote]John Newman, you truly are a turkey. Exciting signing :) daughter-of-manag
  • Score: 7

4:59pm Thu 27 Feb 14

seegull fly in sky says...

Hem eet rise cripsies a brakfest. Maike em goad plyer.
Hem eet rise cripsies a brakfest. Maike em goad plyer. seegull fly in sky
  • Score: 0

5:02pm Thu 27 Feb 14

SonnyJim55 says...

OG must be planning to play 2 up front now, this kid would not be coming here to warm the bench for 80 mins of a game, Man U would not send him here if they have not had assurances that he will get proper game time. Excellent news!
OG must be planning to play 2 up front now, this kid would not be coming here to warm the bench for 80 mins of a game, Man U would not send him here if they have not had assurances that he will get proper game time. Excellent news! SonnyJim55
  • Score: 2

5:09pm Thu 27 Feb 14

arc12 says...

Great signing as cover for Leo. Be surprised if he plays much as OG won't change his philosophy on 1 striker up top, but certainly better cover than Obika if Leo gets injured.
Great signing as cover for Leo. Be surprised if he plays much as OG won't change his philosophy on 1 striker up top, but certainly better cover than Obika if Leo gets injured. arc12
  • Score: -10

5:13pm Thu 27 Feb 14

VegasSeagull says...

fratsomrover wrote:
VegasSeagull wrote:
mikeygit wrote:
Like most I know nothing about this lad--who cares if he plays well, fits in and scores loads of goals. Just what I said yesterday, we need someone with drive and enthusiasm and who can score goals, if he does that then no doubt it will rub off onto other players. As Vegas said hope we can either buy him or have a season long loan if he IS the business. I would think that if Saha cannot get into the Man U team and is on loan this lad should be easy to get on loan?? Good luck to him and hope he is what we have been looking for for some time. Saturday should be interesting.
Trouble is that if he is that good, probably he becomes a target for one of the teams that get promoted this season, that is if Moyes would even let him go, we would need United to sign a big name striker so as to free this lad up, and then hope we can get him.
VEGAS You miss the point entirely !!

He's here on loan. He's not a purchase, Man Utd have lent him to us so he can get first team experience in The Championship.
There is not the slightest indication he'll be available to buy.
At the end of the season he returns to Old Trafford.

It's a fantastic opportunity for the club to reap the benefit of being able to play a "star in the making".
Remember, Lukaku & Sturridge were all sent out on loan to gain first team experience by their parent club. Look at them now !!
The loan system is a major factor in player's development as it gives them first team opportunities they would not likely get at their parent club.

How can you refer to him as being " Trouble is that if he's that good"
If he is that good, we reap the benefits. How is that Trouble ??
You say the weirdest things sometimes !!!
and you say that I am missing the point.

Yeah I know that he is on loan, I also know that he isn't a purchase, and yep he is here to get first team experience, and no, there isn't the slightest indication that he'll be available to buy, yes he goes back to United at the end of the season, I am not aware that I contradicted any of these points.

I have simply stated an opinion that says it would be good if we could get him, do you contest that?
'Trouble is,' which you have taken out of context, simply voices my opinion that it would be very hard to get him.
How anyone can read into my comment what you are, is beyond me, unless you are just looking for a reason to have a pop in my direction.
I'll treat your comments with the contempt they deserve.
[quote][p][bold]fratsomrover[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikeygit[/bold] wrote: Like most I know nothing about this lad--who cares if he plays well, fits in and scores loads of goals. Just what I said yesterday, we need someone with drive and enthusiasm and who can score goals, if he does that then no doubt it will rub off onto other players. As Vegas said hope we can either buy him or have a season long loan if he IS the business. I would think that if Saha cannot get into the Man U team and is on loan this lad should be easy to get on loan?? Good luck to him and hope he is what we have been looking for for some time. Saturday should be interesting.[/p][/quote]Trouble is that if he is that good, probably he becomes a target for one of the teams that get promoted this season, that is if Moyes would even let him go, we would need United to sign a big name striker so as to free this lad up, and then hope we can get him.[/p][/quote]VEGAS You miss the point entirely !! He's here on loan. He's not a purchase, Man Utd have lent him to us so he can get first team experience in The Championship. There is not the slightest indication he'll be available to buy. At the end of the season he returns to Old Trafford. It's a fantastic opportunity for the club to reap the benefit of being able to play a "star in the making". Remember, Lukaku & Sturridge were all sent out on loan to gain first team experience by their parent club. Look at them now !! The loan system is a major factor in player's development as it gives them first team opportunities they would not likely get at their parent club. How can you refer to him as being " Trouble is that if he's that good" If he is that good, we reap the benefits. How is that Trouble ?? You say the weirdest things sometimes !!![/p][/quote]and you say that I am missing the point. Yeah I know that he is on loan, I also know that he isn't a purchase, and yep he is here to get first team experience, and no, there isn't the slightest indication that he'll be available to buy, yes he goes back to United at the end of the season, I am not aware that I contradicted any of these points. I have simply stated an opinion that says it would be good if we could get him, do you contest that? 'Trouble is,' which you have taken out of context, simply voices my opinion that it would be very hard to get him. How anyone can read into my comment what you are, is beyond me, unless you are just looking for a reason to have a pop in my direction. I'll treat your comments with the contempt they deserve. VegasSeagull
  • Score: -5

5:25pm Thu 27 Feb 14

VegasSeagull says...

gordongull wrote:
VegasSeagull wrote:
Hey Namego, I have asked this question on the, 'five in a row,' thread, but so far no replies, perhaps you might offer a comment on this thread, and others.

We were told that we lost 8 million during the our first year at the Amex. We were then told that we lost close to 9 million during year two, now we are told that we are predicted to lose 14 million this year.
Is it your understanding that we lost 8+9+ predicted 14 or 14 in total for all three years? I accept that the 14 is expected to be cut to 8 this year.
I have to ask you why you need to know, Vegas, because the figures you quote might not be relevant.
The level of loss that a club reports in their financial accounts will not be the same figure that is used in the FFP Break Even calculations. This is because of the permitted exclusion of infrastructure and youth development costs.
Also would it be over-simplistic to point out that if £14m was the total losses for all three years, then years one and two could not have been £8m and £9m respectively?
The reason why I would like to know is, how did we jump from losing around 9 million last year to losing 14 million this year, surely we have not invested 5 million on new players in this season.
There have been many calls for Oscar, and the suits, to bring in new blood, it appears that we have the debt figure to suggest we have done so but not the players to go with the debt, so where did this 5 million go? The loss has nothing to do with infra structure spending, as you correctly state, so what was the money spent on when you consider we only lost 9 million last year and 8 the year before, two periods when we were very active in the market, something we can't say about this year.
[quote][p][bold]gordongull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: Hey Namego, I have asked this question on the, 'five in a row,' thread, but so far no replies, perhaps you might offer a comment on this thread, and others. We were told that we lost 8 million during the our first year at the Amex. We were then told that we lost close to 9 million during year two, now we are told that we are predicted to lose 14 million this year. Is it your understanding that we lost 8+9+ predicted 14 or 14 in total for all three years? I accept that the 14 is expected to be cut to 8 this year.[/p][/quote]I have to ask you why you need to know, Vegas, because the figures you quote might not be relevant. The level of loss that a club reports in their financial accounts will not be the same figure that is used in the FFP Break Even calculations. This is because of the permitted exclusion of infrastructure and youth development costs. Also would it be over-simplistic to point out that if £14m was the total losses for all three years, then years one and two could not have been £8m and £9m respectively?[/p][/quote]The reason why I would like to know is, how did we jump from losing around 9 million last year to losing 14 million this year, surely we have not invested 5 million on new players in this season. There have been many calls for Oscar, and the suits, to bring in new blood, it appears that we have the debt figure to suggest we have done so but not the players to go with the debt, so where did this 5 million go? The loss has nothing to do with infra structure spending, as you correctly state, so what was the money spent on when you consider we only lost 9 million last year and 8 the year before, two periods when we were very active in the market, something we can't say about this year. VegasSeagull
  • Score: -1

5:28pm Thu 27 Feb 14

AburridoEnTrabajo says...

john newman wrote:
If he was that good would he not be in Man U team at the moment.?
Being good isn't a requirement for being in the Manchester United team at the moment
[quote][p][bold]john newman[/bold] wrote: If he was that good would he not be in Man U team at the moment.?[/p][/quote]Being good isn't a requirement for being in the Manchester United team at the moment AburridoEnTrabajo
  • Score: 13

5:39pm Thu 27 Feb 14

dave from bexill says...

arc12 wrote:
Great signing as cover for Leo. Be surprised if he plays much as OG won't change his philosophy on 1 striker up top, but certainly better cover than Obika if Leo gets injured.
He will play with Leo.
[quote][p][bold]arc12[/bold] wrote: Great signing as cover for Leo. Be surprised if he plays much as OG won't change his philosophy on 1 striker up top, but certainly better cover than Obika if Leo gets injured.[/p][/quote]He will play with Leo. dave from bexill
  • Score: 10

5:49pm Thu 27 Feb 14

mark by the sea says...

dave from bexill wrote:
arc12 wrote:
Great signing as cover for Leo. Be surprised if he plays much as OG won't change his philosophy on 1 striker up top, but certainly better cover than Obika if Leo gets injured.
He will play with Leo.
I don't understand some people, this guy is what I have been boring you all about, the lad will play in the hole behind Leo .. I would imagine a diamond shape with ince Stephens and Andrews ,
Have you noticed there are 70 comments, nearly all positive, we might make the play offs , but this will lift the spirits for the remaining games.. Win well Saturday and the Amex will ROCK AGAIN,,!!!!
[quote][p][bold]dave from bexill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arc12[/bold] wrote: Great signing as cover for Leo. Be surprised if he plays much as OG won't change his philosophy on 1 striker up top, but certainly better cover than Obika if Leo gets injured.[/p][/quote]He will play with Leo.[/p][/quote]I don't understand some people, this guy is what I have been boring you all about, the lad will play in the hole behind Leo .. I would imagine a diamond shape with ince Stephens and Andrews , Have you noticed there are 70 comments, nearly all positive, we might make the play offs , but this will lift the spirits for the remaining games.. Win well Saturday and the Amex will ROCK AGAIN,,!!!! mark by the sea
  • Score: 9

5:51pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Carlas mum says...

Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.
Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are. Carlas mum
  • Score: 7

5:56pm Thu 27 Feb 14

SeagullOverSelsey says...

fratsomrover wrote:
Wow, this kid is something special. Never thought we'd be tapping up Man Utd for one of their best. Well done Burke & Garcia, I'd call this something of a coup.
He's an instinctive striker who should be the perfect partner up alongside Leo.
Lets hope he starts on Sat.
I fancy:
Kuz
Bruno
Greer
Upson
Ward
Ince
Stephens
Orlandi
Buckley
Ulloa
Lingard

That would show an attacking intent.
Agree the line up 100%.If Buckley is not fit put in Solly.
Subs.Ank Calde Dunk LuaLua Lopez March Rodriguez.
[quote][p][bold]fratsomrover[/bold] wrote: Wow, this kid is something special. Never thought we'd be tapping up Man Utd for one of their best. Well done Burke & Garcia, I'd call this something of a coup. He's an instinctive striker who should be the perfect partner up alongside Leo. Lets hope he starts on Sat. I fancy: Kuz Bruno Greer Upson Ward Ince Stephens Orlandi Buckley Ulloa Lingard That would show an attacking intent.[/p][/quote]Agree the line up 100%.If Buckley is not fit put in Solly. Subs.Ank Calde Dunk LuaLua Lopez March Rodriguez. SeagullOverSelsey
  • Score: 7

6:02pm Thu 27 Feb 14

oksouthstander says...

jaybee68 wrote:
VegasSeagull wrote:
B rian Tawses left foot wrote:
Suddenly OG has made a sparkling signing. Surely this is not the same man who was hopeless in the transfer market, capable of signing only humdrum 'journeymen'? Is that a queue I see forming outside the humble pie shop ?
I guess, 'this,' signing will be credited to Oscar, where as those that have not fullfilled the hopes of the fans on here were all down to Jones and Burke, God I hope this lad scores goals, if he doesn't he will get moved to the Burke and Jones list.
Unbelievable comments from some........
We've been crying out for someone to come in with pace (tick), youth (tick), and eye for goals (tick), an attacker/attacking midfielder (tick).
I'm no Man U fan but no one can argue that they haven't developed many of the best English players over the last 15 years. So we sign one of their best young prospects who has proven this season that he can score goals at Championship level and who scored in 30 odd minutes as many as most of our midfield combined have done all season and we find reasons to moan....
Wow!
Welcome Jesse
UTA and here's to the prospect of top 6
And so say all of us!
[quote][p][bold]jaybee68[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]B rian Tawses left foot[/bold] wrote: Suddenly OG has made a sparkling signing. Surely this is not the same man who was hopeless in the transfer market, capable of signing only humdrum 'journeymen'? Is that a queue I see forming outside the humble pie shop ?[/p][/quote]I guess, 'this,' signing will be credited to Oscar, where as those that have not fullfilled the hopes of the fans on here were all down to Jones and Burke, God I hope this lad scores goals, if he doesn't he will get moved to the Burke and Jones list.[/p][/quote]Unbelievable comments from some........ We've been crying out for someone to come in with pace (tick), youth (tick), and eye for goals (tick), an attacker/attacking midfielder (tick). I'm no Man U fan but no one can argue that they haven't developed many of the best English players over the last 15 years. So we sign one of their best young prospects who has proven this season that he can score goals at Championship level and who scored in 30 odd minutes as many as most of our midfield combined have done all season and we find reasons to moan.... Wow! Welcome Jesse UTA and here's to the prospect of top 6[/p][/quote]And so say all of us! oksouthstander
  • Score: 4

6:05pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Alfie T says...

Just a shame he's a Jesse :-)
Just a shame he's a Jesse :-) Alfie T
  • Score: -4

6:06pm Thu 27 Feb 14

gordongull says...

VegasSeagull wrote:
gordongull wrote:
VegasSeagull wrote:
Hey Namego, I have asked this question on the, 'five in a row,' thread, but so far no replies, perhaps you might offer a comment on this thread, and others.

We were told that we lost 8 million during the our first year at the Amex. We were then told that we lost close to 9 million during year two, now we are told that we are predicted to lose 14 million this year.
Is it your understanding that we lost 8+9+ predicted 14 or 14 in total for all three years? I accept that the 14 is expected to be cut to 8 this year.
I have to ask you why you need to know, Vegas, because the figures you quote might not be relevant.
The level of loss that a club reports in their financial accounts will not be the same figure that is used in the FFP Break Even calculations. This is because of the permitted exclusion of infrastructure and youth development costs.
Also would it be over-simplistic to point out that if £14m was the total losses for all three years, then years one and two could not have been £8m and £9m respectively?
The reason why I would like to know is, how did we jump from losing around 9 million last year to losing 14 million this year, surely we have not invested 5 million on new players in this season.
There have been many calls for Oscar, and the suits, to bring in new blood, it appears that we have the debt figure to suggest we have done so but not the players to go with the debt, so where did this 5 million go? The loss has nothing to do with infra structure spending, as you correctly state, so what was the money spent on when you consider we only lost 9 million last year and 8 the year before, two periods when we were very active in the market, something we can't say about this year.
I'm not saying it has nothing to do with infrastructure spending. In fact I am assuming if this is the loss before the FFP calculation, infrastructure would be a likely candidate for the loss.
[quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gordongull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: Hey Namego, I have asked this question on the, 'five in a row,' thread, but so far no replies, perhaps you might offer a comment on this thread, and others. We were told that we lost 8 million during the our first year at the Amex. We were then told that we lost close to 9 million during year two, now we are told that we are predicted to lose 14 million this year. Is it your understanding that we lost 8+9+ predicted 14 or 14 in total for all three years? I accept that the 14 is expected to be cut to 8 this year.[/p][/quote]I have to ask you why you need to know, Vegas, because the figures you quote might not be relevant. The level of loss that a club reports in their financial accounts will not be the same figure that is used in the FFP Break Even calculations. This is because of the permitted exclusion of infrastructure and youth development costs. Also would it be over-simplistic to point out that if £14m was the total losses for all three years, then years one and two could not have been £8m and £9m respectively?[/p][/quote]The reason why I would like to know is, how did we jump from losing around 9 million last year to losing 14 million this year, surely we have not invested 5 million on new players in this season. There have been many calls for Oscar, and the suits, to bring in new blood, it appears that we have the debt figure to suggest we have done so but not the players to go with the debt, so where did this 5 million go? The loss has nothing to do with infra structure spending, as you correctly state, so what was the money spent on when you consider we only lost 9 million last year and 8 the year before, two periods when we were very active in the market, something we can't say about this year.[/p][/quote]I'm not saying it has nothing to do with infrastructure spending. In fact I am assuming if this is the loss before the FFP calculation, infrastructure would be a likely candidate for the loss. gordongull
  • Score: 0

6:35pm Thu 27 Feb 14

WestStander17 says...

dave from bexill wrote:
arc12 wrote:
Great signing as cover for Leo. Be surprised if he plays much as OG won't change his philosophy on 1 striker up top, but certainly better cover than Obika if Leo gets injured.
He will play with Leo.
Do you think? In a change of system or from wide?

I think, if he plays in a front 2 with Leo, Oscar will sacrifice at least one winger so he can keep the 3 central midfielders. That will be ok with Bruno and Ward getting forward.
[quote][p][bold]dave from bexill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arc12[/bold] wrote: Great signing as cover for Leo. Be surprised if he plays much as OG won't change his philosophy on 1 striker up top, but certainly better cover than Obika if Leo gets injured.[/p][/quote]He will play with Leo.[/p][/quote]Do you think? In a change of system or from wide? I think, if he plays in a front 2 with Leo, Oscar will sacrifice at least one winger so he can keep the 3 central midfielders. That will be ok with Bruno and Ward getting forward. WestStander17
  • Score: 0

6:43pm Thu 27 Feb 14

wiseman of hove says...

mark by the sea wrote:
dave from bexill wrote:
arc12 wrote:
Great signing as cover for Leo. Be surprised if he plays much as OG won't change his philosophy on 1 striker up top, but certainly better cover than Obika if Leo gets injured.
He will play with Leo.
I don't understand some people, this guy is what I have been boring you all about, the lad will play in the hole behind Leo .. I would imagine a diamond shape with ince Stephens and Andrews ,
Have you noticed there are 70 comments, nearly all positive, we might make the play offs , but this will lift the spirits for the remaining games.. Win well Saturday and the Amex will ROCK AGAIN,,!!!!
Surely not Andrews, Mark? I really don't see a spot for him if everybody is fit.
[quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dave from bexill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arc12[/bold] wrote: Great signing as cover for Leo. Be surprised if he plays much as OG won't change his philosophy on 1 striker up top, but certainly better cover than Obika if Leo gets injured.[/p][/quote]He will play with Leo.[/p][/quote]I don't understand some people, this guy is what I have been boring you all about, the lad will play in the hole behind Leo .. I would imagine a diamond shape with ince Stephens and Andrews , Have you noticed there are 70 comments, nearly all positive, we might make the play offs , but this will lift the spirits for the remaining games.. Win well Saturday and the Amex will ROCK AGAIN,,!!!![/p][/quote]Surely not Andrews, Mark? I really don't see a spot for him if everybody is fit. wiseman of hove
  • Score: 2

6:47pm Thu 27 Feb 14

VegasSeagull says...

Carlas mum wrote:
Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.
This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?
[quote][p][bold]Carlas mum[/bold] wrote: Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.[/p][/quote]This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it? VegasSeagull
  • Score: -4

7:07pm Thu 27 Feb 14

ringtone says...

So what
So what ringtone
  • Score: -3

7:09pm Thu 27 Feb 14

ringtone says...

VegasSeagull wrote:
Carlas mum wrote:
Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.
This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?
These are not losses, they are repayments on the stadium all dressed up.
[quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carlas mum[/bold] wrote: Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.[/p][/quote]This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?[/p][/quote]These are not losses, they are repayments on the stadium all dressed up. ringtone
  • Score: -2

7:18pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Conelli98 says...

…good signing!!!………
………………
………………
………………
………………
………………
…….any news on Rohan Ince( fingers crossed)?
…good signing!!!……… ……………… ……………… ……………… ……………… ……………… …….any news on Rohan Ince( fingers crossed)? Conelli98
  • Score: 0

7:20pm Thu 27 Feb 14

ringtone says...

arc12 wrote:
Great signing as cover for Leo. Be surprised if he plays much as OG won't change his philosophy on 1 striker up top, but certainly better cover than Obika if Leo gets injured.
Spot on arc, hre will get as much game time as the last nobody bought in on loan, boring manager.

Spanish flair, you gotta love it
[quote][p][bold]arc12[/bold] wrote: Great signing as cover for Leo. Be surprised if he plays much as OG won't change his philosophy on 1 striker up top, but certainly better cover than Obika if Leo gets injured.[/p][/quote]Spot on arc, hre will get as much game time as the last nobody bought in on loan, boring manager. Spanish flair, you gotta love it ringtone
  • Score: -7

7:20pm Thu 27 Feb 14

mark by the sea says...

wiseman of hove wrote:
mark by the sea wrote:
dave from bexill wrote:
arc12 wrote:
Great signing as cover for Leo. Be surprised if he plays much as OG won't change his philosophy on 1 striker up top, but certainly better cover than Obika if Leo gets injured.
He will play with Leo.
I don't understand some people, this guy is what I have been boring you all about, the lad will play in the hole behind Leo .. I would imagine a diamond shape with ince Stephens and Andrews ,
Have you noticed there are 70 comments, nearly all positive, we might make the play offs , but this will lift the spirits for the remaining games.. Win well Saturday and the Amex will ROCK AGAIN,,!!!!
Surely not Andrews, Mark? I really don't see a spot for him if everybody is fit.
It's the shape that's important, maybe Orlandi ..
Great young plsyer
[quote][p][bold]wiseman of hove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dave from bexill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arc12[/bold] wrote: Great signing as cover for Leo. Be surprised if he plays much as OG won't change his philosophy on 1 striker up top, but certainly better cover than Obika if Leo gets injured.[/p][/quote]He will play with Leo.[/p][/quote]I don't understand some people, this guy is what I have been boring you all about, the lad will play in the hole behind Leo .. I would imagine a diamond shape with ince Stephens and Andrews , Have you noticed there are 70 comments, nearly all positive, we might make the play offs , but this will lift the spirits for the remaining games.. Win well Saturday and the Amex will ROCK AGAIN,,!!!![/p][/quote]Surely not Andrews, Mark? I really don't see a spot for him if everybody is fit.[/p][/quote]It's the shape that's important, maybe Orlandi .. Great young plsyer mark by the sea
  • Score: 4

7:22pm Thu 27 Feb 14

gordongull says...

Could the Argus provide us with a daily 'FFP' thread, so that we can speculate on the Club's finances without going off topic?
Could the Argus provide us with a daily 'FFP' thread, so that we can speculate on the Club's finances without going off topic? gordongull
  • Score: 4

7:45pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Falmer Wizard says...

An exciting player particularly at this time of the season when there is little to look forward too, at least there is now a chance of watching some entertaining matches and hopefully more than one goal a game.
One worrying point is he here to make up for the possible loss of Ulloa?
An exciting player particularly at this time of the season when there is little to look forward too, at least there is now a chance of watching some entertaining matches and hopefully more than one goal a game. One worrying point is he here to make up for the possible loss of Ulloa? Falmer Wizard
  • Score: -7

7:57pm Thu 27 Feb 14

gordongull says...

Falmer Wizard wrote:
An exciting player particularly at this time of the season when there is little to look forward too, at least there is now a chance of watching some entertaining matches and hopefully more than one goal a game.
One worrying point is he here to make up for the possible loss of Ulloa?
Where can he possibly go?
Have you read the - 'Five in a row - now Ulloa relishes run-in' article?
[quote][p][bold]Falmer Wizard[/bold] wrote: An exciting player particularly at this time of the season when there is little to look forward too, at least there is now a chance of watching some entertaining matches and hopefully more than one goal a game. One worrying point is he here to make up for the possible loss of Ulloa?[/p][/quote]Where can he possibly go? Have you read the - 'Five in a row - now Ulloa relishes run-in' article? gordongull
  • Score: 6

7:59pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Carlas mum says...

Vegas, the figures put out by the club in January are for the previous season, so the 8 million would be for 2010/2011, the 9 million for 2011/2012, and the 14 million for 2012/2013. As I said in my previous post this year hasn't ended yet so no figures can be out for this year.
Vegas, the figures put out by the club in January are for the previous season, so the 8 million would be for 2010/2011, the 9 million for 2011/2012, and the 14 million for 2012/2013. As I said in my previous post this year hasn't ended yet so no figures can be out for this year. Carlas mum
  • Score: 5

8:30pm Thu 27 Feb 14

KeefyH69 says...

IMHO, (a phrase I NEVER use), anyone who thinks Dale Stephens was wasted money doesn't understand football. CMS, as was observed in an earlier post, didn't suddenly become a bad footballer overnight and there's a certain striker at Burnley who is banging them in for fun. If you're going to sign certain players, surely you play to their strengths, not try to mould them into something else!
IMHO, (a phrase I NEVER use), anyone who thinks Dale Stephens was wasted money doesn't understand football. CMS, as was observed in an earlier post, didn't suddenly become a bad footballer overnight and there's a certain striker at Burnley who is banging them in for fun. If you're going to sign certain players, surely you play to their strengths, not try to mould them into something else! KeefyH69
  • Score: 8

8:38pm Thu 27 Feb 14

golddene says...

VegasSeagull wrote:
Carlas mum wrote:
Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.
This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?
I think the losses are presented as £8m was what the club lost in the final year at Withdene, £9m for the first year at the Amex and £14m for the second year at the Amex.
[quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carlas mum[/bold] wrote: Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.[/p][/quote]This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?[/p][/quote]I think the losses are presented as £8m was what the club lost in the final year at Withdene, £9m for the first year at the Amex and £14m for the second year at the Amex. golddene
  • Score: 0

8:51pm Thu 27 Feb 14

mark by the sea says...

golddene wrote:
VegasSeagull wrote:
Carlas mum wrote:
Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.
This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?
I think the losses are presented as £8m was what the club lost in the final year at Withdene, £9m for the first year at the Amex and £14m for the second year at the Amex.
But the figures are for the tax man not FFP , which means it includes stadia ? Sorry but the club has never said it is not included ..
Can the argus or someone email Burke or barber to clarify these points?
The idea expenditure is not included can't be right ..
[quote][p][bold]golddene[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carlas mum[/bold] wrote: Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.[/p][/quote]This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?[/p][/quote]I think the losses are presented as £8m was what the club lost in the final year at Withdene, £9m for the first year at the Amex and £14m for the second year at the Amex.[/p][/quote]But the figures are for the tax man not FFP , which means it includes stadia ? Sorry but the club has never said it is not included .. Can the argus or someone email Burke or barber to clarify these points? The idea expenditure is not included can't be right .. mark by the sea
  • Score: 0

8:55pm Thu 27 Feb 14

VegasSeagull says...

golddene wrote:
VegasSeagull wrote:
Carlas mum wrote:
Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.
This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?
I think the losses are presented as £8m was what the club lost in the final year at Withdene, £9m for the first year at the Amex and £14m for the second year at the Amex.
if that is the case, and I accept it could well be, then some of my comments have been based on my misunderstanding on my part..
[quote][p][bold]golddene[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carlas mum[/bold] wrote: Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.[/p][/quote]This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?[/p][/quote]I think the losses are presented as £8m was what the club lost in the final year at Withdene, £9m for the first year at the Amex and £14m for the second year at the Amex.[/p][/quote]if that is the case, and I accept it could well be, then some of my comments have been based on my misunderstanding on my part.. VegasSeagull
  • Score: -2

8:59pm Thu 27 Feb 14

VegasSeagull says...

VegasSeagull wrote:
golddene wrote:
VegasSeagull wrote:
Carlas mum wrote:
Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.
This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?
I think the losses are presented as £8m was what the club lost in the final year at Withdene, £9m for the first year at the Amex and £14m for the second year at the Amex.
if that is the case, and I accept it could well be, then some of my comments have been based on my misunderstanding on my part..
I just checked my e-mail and you are bang on the money, the club confirmed your answer to my question.

Well now my thinking changes slightly, not a lot, but some.
[quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]golddene[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carlas mum[/bold] wrote: Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.[/p][/quote]This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?[/p][/quote]I think the losses are presented as £8m was what the club lost in the final year at Withdene, £9m for the first year at the Amex and £14m for the second year at the Amex.[/p][/quote]if that is the case, and I accept it could well be, then some of my comments have been based on my misunderstanding on my part..[/p][/quote]I just checked my e-mail and you are bang on the money, the club confirmed your answer to my question. Well now my thinking changes slightly, not a lot, but some. VegasSeagull
  • Score: 0

9:04pm Thu 27 Feb 14

mark by the sea says...

VegasSeagull wrote:
VegasSeagull wrote:
golddene wrote:
VegasSeagull wrote:
Carlas mum wrote:
Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.
This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?
I think the losses are presented as £8m was what the club lost in the final year at Withdene, £9m for the first year at the Amex and £14m for the second year at the Amex.
if that is the case, and I accept it could well be, then some of my comments have been based on my misunderstanding on my part..
I just checked my e-mail and you are bang on the money, the club confirmed your answer to my question.

Well now my thinking changes slightly, not a lot, but some.
What we don't know Vegas is if any stadium costs or training ground, car parks, etc are included? Theses accounts are for the tax man? And not FFP ?
[quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]golddene[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carlas mum[/bold] wrote: Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.[/p][/quote]This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?[/p][/quote]I think the losses are presented as £8m was what the club lost in the final year at Withdene, £9m for the first year at the Amex and £14m for the second year at the Amex.[/p][/quote]if that is the case, and I accept it could well be, then some of my comments have been based on my misunderstanding on my part..[/p][/quote]I just checked my e-mail and you are bang on the money, the club confirmed your answer to my question. Well now my thinking changes slightly, not a lot, but some.[/p][/quote]What we don't know Vegas is if any stadium costs or training ground, car parks, etc are included? Theses accounts are for the tax man? And not FFP ? mark by the sea
  • Score: 1

9:06pm Thu 27 Feb 14

gordongull says...

mark by the sea wrote:
golddene wrote:
VegasSeagull wrote:
Carlas mum wrote:
Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.
This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?
I think the losses are presented as £8m was what the club lost in the final year at Withdene, £9m for the first year at the Amex and £14m for the second year at the Amex.
But the figures are for the tax man not FFP , which means it includes stadia ? Sorry but the club has never said it is not included ..
Can the argus or someone email Burke or barber to clarify these points?
The idea expenditure is not included can't be right ..
Carlas mum and Golddene have got it right.
And because those figures are losses for previous seasons, they have no relevance to FFP.
This season is the first one where the FFP rules apply.
Earlier this month, Paul Barber told The Argus that reducing the clubs losses to £8m by the end of this season was “tough” but added he was “confident” they would achieve it.
[quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]golddene[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carlas mum[/bold] wrote: Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.[/p][/quote]This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?[/p][/quote]I think the losses are presented as £8m was what the club lost in the final year at Withdene, £9m for the first year at the Amex and £14m for the second year at the Amex.[/p][/quote]But the figures are for the tax man not FFP , which means it includes stadia ? Sorry but the club has never said it is not included .. Can the argus or someone email Burke or barber to clarify these points? The idea expenditure is not included can't be right ..[/p][/quote]Carlas mum and Golddene have got it right. And because those figures are losses for previous seasons, they have no relevance to FFP. This season is the first one where the FFP rules apply. Earlier this month, Paul Barber told The Argus that reducing the clubs losses to £8m by the end of this season was “tough” but added he was “confident” they would achieve it. gordongull
  • Score: 3

9:06pm Thu 27 Feb 14

OldGull says...

excellent signing
I was thinking there couldn't possibly anything negative on this thread.
Then I see the return of ringpiece
excellent signing I was thinking there couldn't possibly anything negative on this thread. Then I see the return of ringpiece OldGull
  • Score: 3

9:14pm Thu 27 Feb 14

mark by the sea says...

gordongull wrote:
mark by the sea wrote:
golddene wrote:
VegasSeagull wrote:
Carlas mum wrote:
Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.
This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?
I think the losses are presented as £8m was what the club lost in the final year at Withdene, £9m for the first year at the Amex and £14m for the second year at the Amex.
But the figures are for the tax man not FFP , which means it includes stadia ? Sorry but the club has never said it is not included ..
Can the argus or someone email Burke or barber to clarify these points?
The idea expenditure is not included can't be right ..
Carlas mum and Golddene have got it right.
And because those figures are losses for previous seasons, they have no relevance to FFP.
This season is the first one where the FFP rules apply.
Earlier this month, Paul Barber told The Argus that reducing the clubs losses to £8m by the end of this season was “tough” but added he was “confident” they would achieve it.
Yes but are the accounts for companies house , or FFP ?
[quote][p][bold]gordongull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]golddene[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carlas mum[/bold] wrote: Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.[/p][/quote]This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?[/p][/quote]I think the losses are presented as £8m was what the club lost in the final year at Withdene, £9m for the first year at the Amex and £14m for the second year at the Amex.[/p][/quote]But the figures are for the tax man not FFP , which means it includes stadia ? Sorry but the club has never said it is not included .. Can the argus or someone email Burke or barber to clarify these points? The idea expenditure is not included can't be right ..[/p][/quote]Carlas mum and Golddene have got it right. And because those figures are losses for previous seasons, they have no relevance to FFP. This season is the first one where the FFP rules apply. Earlier this month, Paul Barber told The Argus that reducing the clubs losses to £8m by the end of this season was “tough” but added he was “confident” they would achieve it.[/p][/quote]Yes but are the accounts for companies house , or FFP ? mark by the sea
  • Score: 0

9:36pm Thu 27 Feb 14

KeefyH69 says...

Apropos of nothing to do with this story, I do hope that Liam Bridcutt has noted the passing of Sir Tom Finney and feels humbled. No one wishes to restrain a young player from making the most of his talents but the manner of LIam Bridcutts leaving, for me at least left a sour taste. This young player, who was lauded, indeed worshipped by some, feigned injury and refused to play for a team where he was genuinely loved by many, while Sir Tom looked for nothing save for his love of the game. I'm not saying that everyone should hold the same views but it's sad that there is so little loyalty left in the game since the money men got involved.
Apropos of nothing to do with this story, I do hope that Liam Bridcutt has noted the passing of Sir Tom Finney and feels humbled. No one wishes to restrain a young player from making the most of his talents but the manner of LIam Bridcutts leaving, for me at least left a sour taste. This young player, who was lauded, indeed worshipped by some, feigned injury and refused to play for a team where he was genuinely loved by many, while Sir Tom looked for nothing save for his love of the game. I'm not saying that everyone should hold the same views but it's sad that there is so little loyalty left in the game since the money men got involved. KeefyH69
  • Score: 10

9:40pm Thu 27 Feb 14

gordongull says...

mark by the sea wrote:
gordongull wrote:
mark by the sea wrote:
golddene wrote:
VegasSeagull wrote:
Carlas mum wrote:
Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.
This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?
I think the losses are presented as £8m was what the club lost in the final year at Withdene, £9m for the first year at the Amex and £14m for the second year at the Amex.
But the figures are for the tax man not FFP , which means it includes stadia ? Sorry but the club has never said it is not included ..
Can the argus or someone email Burke or barber to clarify these points?
The idea expenditure is not included can't be right ..
Carlas mum and Golddene have got it right.
And because those figures are losses for previous seasons, they have no relevance to FFP.
This season is the first one where the FFP rules apply.
Earlier this month, Paul Barber told The Argus that reducing the clubs losses to £8m by the end of this season was “tough” but added he was “confident” they would achieve it.
Yes but are the accounts for companies house , or FFP ?
That hasn't been made clear, but in either case, if the losses are below £8m, and Tony Bloom is willing to inject equity to cover any losses between £3m and £8m, there will be no FFP sanctions.
[quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gordongull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]golddene[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carlas mum[/bold] wrote: Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.[/p][/quote]This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?[/p][/quote]I think the losses are presented as £8m was what the club lost in the final year at Withdene, £9m for the first year at the Amex and £14m for the second year at the Amex.[/p][/quote]But the figures are for the tax man not FFP , which means it includes stadia ? Sorry but the club has never said it is not included .. Can the argus or someone email Burke or barber to clarify these points? The idea expenditure is not included can't be right ..[/p][/quote]Carlas mum and Golddene have got it right. And because those figures are losses for previous seasons, they have no relevance to FFP. This season is the first one where the FFP rules apply. Earlier this month, Paul Barber told The Argus that reducing the clubs losses to £8m by the end of this season was “tough” but added he was “confident” they would achieve it.[/p][/quote]Yes but are the accounts for companies house , or FFP ?[/p][/quote]That hasn't been made clear, but in either case, if the losses are below £8m, and Tony Bloom is willing to inject equity to cover any losses between £3m and £8m, there will be no FFP sanctions. gordongull
  • Score: 0

9:43pm Thu 27 Feb 14

mark by the sea says...

KeefyH69 wrote:
Apropos of nothing to do with this story, I do hope that Liam Bridcutt has noted the passing of Sir Tom Finney and feels humbled. No one wishes to restrain a young player from making the most of his talents but the manner of LIam Bridcutts leaving, for me at least left a sour taste. This young player, who was lauded, indeed worshipped by some, feigned injury and refused to play for a team where he was genuinely loved by many, while Sir Tom looked for nothing save for his love of the game. I'm not saying that everyone should hold the same views but it's sad that there is so little loyalty left in the game since the money men got involved.
Yes I heard that he refused to play too, he also was critical of the club during training, and manufactured his release, having said that we sold him for 3.5 million with add ons, and he did not receive his 10% so nearly the equivalent of 4'million for starters,
However guy was a good player, had his head turned by Gus, and has probably a nice contract with a clause to go if a offer of X was to come,
IE if Gus keeps Sunderland up and does well he will be off, spurs my bet .
[quote][p][bold]KeefyH69[/bold] wrote: Apropos of nothing to do with this story, I do hope that Liam Bridcutt has noted the passing of Sir Tom Finney and feels humbled. No one wishes to restrain a young player from making the most of his talents but the manner of LIam Bridcutts leaving, for me at least left a sour taste. This young player, who was lauded, indeed worshipped by some, feigned injury and refused to play for a team where he was genuinely loved by many, while Sir Tom looked for nothing save for his love of the game. I'm not saying that everyone should hold the same views but it's sad that there is so little loyalty left in the game since the money men got involved.[/p][/quote]Yes I heard that he refused to play too, he also was critical of the club during training, and manufactured his release, having said that we sold him for 3.5 million with add ons, and he did not receive his 10% so nearly the equivalent of 4'million for starters, However guy was a good player, had his head turned by Gus, and has probably a nice contract with a clause to go if a offer of X was to come, IE if Gus keeps Sunderland up and does well he will be off, spurs my bet . mark by the sea
  • Score: 0

9:49pm Thu 27 Feb 14

mark by the sea says...

gordongull wrote:
mark by the sea wrote:
gordongull wrote:
mark by the sea wrote:
golddene wrote:
VegasSeagull wrote:
Carlas mum wrote:
Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.
This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?
I think the losses are presented as £8m was what the club lost in the final year at Withdene, £9m for the first year at the Amex and £14m for the second year at the Amex.
But the figures are for the tax man not FFP , which means it includes stadia ? Sorry but the club has never said it is not included ..
Can the argus or someone email Burke or barber to clarify these points?
The idea expenditure is not included can't be right ..
Carlas mum and Golddene have got it right.
And because those figures are losses for previous seasons, they have no relevance to FFP.
This season is the first one where the FFP rules apply.
Earlier this month, Paul Barber told The Argus that reducing the clubs losses to £8m by the end of this season was “tough” but added he was “confident” they would achieve it.
Yes but are the accounts for companies house , or FFP ?
That hasn't been made clear, but in either case, if the losses are below £8m, and Tony Bloom is willing to inject equity to cover any losses between £3m and £8m, there will be no FFP sanctions.
No losses from youth set up, community work, and stadia and improvements are not included, so then14 million loss could be 10 million for FFP ? Do you see my point? Will clubs have to divulge the accounts in detail to the public ? In this I mean the costs that are not punishable?
[quote][p][bold]gordongull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gordongull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]golddene[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carlas mum[/bold] wrote: Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.[/p][/quote]This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?[/p][/quote]I think the losses are presented as £8m was what the club lost in the final year at Withdene, £9m for the first year at the Amex and £14m for the second year at the Amex.[/p][/quote]But the figures are for the tax man not FFP , which means it includes stadia ? Sorry but the club has never said it is not included .. Can the argus or someone email Burke or barber to clarify these points? The idea expenditure is not included can't be right ..[/p][/quote]Carlas mum and Golddene have got it right. And because those figures are losses for previous seasons, they have no relevance to FFP. This season is the first one where the FFP rules apply. Earlier this month, Paul Barber told The Argus that reducing the clubs losses to £8m by the end of this season was “tough” but added he was “confident” they would achieve it.[/p][/quote]Yes but are the accounts for companies house , or FFP ?[/p][/quote]That hasn't been made clear, but in either case, if the losses are below £8m, and Tony Bloom is willing to inject equity to cover any losses between £3m and £8m, there will be no FFP sanctions.[/p][/quote]No losses from youth set up, community work, and stadia and improvements are not included, so then14 million loss could be 10 million for FFP ? Do you see my point? Will clubs have to divulge the accounts in detail to the public ? In this I mean the costs that are not punishable? mark by the sea
  • Score: -1

9:56pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Oscar's Chin says...

VegasSeagull wrote:
namgo49 wrote:
He is actually described as an attacking midfielder/winger but does this mean taxi for young Obika whose signing appears to be money wasted. Same with Lita's signing and too Rodiguez, who has singularly failed to impress. There appears to have been a lack of clarity in formulating the squad game plan with hap hazard desperation like signings. This does look to be a good one though.

Where will this leave the recovering Hoskins and CMS?

I wonder what guarantees there has had to be made regarding starts? He walked in to Birmingham's starting 11. How will it be with us? Will we have to change formation!!

Not being negative but the signing raises a lot of questions. Interesting to see how it all pans out though.
I recll that at about this time last year Gus swithced it up a bit, he sent out slightly more attacking teams, I forget his actual words but it was something on the lines of, 'he is prepared to take more risks with his team selections and style of play.' The arrival of this lad might signal a similar shift by Oscar.
That's what I think too, Vegas. He can and probably will play just behind (and around) Ulloa when the big man is playing and maybe up top himself when Leo is rested, which may well be the case this weekend as he's played two games in 48 hours while carrying minor injuries.

I'm putting my house on a debut goal at The 'Wall presuming he's fit to play.

Game on!!!
[quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]namgo49[/bold] wrote: He is actually described as an attacking midfielder/winger but does this mean taxi for young Obika whose signing appears to be money wasted. Same with Lita's signing and too Rodiguez, who has singularly failed to impress. There appears to have been a lack of clarity in formulating the squad game plan with hap hazard desperation like signings. This does look to be a good one though. Where will this leave the recovering Hoskins and CMS? I wonder what guarantees there has had to be made regarding starts? He walked in to Birmingham's starting 11. How will it be with us? Will we have to change formation!! Not being negative but the signing raises a lot of questions. Interesting to see how it all pans out though.[/p][/quote]I recll that at about this time last year Gus swithced it up a bit, he sent out slightly more attacking teams, I forget his actual words but it was something on the lines of, 'he is prepared to take more risks with his team selections and style of play.' The arrival of this lad might signal a similar shift by Oscar.[/p][/quote]That's what I think too, Vegas. He can and probably will play just behind (and around) Ulloa when the big man is playing and maybe up top himself when Leo is rested, which may well be the case this weekend as he's played two games in 48 hours while carrying minor injuries. I'm putting my house on a debut goal at The 'Wall presuming he's fit to play. Game on!!! Oscar's Chin
  • Score: 0

10:01pm Thu 27 Feb 14

gordongull says...

mark by the sea wrote:
gordongull wrote:
mark by the sea wrote:
gordongull wrote:
mark by the sea wrote:
golddene wrote:
VegasSeagull wrote:
Carlas mum wrote:
Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.
This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?
I think the losses are presented as £8m was what the club lost in the final year at Withdene, £9m for the first year at the Amex and £14m for the second year at the Amex.
But the figures are for the tax man not FFP , which means it includes stadia ? Sorry but the club has never said it is not included ..
Can the argus or someone email Burke or barber to clarify these points?
The idea expenditure is not included can't be right ..
Carlas mum and Golddene have got it right.
And because those figures are losses for previous seasons, they have no relevance to FFP.
This season is the first one where the FFP rules apply.
Earlier this month, Paul Barber told The Argus that reducing the clubs losses to £8m by the end of this season was “tough” but added he was “confident” they would achieve it.
Yes but are the accounts for companies house , or FFP ?
That hasn't been made clear, but in either case, if the losses are below £8m, and Tony Bloom is willing to inject equity to cover any losses between £3m and £8m, there will be no FFP sanctions.
No losses from youth set up, community work, and stadia and improvements are not included, so then14 million loss could be 10 million for FFP ? Do you see my point? Will clubs have to divulge the accounts in detail to the public ? In this I mean the costs that are not punishable?
The £14m losses are for 2012/2013 - the year before FFP rules apply.
[quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gordongull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gordongull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]golddene[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carlas mum[/bold] wrote: Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.[/p][/quote]This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?[/p][/quote]I think the losses are presented as £8m was what the club lost in the final year at Withdene, £9m for the first year at the Amex and £14m for the second year at the Amex.[/p][/quote]But the figures are for the tax man not FFP , which means it includes stadia ? Sorry but the club has never said it is not included .. Can the argus or someone email Burke or barber to clarify these points? The idea expenditure is not included can't be right ..[/p][/quote]Carlas mum and Golddene have got it right. And because those figures are losses for previous seasons, they have no relevance to FFP. This season is the first one where the FFP rules apply. Earlier this month, Paul Barber told The Argus that reducing the clubs losses to £8m by the end of this season was “tough” but added he was “confident” they would achieve it.[/p][/quote]Yes but are the accounts for companies house , or FFP ?[/p][/quote]That hasn't been made clear, but in either case, if the losses are below £8m, and Tony Bloom is willing to inject equity to cover any losses between £3m and £8m, there will be no FFP sanctions.[/p][/quote]No losses from youth set up, community work, and stadia and improvements are not included, so then14 million loss could be 10 million for FFP ? Do you see my point? Will clubs have to divulge the accounts in detail to the public ? In this I mean the costs that are not punishable?[/p][/quote]The £14m losses are for 2012/2013 - the year before FFP rules apply. gordongull
  • Score: 0

10:06pm Thu 27 Feb 14

mark by the sea says...

gordongull wrote:
mark by the sea wrote:
gordongull wrote:
mark by the sea wrote:
gordongull wrote:
mark by the sea wrote:
golddene wrote:
VegasSeagull wrote:
Carlas mum wrote:
Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.
This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?
I think the losses are presented as £8m was what the club lost in the final year at Withdene, £9m for the first year at the Amex and £14m for the second year at the Amex.
But the figures are for the tax man not FFP , which means it includes stadia ? Sorry but the club has never said it is not included ..
Can the argus or someone email Burke or barber to clarify these points?
The idea expenditure is not included can't be right ..
Carlas mum and Golddene have got it right.
And because those figures are losses for previous seasons, they have no relevance to FFP.
This season is the first one where the FFP rules apply.
Earlier this month, Paul Barber told The Argus that reducing the clubs losses to £8m by the end of this season was “tough” but added he was “confident” they would achieve it.
Yes but are the accounts for companies house , or FFP ?
That hasn't been made clear, but in either case, if the losses are below £8m, and Tony Bloom is willing to inject equity to cover any losses between £3m and £8m, there will be no FFP sanctions.
No losses from youth set up, community work, and stadia and improvements are not included, so then14 million loss could be 10 million for FFP ? Do you see my point? Will clubs have to divulge the accounts in detail to the public ? In this I mean the costs that are not punishable?
The £14m losses are for 2012/2013 - the year before FFP rules apply.
Yes I know, but the accounts of 14 million might be 10 million IF FFP was to be assessed ie 4 million lost on youth set up, community work and stadia improvements.
[quote][p][bold]gordongull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gordongull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gordongull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]golddene[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carlas mum[/bold] wrote: Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.[/p][/quote]This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?[/p][/quote]I think the losses are presented as £8m was what the club lost in the final year at Withdene, £9m for the first year at the Amex and £14m for the second year at the Amex.[/p][/quote]But the figures are for the tax man not FFP , which means it includes stadia ? Sorry but the club has never said it is not included .. Can the argus or someone email Burke or barber to clarify these points? The idea expenditure is not included can't be right ..[/p][/quote]Carlas mum and Golddene have got it right. And because those figures are losses for previous seasons, they have no relevance to FFP. This season is the first one where the FFP rules apply. Earlier this month, Paul Barber told The Argus that reducing the clubs losses to £8m by the end of this season was “tough” but added he was “confident” they would achieve it.[/p][/quote]Yes but are the accounts for companies house , or FFP ?[/p][/quote]That hasn't been made clear, but in either case, if the losses are below £8m, and Tony Bloom is willing to inject equity to cover any losses between £3m and £8m, there will be no FFP sanctions.[/p][/quote]No losses from youth set up, community work, and stadia and improvements are not included, so then14 million loss could be 10 million for FFP ? Do you see my point? Will clubs have to divulge the accounts in detail to the public ? In this I mean the costs that are not punishable?[/p][/quote]The £14m losses are for 2012/2013 - the year before FFP rules apply.[/p][/quote]Yes I know, but the accounts of 14 million might be 10 million IF FFP was to be assessed ie 4 million lost on youth set up, community work and stadia improvements. mark by the sea
  • Score: 2

10:19pm Thu 27 Feb 14

gordongull says...

mark by the sea wrote:
gordongull wrote:
mark by the sea wrote:
gordongull wrote:
mark by the sea wrote:
gordongull wrote:
mark by the sea wrote:
golddene wrote:
VegasSeagull wrote:
Carlas mum wrote:
Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.
This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?
I think the losses are presented as £8m was what the club lost in the final year at Withdene, £9m for the first year at the Amex and £14m for the second year at the Amex.
But the figures are for the tax man not FFP , which means it includes stadia ? Sorry but the club has never said it is not included ..
Can the argus or someone email Burke or barber to clarify these points?
The idea expenditure is not included can't be right ..
Carlas mum and Golddene have got it right.
And because those figures are losses for previous seasons, they have no relevance to FFP.
This season is the first one where the FFP rules apply.
Earlier this month, Paul Barber told The Argus that reducing the clubs losses to £8m by the end of this season was “tough” but added he was “confident” they would achieve it.
Yes but are the accounts for companies house , or FFP ?
That hasn't been made clear, but in either case, if the losses are below £8m, and Tony Bloom is willing to inject equity to cover any losses between £3m and £8m, there will be no FFP sanctions.
No losses from youth set up, community work, and stadia and improvements are not included, so then14 million loss could be 10 million for FFP ? Do you see my point? Will clubs have to divulge the accounts in detail to the public ? In this I mean the costs that are not punishable?
The £14m losses are for 2012/2013 - the year before FFP rules apply.
Yes I know, but the accounts of 14 million might be 10 million IF FFP was to be assessed ie 4 million lost on youth set up, community work and stadia improvements.
Let's say this year's accounts show losses of £12m.
If £4m of this was infrastructure/youth development/communit
y, then we have complied with FFP, as long as Mr Bloom is willing to inject equity of £5m to cover the losses between £3m and £8m.
[quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gordongull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gordongull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gordongull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]golddene[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carlas mum[/bold] wrote: Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.[/p][/quote]This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?[/p][/quote]I think the losses are presented as £8m was what the club lost in the final year at Withdene, £9m for the first year at the Amex and £14m for the second year at the Amex.[/p][/quote]But the figures are for the tax man not FFP , which means it includes stadia ? Sorry but the club has never said it is not included .. Can the argus or someone email Burke or barber to clarify these points? The idea expenditure is not included can't be right ..[/p][/quote]Carlas mum and Golddene have got it right. And because those figures are losses for previous seasons, they have no relevance to FFP. This season is the first one where the FFP rules apply. Earlier this month, Paul Barber told The Argus that reducing the clubs losses to £8m by the end of this season was “tough” but added he was “confident” they would achieve it.[/p][/quote]Yes but are the accounts for companies house , or FFP ?[/p][/quote]That hasn't been made clear, but in either case, if the losses are below £8m, and Tony Bloom is willing to inject equity to cover any losses between £3m and £8m, there will be no FFP sanctions.[/p][/quote]No losses from youth set up, community work, and stadia and improvements are not included, so then14 million loss could be 10 million for FFP ? Do you see my point? Will clubs have to divulge the accounts in detail to the public ? In this I mean the costs that are not punishable?[/p][/quote]The £14m losses are for 2012/2013 - the year before FFP rules apply.[/p][/quote]Yes I know, but the accounts of 14 million might be 10 million IF FFP was to be assessed ie 4 million lost on youth set up, community work and stadia improvements.[/p][/quote]Let's say this year's accounts show losses of £12m. If £4m of this was infrastructure/youth development/communit y, then we have complied with FFP, as long as Mr Bloom is willing to inject equity of £5m to cover the losses between £3m and £8m. gordongull
  • Score: 0

10:26pm Thu 27 Feb 14

mark by the sea says...

gordongull wrote:
mark by the sea wrote:
gordongull wrote:
mark by the sea wrote:
gordongull wrote:
mark by the sea wrote:
gordongull wrote:
mark by the sea wrote:
golddene wrote:
VegasSeagull wrote:
Carlas mum wrote:
Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.
This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?
I think the losses are presented as £8m was what the club lost in the final year at Withdene, £9m for the first year at the Amex and £14m for the second year at the Amex.
But the figures are for the tax man not FFP , which means it includes stadia ? Sorry but the club has never said it is not included ..
Can the argus or someone email Burke or barber to clarify these points?
The idea expenditure is not included can't be right ..
Carlas mum and Golddene have got it right.
And because those figures are losses for previous seasons, they have no relevance to FFP.
This season is the first one where the FFP rules apply.
Earlier this month, Paul Barber told The Argus that reducing the clubs losses to £8m by the end of this season was “tough” but added he was “confident” they would achieve it.
Yes but are the accounts for companies house , or FFP ?
That hasn't been made clear, but in either case, if the losses are below £8m, and Tony Bloom is willing to inject equity to cover any losses between £3m and £8m, there will be no FFP sanctions.
No losses from youth set up, community work, and stadia and improvements are not included, so then14 million loss could be 10 million for FFP ? Do you see my point? Will clubs have to divulge the accounts in detail to the public ? In this I mean the costs that are not punishable?
The £14m losses are for 2012/2013 - the year before FFP rules apply.
Yes I know, but the accounts of 14 million might be 10 million IF FFP was to be assessed ie 4 million lost on youth set up, community work and stadia improvements.
Let's say this year's accounts show losses of £12m.
If £4m of this was infrastructure/youth development/communit

y, then we have complied with FFP, as long as Mr Bloom is willing to inject equity of £5m to cover the losses between £3m and £8m.
The whole problem with football has come from the Bosman ruling, since then players and agents have taken control, players who are wanted by a club ask for fees , travel costs, on top of 15 k a week lol
How very little money goes into grass roots , it's a massive shame the fines imposed on the clubs are not going to schools and youth teams.
I do think the FFP will be good for the game.
[quote][p][bold]gordongull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gordongull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gordongull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gordongull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]golddene[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carlas mum[/bold] wrote: Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.[/p][/quote]This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?[/p][/quote]I think the losses are presented as £8m was what the club lost in the final year at Withdene, £9m for the first year at the Amex and £14m for the second year at the Amex.[/p][/quote]But the figures are for the tax man not FFP , which means it includes stadia ? Sorry but the club has never said it is not included .. Can the argus or someone email Burke or barber to clarify these points? The idea expenditure is not included can't be right ..[/p][/quote]Carlas mum and Golddene have got it right. And because those figures are losses for previous seasons, they have no relevance to FFP. This season is the first one where the FFP rules apply. Earlier this month, Paul Barber told The Argus that reducing the clubs losses to £8m by the end of this season was “tough” but added he was “confident” they would achieve it.[/p][/quote]Yes but are the accounts for companies house , or FFP ?[/p][/quote]That hasn't been made clear, but in either case, if the losses are below £8m, and Tony Bloom is willing to inject equity to cover any losses between £3m and £8m, there will be no FFP sanctions.[/p][/quote]No losses from youth set up, community work, and stadia and improvements are not included, so then14 million loss could be 10 million for FFP ? Do you see my point? Will clubs have to divulge the accounts in detail to the public ? In this I mean the costs that are not punishable?[/p][/quote]The £14m losses are for 2012/2013 - the year before FFP rules apply.[/p][/quote]Yes I know, but the accounts of 14 million might be 10 million IF FFP was to be assessed ie 4 million lost on youth set up, community work and stadia improvements.[/p][/quote]Let's say this year's accounts show losses of £12m. If £4m of this was infrastructure/youth development/communit y, then we have complied with FFP, as long as Mr Bloom is willing to inject equity of £5m to cover the losses between £3m and £8m.[/p][/quote]The whole problem with football has come from the Bosman ruling, since then players and agents have taken control, players who are wanted by a club ask for fees , travel costs, on top of 15 k a week lol How very little money goes into grass roots , it's a massive shame the fines imposed on the clubs are not going to schools and youth teams. I do think the FFP will be good for the game. mark by the sea
  • Score: 1

10:32pm Thu 27 Feb 14

gordongull says...

mark by the sea wrote:
KeefyH69 wrote:
Apropos of nothing to do with this story, I do hope that Liam Bridcutt has noted the passing of Sir Tom Finney and feels humbled. No one wishes to restrain a young player from making the most of his talents but the manner of LIam Bridcutts leaving, for me at least left a sour taste. This young player, who was lauded, indeed worshipped by some, feigned injury and refused to play for a team where he was genuinely loved by many, while Sir Tom looked for nothing save for his love of the game. I'm not saying that everyone should hold the same views but it's sad that there is so little loyalty left in the game since the money men got involved.
Yes I heard that he refused to play too, he also was critical of the club during training, and manufactured his release, having said that we sold him for 3.5 million with add ons, and he did not receive his 10% so nearly the equivalent of 4'million for starters,
However guy was a good player, had his head turned by Gus, and has probably a nice contract with a clause to go if a offer of X was to come,
IE if Gus keeps Sunderland up and does well he will be off, spurs my bet .
After Man U have nicked Van Gaal from under their noses!
[quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KeefyH69[/bold] wrote: Apropos of nothing to do with this story, I do hope that Liam Bridcutt has noted the passing of Sir Tom Finney and feels humbled. No one wishes to restrain a young player from making the most of his talents but the manner of LIam Bridcutts leaving, for me at least left a sour taste. This young player, who was lauded, indeed worshipped by some, feigned injury and refused to play for a team where he was genuinely loved by many, while Sir Tom looked for nothing save for his love of the game. I'm not saying that everyone should hold the same views but it's sad that there is so little loyalty left in the game since the money men got involved.[/p][/quote]Yes I heard that he refused to play too, he also was critical of the club during training, and manufactured his release, having said that we sold him for 3.5 million with add ons, and he did not receive his 10% so nearly the equivalent of 4'million for starters, However guy was a good player, had his head turned by Gus, and has probably a nice contract with a clause to go if a offer of X was to come, IE if Gus keeps Sunderland up and does well he will be off, spurs my bet .[/p][/quote]After Man U have nicked Van Gaal from under their noses! gordongull
  • Score: -1

10:52pm Thu 27 Feb 14

gilbertthecat says...

mark by the sea wrote:
dave from bexill wrote:
arc12 wrote: Great signing as cover for Leo. Be surprised if he plays much as OG won't change his philosophy on 1 striker up top, but certainly better cover than Obika if Leo gets injured.
He will play with Leo.
I don't understand some people, this guy is what I have been boring you all about, the lad will play in the hole behind Leo .. I would imagine a diamond shape with ince Stephens and Andrews , Have you noticed there are 70 comments, nearly all positive, we might make the play offs , but this will lift the spirits for the remaining games.. Win well Saturday and the Amex will ROCK AGAIN,,!!!!
I'll go with this. I've said on other threads that I don't think a striker is what we need (remember CMS and WH still to come back) but rather some attack minded front of midfield goal scorer - according to the bios that's what this guy is. So the team put up earlier with him in behind LU looks like a real possibility, with WB and AO out wide each side. I like the idea of that - alot!

I also give a nod to Vegas Seagull in agreement that we really should be looking for some defensive cover as well, even more so if we start to look to attack more as this will leave gaps at the back. Maybe we'll get someone in on loan there as well.

As with others, feeling a little more optimistic again. Worzle, you've had it on Saturday!
[quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dave from bexill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arc12[/bold] wrote: Great signing as cover for Leo. Be surprised if he plays much as OG won't change his philosophy on 1 striker up top, but certainly better cover than Obika if Leo gets injured.[/p][/quote]He will play with Leo.[/p][/quote]I don't understand some people, this guy is what I have been boring you all about, the lad will play in the hole behind Leo .. I would imagine a diamond shape with ince Stephens and Andrews , Have you noticed there are 70 comments, nearly all positive, we might make the play offs , but this will lift the spirits for the remaining games.. Win well Saturday and the Amex will ROCK AGAIN,,!!!![/p][/quote]I'll go with this. I've said on other threads that I don't think a striker is what we need (remember CMS and WH still to come back) but rather some attack minded front of midfield goal scorer - according to the bios that's what this guy is. So the team put up earlier with him in behind LU looks like a real possibility, with WB and AO out wide each side. I like the idea of that - alot! I also give a nod to Vegas Seagull in agreement that we really should be looking for some defensive cover as well, even more so if we start to look to attack more as this will leave gaps at the back. Maybe we'll get someone in on loan there as well. As with others, feeling a little more optimistic again. Worzle, you've had it on Saturday! gilbertthecat
  • Score: 1

11:00pm Thu 27 Feb 14

gilbertthecat says...

gordongull wrote:
Falmer Wizard wrote: An exciting player particularly at this time of the season when there is little to look forward too, at least there is now a chance of watching some entertaining matches and hopefully more than one goal a game. One worrying point is he here to make up for the possible loss of Ulloa?
Where can he possibly go? Have you read the - 'Five in a row - now Ulloa relishes run-in' article?
Must admit gordon i read this as loss to injury or fatigue - but now I think about it .................. nah, he's not going anywhere this season for sure.
[quote][p][bold]gordongull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Falmer Wizard[/bold] wrote: An exciting player particularly at this time of the season when there is little to look forward too, at least there is now a chance of watching some entertaining matches and hopefully more than one goal a game. One worrying point is he here to make up for the possible loss of Ulloa?[/p][/quote]Where can he possibly go? Have you read the - 'Five in a row - now Ulloa relishes run-in' article?[/p][/quote]Must admit gordon i read this as loss to injury or fatigue - but now I think about it .................. nah, he's not going anywhere this season for sure. gilbertthecat
  • Score: 2

11:04pm Thu 27 Feb 14

albion64 says...

john newman wrote:
If he was that good would he not be in Man U team at the moment.?
He's too good for them
[quote][p][bold]john newman[/bold] wrote: If he was that good would he not be in Man U team at the moment.?[/p][/quote]He's too good for them albion64
  • Score: 3

11:05pm Thu 27 Feb 14

VegasSeagull says...

Oddly enough this lad could actually be the replacement for Crofts, even though we bought Stephens for the job. The boy is a proven attacking midfielder, much as Crofts is, so the pressure could be on Stephens or Orlandi rather than giving Ulloa a rest. Where I think he will help Ulloa is by scoring and reducing the onus on Leo.
Oddly enough this lad could actually be the replacement for Crofts, even though we bought Stephens for the job. The boy is a proven attacking midfielder, much as Crofts is, so the pressure could be on Stephens or Orlandi rather than giving Ulloa a rest. Where I think he will help Ulloa is by scoring and reducing the onus on Leo. VegasSeagull
  • Score: 1

11:12pm Thu 27 Feb 14

VegasSeagull says...

gilbertthecat wrote:
gordongull wrote:
Falmer Wizard wrote: An exciting player particularly at this time of the season when there is little to look forward too, at least there is now a chance of watching some entertaining matches and hopefully more than one goal a game. One worrying point is he here to make up for the possible loss of Ulloa?
Where can he possibly go? Have you read the - 'Five in a row - now Ulloa relishes run-in' article?
Must admit gordon i read this as loss to injury or fatigue - but now I think about it .................. nah, he's not going anywhere this season for sure.
well he made the bench for Man U recently and that must say something. The important thing is that he has shown that he can beat Champ Div defenders and keepers, and for us, that's all that really matters.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertthecat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gordongull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Falmer Wizard[/bold] wrote: An exciting player particularly at this time of the season when there is little to look forward too, at least there is now a chance of watching some entertaining matches and hopefully more than one goal a game. One worrying point is he here to make up for the possible loss of Ulloa?[/p][/quote]Where can he possibly go? Have you read the - 'Five in a row - now Ulloa relishes run-in' article?[/p][/quote]Must admit gordon i read this as loss to injury or fatigue - but now I think about it .................. nah, he's not going anywhere this season for sure.[/p][/quote]well he made the bench for Man U recently and that must say something. The important thing is that he has shown that he can beat Champ Div defenders and keepers, and for us, that's all that really matters. VegasSeagull
  • Score: 2

11:22pm Thu 27 Feb 14

gilbertthecat says...

VegasSeagull wrote:
gilbertthecat wrote:
gordongull wrote:
Falmer Wizard wrote: An exciting player particularly at this time of the season when there is little to look forward too, at least there is now a chance of watching some entertaining matches and hopefully more than one goal a game. One worrying point is he here to make up for the possible loss of Ulloa?
Where can he possibly go? Have you read the - 'Five in a row - now Ulloa relishes run-in' article?
Must admit gordon i read this as loss to injury or fatigue - but now I think about it .................. nah, he's not going anywhere this season for sure.
well he made the bench for Man U recently and that must say something. The important thing is that he has shown that he can beat Champ Div defenders and keepers, and for us, that's all that really matters.
Just watched the vid clips on the other thread. Would have liked to see a bit more of the build up to each to have a look at his movement and positioning off the ball, but there's no doubting the finishing quality at Champ level for sure. And that's what we've been missing with certain exceptions.
[quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertthecat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gordongull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Falmer Wizard[/bold] wrote: An exciting player particularly at this time of the season when there is little to look forward too, at least there is now a chance of watching some entertaining matches and hopefully more than one goal a game. One worrying point is he here to make up for the possible loss of Ulloa?[/p][/quote]Where can he possibly go? Have you read the - 'Five in a row - now Ulloa relishes run-in' article?[/p][/quote]Must admit gordon i read this as loss to injury or fatigue - but now I think about it .................. nah, he's not going anywhere this season for sure.[/p][/quote]well he made the bench for Man U recently and that must say something. The important thing is that he has shown that he can beat Champ Div defenders and keepers, and for us, that's all that really matters.[/p][/quote]Just watched the vid clips on the other thread. Would have liked to see a bit more of the build up to each to have a look at his movement and positioning off the ball, but there's no doubting the finishing quality at Champ level for sure. And that's what we've been missing with certain exceptions. gilbertthecat
  • Score: 3

12:05am Fri 28 Feb 14

KeefyH69 says...

VegasSeagull wrote:
Oddly enough this lad could actually be the replacement for Crofts, even though we bought Stephens for the job. The boy is a proven attacking midfielder, much as Crofts is, so the pressure could be on Stephens or Orlandi rather than giving Ulloa a rest. Where I think he will help Ulloa is by scoring and reducing the onus on Leo.
Exactly what I was thinking, Vegas. We're missing Crofts industry and attacking zeal in midfield. Hope this lad lives up to our (very high) expectations.
[quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: Oddly enough this lad could actually be the replacement for Crofts, even though we bought Stephens for the job. The boy is a proven attacking midfielder, much as Crofts is, so the pressure could be on Stephens or Orlandi rather than giving Ulloa a rest. Where I think he will help Ulloa is by scoring and reducing the onus on Leo.[/p][/quote]Exactly what I was thinking, Vegas. We're missing Crofts industry and attacking zeal in midfield. Hope this lad lives up to our (very high) expectations. KeefyH69
  • Score: 6

12:44pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Oscar's Chin says...

dave from bexill wrote:
fratsomrover wrote:
Wow, this kid is something special. Never thought we'd be tapping up Man Utd for one of their best. Well done Burke & Garcia, I'd call this something of a coup.
He's an instinctive striker who should be the perfect partner up alongside Leo.
Lets hope he starts on Sat.
I fancy:
Kuz
Bruno
Greer
Upson
Ward
Ince
Stephens
Orlandi
Buckley
Ulloa
Lingard

That would show an attacking intent.
Perfect
I'd go with that.....mind you I'd also go with a sinister looking temptress if she offered me my sauciest delight.
[quote][p][bold]dave from bexill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fratsomrover[/bold] wrote: Wow, this kid is something special. Never thought we'd be tapping up Man Utd for one of their best. Well done Burke & Garcia, I'd call this something of a coup. He's an instinctive striker who should be the perfect partner up alongside Leo. Lets hope he starts on Sat. I fancy: Kuz Bruno Greer Upson Ward Ince Stephens Orlandi Buckley Ulloa Lingard That would show an attacking intent.[/p][/quote]Perfect[/p][/quote]I'd go with that.....mind you I'd also go with a sinister looking temptress if she offered me my sauciest delight. Oscar's Chin
  • Score: 3

12:48pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Oscar's Chin says...

Ex-pat Arnie wrote:
Claude Back wrote:
VegasSeagull wrote:
namgo49 wrote:
He is actually described as an attacking midfielder/winger but does this mean taxi for young Obika whose signing appears to be money wasted. Same with Lita's signing and too Rodiguez, who has singularly failed to impress. There appears to have been a lack of clarity in formulating the squad game plan with hap hazard desperation like signings. This does look to be a good one though.

Where will this leave the recovering Hoskins and CMS?

I wonder what guarantees there has had to be made regarding starts? He walked in to Birmingham's starting 11. How will it be with us? Will we have to change formation!!

Not being negative but the signing raises a lot of questions. Interesting to see how it all pans out though.
I recll that at about this time last year Gus swithced it up a bit, he sent out slightly more attacking teams, I forget his actual words but it was something on the lines of, 'he is prepared to take more risks with his team selections and style of play.' The arrival of this lad might signal a similar shift by Oscar.
I flaming hope so.
If Garcia does no't play him and Leo up front we will know for certain he has lost the plot. However, I have a feeling he will play Jesse as a wider player, perhaps instead of Buckley.
He doesn't seem to be an out and out striker, and given OG's favoured formation I presume he will play outside him, but maybe not as wide as Kaz or Buckers.
This!
[quote][p][bold]Ex-pat Arnie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Claude Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]namgo49[/bold] wrote: He is actually described as an attacking midfielder/winger but does this mean taxi for young Obika whose signing appears to be money wasted. Same with Lita's signing and too Rodiguez, who has singularly failed to impress. There appears to have been a lack of clarity in formulating the squad game plan with hap hazard desperation like signings. This does look to be a good one though. Where will this leave the recovering Hoskins and CMS? I wonder what guarantees there has had to be made regarding starts? He walked in to Birmingham's starting 11. How will it be with us? Will we have to change formation!! Not being negative but the signing raises a lot of questions. Interesting to see how it all pans out though.[/p][/quote]I recll that at about this time last year Gus swithced it up a bit, he sent out slightly more attacking teams, I forget his actual words but it was something on the lines of, 'he is prepared to take more risks with his team selections and style of play.' The arrival of this lad might signal a similar shift by Oscar.[/p][/quote]I flaming hope so. If Garcia does no't play him and Leo up front we will know for certain he has lost the plot. However, I have a feeling he will play Jesse as a wider player, perhaps instead of Buckley.[/p][/quote]He doesn't seem to be an out and out striker, and given OG's favoured formation I presume he will play outside him, but maybe not as wide as Kaz or Buckers.[/p][/quote]This! Oscar's Chin
  • Score: 0

1:20pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Oscar's Chin says...

KeefyH69 wrote:
Apropos of nothing to do with this story, I do hope that Liam Bridcutt has noted the passing of Sir Tom Finney and feels humbled. No one wishes to restrain a young player from making the most of his talents but the manner of LIam Bridcutts leaving, for me at least left a sour taste. This young player, who was lauded, indeed worshipped by some, feigned injury and refused to play for a team where he was genuinely loved by many, while Sir Tom looked for nothing save for his love of the game. I'm not saying that everyone should hold the same views but it's sad that there is so little loyalty left in the game since the money men got involved.
Agree with those sentiments, Keefy, but do we KNOW he feigned injury?

Also, while I have the upmost respect for Sir Tom Finney and believe he was a loyal man, it should also be mentioned that he wasn't made aware of the approach by Palermo and wouldn't have been allowed to leave even if he wanted to by Preston North End. He was loyal, but he also had no choice in the matter!
[quote][p][bold]KeefyH69[/bold] wrote: Apropos of nothing to do with this story, I do hope that Liam Bridcutt has noted the passing of Sir Tom Finney and feels humbled. No one wishes to restrain a young player from making the most of his talents but the manner of LIam Bridcutts leaving, for me at least left a sour taste. This young player, who was lauded, indeed worshipped by some, feigned injury and refused to play for a team where he was genuinely loved by many, while Sir Tom looked for nothing save for his love of the game. I'm not saying that everyone should hold the same views but it's sad that there is so little loyalty left in the game since the money men got involved.[/p][/quote]Agree with those sentiments, Keefy, but do we KNOW he feigned injury? Also, while I have the upmost respect for Sir Tom Finney and believe he was a loyal man, it should also be mentioned that he wasn't made aware of the approach by Palermo and wouldn't have been allowed to leave even if he wanted to by Preston North End. He was loyal, but he also had no choice in the matter! Oscar's Chin
  • Score: 2

1:25pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Oscar's Chin says...

mark by the sea wrote:
KeefyH69 wrote:
Apropos of nothing to do with this story, I do hope that Liam Bridcutt has noted the passing of Sir Tom Finney and feels humbled. No one wishes to restrain a young player from making the most of his talents but the manner of LIam Bridcutts leaving, for me at least left a sour taste. This young player, who was lauded, indeed worshipped by some, feigned injury and refused to play for a team where he was genuinely loved by many, while Sir Tom looked for nothing save for his love of the game. I'm not saying that everyone should hold the same views but it's sad that there is so little loyalty left in the game since the money men got involved.
Yes I heard that he refused to play too, he also was critical of the club during training, and manufactured his release, having said that we sold him for 3.5 million with add ons, and he did not receive his 10% so nearly the equivalent of 4'million for starters,
However guy was a good player, had his head turned by Gus, and has probably a nice contract with a clause to go if a offer of X was to come,
IE if Gus keeps Sunderland up and does well he will be off, spurs my bet .
If that's genuinely true about Liam's attitude, it's very disappointing to say the least.

Having said that, £3.5 rising to £4m and a negative presence out of the equation sweetens the mood.
[quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KeefyH69[/bold] wrote: Apropos of nothing to do with this story, I do hope that Liam Bridcutt has noted the passing of Sir Tom Finney and feels humbled. No one wishes to restrain a young player from making the most of his talents but the manner of LIam Bridcutts leaving, for me at least left a sour taste. This young player, who was lauded, indeed worshipped by some, feigned injury and refused to play for a team where he was genuinely loved by many, while Sir Tom looked for nothing save for his love of the game. I'm not saying that everyone should hold the same views but it's sad that there is so little loyalty left in the game since the money men got involved.[/p][/quote]Yes I heard that he refused to play too, he also was critical of the club during training, and manufactured his release, having said that we sold him for 3.5 million with add ons, and he did not receive his 10% so nearly the equivalent of 4'million for starters, However guy was a good player, had his head turned by Gus, and has probably a nice contract with a clause to go if a offer of X was to come, IE if Gus keeps Sunderland up and does well he will be off, spurs my bet .[/p][/quote]If that's genuinely true about Liam's attitude, it's very disappointing to say the least. Having said that, £3.5 rising to £4m and a negative presence out of the equation sweetens the mood. Oscar's Chin
  • Score: 2

1:28pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Oscar's Chin says...

mark by the sea wrote:
gordongull wrote:
mark by the sea wrote:
gordongull wrote:
mark by the sea wrote:
gordongull wrote:
mark by the sea wrote:
gordongull wrote:
mark by the sea wrote:
golddene wrote:
VegasSeagull wrote:
Carlas mum wrote:
Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.
This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?
I think the losses are presented as £8m was what the club lost in the final year at Withdene, £9m for the first year at the Amex and £14m for the second year at the Amex.
But the figures are for the tax man not FFP , which means it includes stadia ? Sorry but the club has never said it is not included ..
Can the argus or someone email Burke or barber to clarify these points?
The idea expenditure is not included can't be right ..
Carlas mum and Golddene have got it right.
And because those figures are losses for previous seasons, they have no relevance to FFP.
This season is the first one where the FFP rules apply.
Earlier this month, Paul Barber told The Argus that reducing the clubs losses to £8m by the end of this season was “tough” but added he was “confident” they would achieve it.
Yes but are the accounts for companies house , or FFP ?
That hasn't been made clear, but in either case, if the losses are below £8m, and Tony Bloom is willing to inject equity to cover any losses between £3m and £8m, there will be no FFP sanctions.
No losses from youth set up, community work, and stadia and improvements are not included, so then14 million loss could be 10 million for FFP ? Do you see my point? Will clubs have to divulge the accounts in detail to the public ? In this I mean the costs that are not punishable?
The £14m losses are for 2012/2013 - the year before FFP rules apply.
Yes I know, but the accounts of 14 million might be 10 million IF FFP was to be assessed ie 4 million lost on youth set up, community work and stadia improvements.
Let's say this year's accounts show losses of £12m.
If £4m of this was infrastructure/youth development/communit


y, then we have complied with FFP, as long as Mr Bloom is willing to inject equity of £5m to cover the losses between £3m and £8m.
The whole problem with football has come from the Bosman ruling, since then players and agents have taken control, players who are wanted by a club ask for fees , travel costs, on top of 15 k a week lol
How very little money goes into grass roots , it's a massive shame the fines imposed on the clubs are not going to schools and youth teams.
I do think the FFP will be good for the game.
I agree, Marky.
[quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gordongull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gordongull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gordongull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gordongull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]golddene[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carlas mum[/bold] wrote: Vegas, we didn't lose 14 million this year, we lost it last year 2012/2013. This year hasn't ended yet so we cannot know what the figures for 2013/2014 are.[/p][/quote]This is the very point I am trying to get clarafication on, do the figures relate to last year or this. I have a distinct recollection of the club announcing figures for the first two years at the Amex. So is it that the second year, the year we were told that we lost close to 9 million, has now been corrected and in fact we lost 14 million and not close to nine? Is that your take on it?[/p][/quote]I think the losses are presented as £8m was what the club lost in the final year at Withdene, £9m for the first year at the Amex and £14m for the second year at the Amex.[/p][/quote]But the figures are for the tax man not FFP , which means it includes stadia ? Sorry but the club has never said it is not included .. Can the argus or someone email Burke or barber to clarify these points? The idea expenditure is not included can't be right ..[/p][/quote]Carlas mum and Golddene have got it right. And because those figures are losses for previous seasons, they have no relevance to FFP. This season is the first one where the FFP rules apply. Earlier this month, Paul Barber told The Argus that reducing the clubs losses to £8m by the end of this season was “tough” but added he was “confident” they would achieve it.[/p][/quote]Yes but are the accounts for companies house , or FFP ?[/p][/quote]That hasn't been made clear, but in either case, if the losses are below £8m, and Tony Bloom is willing to inject equity to cover any losses between £3m and £8m, there will be no FFP sanctions.[/p][/quote]No losses from youth set up, community work, and stadia and improvements are not included, so then14 million loss could be 10 million for FFP ? Do you see my point? Will clubs have to divulge the accounts in detail to the public ? In this I mean the costs that are not punishable?[/p][/quote]The £14m losses are for 2012/2013 - the year before FFP rules apply.[/p][/quote]Yes I know, but the accounts of 14 million might be 10 million IF FFP was to be assessed ie 4 million lost on youth set up, community work and stadia improvements.[/p][/quote]Let's say this year's accounts show losses of £12m. If £4m of this was infrastructure/youth development/communit y, then we have complied with FFP, as long as Mr Bloom is willing to inject equity of £5m to cover the losses between £3m and £8m.[/p][/quote]The whole problem with football has come from the Bosman ruling, since then players and agents have taken control, players who are wanted by a club ask for fees , travel costs, on top of 15 k a week lol How very little money goes into grass roots , it's a massive shame the fines imposed on the clubs are not going to schools and youth teams. I do think the FFP will be good for the game.[/p][/quote]I agree, Marky. Oscar's Chin
  • Score: 0

1:31pm Fri 28 Feb 14

jimbobalino says...

dave from bexill wrote:
fratsomrover wrote:
Wow, this kid is something special. Never thought we'd be tapping up Man Utd for one of their best. Well done Burke & Garcia, I'd call this something of a coup.
He's an instinctive striker who should be the perfect partner up alongside Leo.
Lets hope he starts on Sat.
I fancy:
Kuz
Bruno
Greer
Upson
Ward
Ince
Stephens
Orlandi
Buckley
Ulloa
Lingard

That would show an attacking intent.
Perfect
Yep, spot on
[quote][p][bold]dave from bexill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fratsomrover[/bold] wrote: Wow, this kid is something special. Never thought we'd be tapping up Man Utd for one of their best. Well done Burke & Garcia, I'd call this something of a coup. He's an instinctive striker who should be the perfect partner up alongside Leo. Lets hope he starts on Sat. I fancy: Kuz Bruno Greer Upson Ward Ince Stephens Orlandi Buckley Ulloa Lingard That would show an attacking intent.[/p][/quote]Perfect[/p][/quote]Yep, spot on jimbobalino
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Fri 28 Feb 14

jimbobalino says...

fratsomrover wrote:
Wow, this kid is something special. Never thought we'd be tapping up Man Utd for one of their best. Well done Burke & Garcia, I'd call this something of a coup.
He's an instinctive striker who should be the perfect partner up alongside Leo.
Lets hope he starts on Sat.
I fancy:
Kuz
Bruno
Greer
Upson
Ward
Ince
Stephens
Orlandi
Buckley
Ulloa
Lingard

That would show an attacking intent.
That line up is spot on!
[quote][p][bold]fratsomrover[/bold] wrote: Wow, this kid is something special. Never thought we'd be tapping up Man Utd for one of their best. Well done Burke & Garcia, I'd call this something of a coup. He's an instinctive striker who should be the perfect partner up alongside Leo. Lets hope he starts on Sat. I fancy: Kuz Bruno Greer Upson Ward Ince Stephens Orlandi Buckley Ulloa Lingard That would show an attacking intent.[/p][/quote]That line up is spot on! jimbobalino
  • Score: 1

9:55pm Fri 28 Feb 14

DougRouvie says...

ringtone wrote:
arc12 wrote:
Great signing as cover for Leo. Be surprised if he plays much as OG won't change his philosophy on 1 striker up top, but certainly better cover than Obika if Leo gets injured.
Spot on arc, hre will get as much game time as the last nobody bought in on loan, boring manager.

Spanish flair, you gotta love it
Ha,ha You really are a Knob!!
[quote][p][bold]ringtone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arc12[/bold] wrote: Great signing as cover for Leo. Be surprised if he plays much as OG won't change his philosophy on 1 striker up top, but certainly better cover than Obika if Leo gets injured.[/p][/quote]Spot on arc, hre will get as much game time as the last nobody bought in on loan, boring manager. Spanish flair, you gotta love it[/p][/quote]Ha,ha You really are a Knob!! DougRouvie
  • Score: 2

8:10am Sat 1 Mar 14

Dicky71 says...

I would have thought that Manchester United would have needed a goalscorer too at this moment in time. RVP and lump of lard, Rooney are hardly tearing up trees. That said, well done in bringing Lingard to the Albion.
I would have thought that Manchester United would have needed a goalscorer too at this moment in time. RVP and lump of lard, Rooney are hardly tearing up trees. That said, well done in bringing Lingard to the Albion. Dicky71
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree