lookwhaticando Posted 15 September 2006 Posted 15 September 2006 A loan would be useful for McAuley - we've plenty of options at the minute for CB. Obviously we'd have to have a recall option just incase we have big injury problems (or suspension problems... I'm lookin' at you, McCarthy) I'd like McAuley to do well with us. He and Kisnorbo would be the experienced heads in my team of youngsters which I've advocated elsewhere.
lcfc_jme Posted 15 September 2006 Posted 15 September 2006 A loan would be useful for McAuley - we've plenty of options at the minute for CB. Obviously we'd have to have a recall option just incase we have big injury problems (or suspension problems... I'm lookin' at you, McCarthy) I'd like McAuley to do well with us. He and Kisnorbo would be the experienced heads in my team of youngsters which I've advocated elsewhere. Exactly a point I made somewhere earlier on this forum (I can't remember exactly where cos I'm a little tipsy atm). McAuley should go out on loan so he keeps match-fit and sharp, just incase of suspensions and injuries (the suspension most likely to be soon for one Paddy M). The team of youngsters you're talking about, I'm taking it that this team is the one you used Joe Mattock's name a fair few times in ??
lookwhaticando Posted 15 September 2006 Posted 15 September 2006 Exactly a point I made somewhere earlier on this forum (I can't remember exactly where cos I'm a little tipsy atm). McAuley should go out on loan so he keeps match-fit and sharp, just incase of suspensions and injuries (the suspension most likely to be soon for one Paddy M). The team of youngsters you're talking about, I'm taking it that this team is the one you used Joe Mattock's name a fair few times in ?? Indeed it would. You got a problem with that?
lcfc_jme Posted 15 September 2006 Posted 15 September 2006 Indeed it would. You got a problem with that? No problem at all I'm actually hurt and offended that you think I would have a problem with you making a positive (and for once a sensible-ish) suggestion on this forum!! Just making sure I was remembering the correct postage that's all
Fez of Mahrez Posted 15 September 2006 Posted 15 September 2006 In the squad photo at the start of the season, McAuley looked like he'd been eating non-stop for about six years. Didn't exactly look like the sort of bloke you'd trust to "stay in shape" while not in the first team. Must say at the time I thought it was a strange position to see as a priority. Kenton yes. McAuley no. RK may not have had much money to play with but he had a bit with which to address key concerns and the fact we signed McAuley so early and then he wanted Kenton when he became available meant he shot himself in the foot budget-wise, spending money on defenders who were initially seen as backup players when the midfield needed addressing badly. I can see McAuley being a bit of a Gerrbrand type player - gets a few games when Paddy Mac is suspended but lopes off next summer without much fuss.
lookwhaticando Posted 15 September 2006 Posted 15 September 2006 No problem at all I'm actually hurt and offended that you think I would have a problem with you making a positive (and for once a sensible-ish) suggestion on this forum!! Just making sure I was remembering the correct postage that's all Admirable intentions. I approve. Our Gareth McAuley is supposed to be a decent target for set-pieces - which'd be handy, I reckon. He's supposedly not the quickest mover around, but if he's a decent person to aim for in a set piece, I'm sure we could find someone quicker to hang back should we find ourselves caught on the break. McAuley for CB (when McCarthy gets suspended in a couple of weeks time)
lcfc_jme Posted 15 September 2006 Posted 15 September 2006 Admirable intentions. I approve. Our Gareth McAuley is supposed to be a decent target for set-pieces - which'd be handy, I reckon. He's supposedly not the quickest mover around, but if he's a decent person to aim for in a set piece, I'm sure we could find someone quicker to hang back should we find ourselves caught on the break. McAuley for CB (when McCarthy gets suspended in a couple of weeks time) Glad you approve, it could have got ugly if you didn't We've got Paddy K doing pretty well from set-pieces atm (isn't he like our top-scorer?!?!?!) so McAuley can stay away on that front if he isn't better than what we have already. Nice to see you're giving him rave reviews. When Paddy Mac gets suspended in the near future, if McAuley comes in (which I don't think he will - I think Kenton will go there), then we know who to blame if he fails
lookwhaticando Posted 16 September 2006 Posted 16 September 2006 That's not entirely unfair on me - it's my opinion and it's not based on fact. I just approve of him generally speaking. Feel free to blame me should things go tits up when McAuley replaces McCarthy.
BartonFox Posted 16 September 2006 Posted 16 September 2006 So why isn't McAuley playing and Nissa on gardening leave? Ermm, because he is utter bollox, and despite Johansson's faults he is million dollars compared to him.
BartonFox Posted 16 September 2006 Posted 16 September 2006 So McCauley is going to play at left back next season? That's started me off on a 10 month boner, WOW!! lol lol May I suggest you whack yourself with a silver spoon That'll drop your 10 month stiffy dead
Smudge Posted 16 September 2006 Author Posted 16 September 2006 Ermm, because he is utter bollox, and despite Johansson's faults he is million dollars compared to him. Come on Bf , my original thread was why did we sign him? and looking though the thread I still have no idea.
lcfc_jme Posted 16 September 2006 Posted 16 September 2006 That's not entirely unfair on me - it's my opinion and it's not based on fact. I just approve of him generally speaking. Feel free to blame me should things go tits up when McAuley replaces McCarthy. Haha I will blame you if things go tits-up with McAuley You wana hope it works out well and he keeps Paddy Mac out for a while, or you'll be in trouble Still, if he can score goals, and win the ball without getting a booking, he can't be that bad
Manwell Pablo Posted 16 September 2006 Posted 16 September 2006 Come on Bf , my original thread was why did we sign him? and looking though the thread I still have no idea. Cheap cover. There ya go mystery solved.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.