Hack Posted 27 July 2014 Posted 27 July 2014 Holtby had a great 60 mins tonight for Spurs against Chicago. I wonder if Pochettino will loan him out after all.
MozeyCo Posted 27 July 2014 Posted 27 July 2014 Holtby had a great 60 mins tonight for Spurs against Chicago. I wonder if Pochettino will loan him out after all. He just brought in two new players, I could see loaning one making sense. Even though he made a stupid decision in selling Sigurdsson, maybe he could do without another AM/Leftside
MPH Posted 27 July 2014 Posted 27 July 2014 Holtby had a great 60 mins tonight for Spurs against Chicago. I wonder if Pochettino will loan him out after all. One has to consider the level of opposition he was up against.... pochettino will be all to aware that this was not a top prem side he was up against....
Hack Posted 27 July 2014 Posted 27 July 2014 One has to consider the level of opposition he was up against.... pochettino will be all to aware that this was not a top prem side he was up against.... That is true, but he has been giving him significant game time while in the States to see what he offers and has been great so far. His audition for staying at Spurs has been impressive. So it would not surprise that he does stick there. If he is loaned to us, he would be a great get and could really contribute to us.
Nick Posted 27 July 2014 Posted 27 July 2014 That is true, but he has been giving him significant game time while in the States to see what he offers and has been great so far. His audition for staying at Spurs has been impressive. So it would not surprise that he does stick there. If he is loaned to us, he would be a great get and could really contribute to us. Yeah I noticed Harry Kane get good preseason game time - scored for them yesterday in a 2-0 win...... Just didn't look right when he was here - much rather have what we have got now. I'll be surprised if he keeps Holtby though. I think he'l loan him out for one more year before making a decision on his first team future at Spurs.
cjslcfc Posted 27 July 2014 Posted 27 July 2014 The Walkers Stadium... A stadium that was initially named by a sponsor. I see our new stadium in 2002 being named the Walkers stadium and then changing to the King Power stadium as a slightly different situation. Don't you?
Carl the Llama Posted 27 July 2014 Posted 27 July 2014 A stadium that was initially named by a sponsor. I see our new stadium in 2002 being named the Walkers stadium and then changing to the King Power stadium as a slightly different situation. Don't you? I honestly don't. I think you're being a bit biased here - A change of name for sponsorship purposes (the swap from Walkers to KP) is the same thing regardless of whether the club owners also own the sponsoring company or not. If you want to laugh at them for doing it, you have to laugh at us too.
johnny the fox Posted 27 July 2014 Posted 27 July 2014 Might grab a pint after in the Sadam Hussain Stand got a feeling it will be a long time before I get the chance to eat a bin laden burger in the sadam hussain stand..
Jimothy Posted 27 July 2014 Posted 27 July 2014 I honestly don't. I think you're being a bit biased here - A change of name for sponsorship purposes (the swap from Walkers to KP) is the same thing regardless of whether the club owners also own the sponsoring company or not. If you want to laugh at them for doing it, you have to laugh at us too. No, I think the point is our stadium has always carried a sponsor name, like the Emirates, The K.C Stadium, etc. Whereas the City Ground is adding a sponsor name and pissing all over club identity and history. It's not like changing from one company name to another, it taking away the actual name of the stadium for sponsorship purposes. To me it's the same as Anfield, Old Trafford, White Hart Lane, St James' Park or even Wembley changing their name to a sponsors name.
kingfox Posted 27 July 2014 Posted 27 July 2014 Players of Holtby's calibre always excite fans, but fans need to look at the bigger picture, is he that good a player to push out others of the starting 11, where does he exactly fit? Can't see us playing 4-4-2 if we get him. 4-3-3, maybe play a diamond midfield with James & Drinkwater holding, with Holtby playing behind the striker, maybe Mahrez, Ulloa & Vardy as the front three, but then where does that leave Albrighton & Knockaert, would you be happy to see them on the bench? Or we experiment and play something like 4-2-3-1, Drinkwater & James holding again, with Albrighton, Holtby & Mahrez as the attacking three, with probably Ulloa up front on his own. Where does that leave Knockaert & Vardy, I can't see Vardy being the lone striker, would you be happy to see them two on the bench? I still think we need another midfielder, but I can't decide whether we need a DM or an AM.
Carl the Llama Posted 27 July 2014 Posted 27 July 2014 No, I think the point is our stadium has always carried a sponsor name, like the Emirates, The K.C Stadium, etc. Whereas the City Ground is adding a sponsor name and pissing all over club identity and history. It's not like changing from one company name to another, it taking away the actual name of the stadium for sponsorship purposes. To me it's the same as Anfield, Old Trafford, White Hart Lane, St James' Park or even Wembley changing their name to a sponsors name. I see your point. Well in any case it's only the shitty ground so who cares anyway?
Guest Posted 27 July 2014 Posted 27 July 2014 No, I think the point is our stadium has always carried a sponsor name, like the Emirates, The K.C Stadium, etc. Whereas the City Ground is adding a sponsor name and pissing all over club identity and history. It's not like changing from one company name to another, it taking away the actual name of the stadium for sponsorship purposes. To me it's the same as Anfield, Old Trafford, White Hart Lane, St James' Park or even Wembley changing their name to a sponsors name. talk about a tenuous argument...
Guest Posted 27 July 2014 Posted 27 July 2014 Players of Holtby's calibre always excite fans, but fans need to look at the bigger picture, is he that good a player to push out others of the starting 11, where does he exactly fit? Can't see us playing 4-4-2 if we get him. 4-3-3, maybe play a diamond midfield with James & Drinkwater holding, with Holtby playing behind the striker, maybe Mahrez, Ulloa & Vardy as the front three, but then where does that leave Albrighton & Knockaert, would you be happy to see them on the bench? Or we experiment and play something like 4-2-3-1, Drinkwater & James holding again, with Albrighton, Holtby & Mahrez as the attacking three, with probably Ulloa up front on his own. Where does that leave Knockaert & Vardy, I can't see Vardy being the lone striker, would you be happy to see them two on the bench? I still think we need another midfielder, but I can't decide whether we need a DM or an AM. To me, an AM is essentially a number 10 - a Rodriguez, Messi type. A real DM is a Makalele type Drinky and James are simply midfielders, as is KIng, Hotlby and Hammond. Holtby is a massive improvement over at least 2 if not ll of them so as a squad player get him in.
Jimothy Posted 27 July 2014 Posted 27 July 2014 talk about a tenuous argument... Really? So you'd feel the same if we'd sold out and put a sponsor name on Filbert Street as you do that we've changed from Walkers to King Power. I'd have been livid had we ever sold the naming rights to Filbert Street, but the current ground has always carried a sponsor name, so if we change from King Power to another company I won't be too fussed.
Guest Posted 27 July 2014 Posted 27 July 2014 Really? So you'd feel the same if we'd sold out and put a sponsor name on Filbert Street as you do that we've changed from Walkers to King Power. I'd have been livid had we ever sold the naming rights to Filbert Street, but the current ground has always carried a sponsor name, so if we change from King Power to another company I won't be too fussed. It's a stadium having a Sponsors name. Whether it's a new stadium or not is pretty inconsequential. It's a bit late to start worrying about football's soul being sold down the river, that ship sailed long time ago. As soon as the FA Cup became the [insert shitty company] FA Cup, in fact. We just have to wait until Britain loses its appeal as a safe haven for foreign money, it'll happen eventually, and then we can have football back. EDIT: typo
Jimothy Posted 27 July 2014 Posted 27 July 2014 It's a stadium having a Sponsors name. Whether it's a new stadium or not is pretty inconsequential. It's a bit late to start worrying about football's soul being sold down the river, that ship sailed long time ago. As soon as the FA Cup became the [insert shitty company] FA Cup, in fact. We just have to wait until Britain loses its appeal as a safe haven for foreign money, it'll happen eventually, and then we can have football back. EDIT: typo Oh I know football in this country has sold it soul years ago, I'd just like to hold on to what's left of it. I have no problem if the soul has already been sold, but if clubs are going to sell more if it, I'm against it. It's why I'm against Hull Tigers and I'm against a red Cardiff. We had already sold our soul when we built the walkers, if Forest want to build a Kuwait City Ground, then fine, but not selling the name of the current one, that's wrong.EDIT: anyway I have no idea how we got onto stadium names, back to Lewis Holtby!
MozeyCo Posted 27 July 2014 Posted 27 July 2014 As long is Lewis Holtby isn't Lewis "King Power" Holtby sign em' up.
Jimothy Posted 27 July 2014 Posted 27 July 2014 As long is Lewis Holtby isn't Lewis "King Power" Holtby sign em' up. Nah it's fine. I think he was known as Lewis "Dell Computers" Holtby before that.
Jimothy Posted 28 July 2014 Posted 28 July 2014 What was this thread about? Stadiums named after Lewis Holtby.
Dan Posted 28 July 2014 Posted 28 July 2014 No, I think the point is our stadium has always carried a sponsor name, like the Emirates, The K.C Stadium, etc. Whereas the City Ground is adding a sponsor name and pissing all over club identity and history. It's not like changing from one company name to another, it taking away the actual name of the stadium for sponsorship purposes. To me it's the same as Anfield, Old Trafford, White Hart Lane, St James' Park or even Wembley changing their name to a sponsors name. It's the same principle whichever way you look at it. We replaced Filbert Street with a sponsored ground.
LCFC2429 Posted 28 July 2014 Posted 28 July 2014 I think pearson could get us relegated because of his inability to handle big names therefore we always go for mediocre players which are not good enough
Nick Posted 28 July 2014 Posted 28 July 2014 Even agents are having a go at re-hashed bad journalism today: http://footylatest.com/leicester-join-race-to-sign-tottenham-outcast/59222?
Langston Posted 28 July 2014 Posted 28 July 2014 I honestly don't. I think you're being a bit biased here - A change of name for sponsorship purposes (the swap from Walkers to KP) is the same thing regardless of whether the club owners also own the sponsoring company or not. If you want to laugh at them for doing it, you have to laugh at us too. Again, this may be an opinion forged with bias and I'd rather our ground wasn't named after corporate sponsors, but the King Power Stadium sounds infinitely better than the Kuwait City Ground.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.