l444ry Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 Yep French 2nd division and players like him are the exception. Izzet and Lennon were two quality British players (at the time) who we were able to pick up in a less inflated market. This would be next to impossible now. Don't get your point Gary. I'm saying we don't have to break the bank to get top quality. Why do you shift the debate to British players?
blabyboy Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 I think the execs at the club need closer examination .....Springer investigating and poking the wrong people ....I'm not sure that's a coincidence either All the execs, or one in particular? What makes you think that Stringer is being played? Pearson won't talk to him, the owners communicate through the PR comms people and they only have to give general and vague answers to any RL questions. The guy's dead to the club whilst Pearson is there at the mo. He may as well ask the programme sellers what's going on at the club. He had his chances and miscalculated how Pearson would react to his constant lines of questioning. The execs will never go on record against the manager whilst he's there - the PR people vet an prep them.
Gary Eatfood Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 Don't get your point Gary. I'm saying we don't have to break the bank to get top quality. Why do you shift the debate to British players? No the point was about two entirely different era's in the transfer market. And yes, other than Mahrez we do have to spend big money to get quality. If the right players were available then I'm sure we'd be going all out to get them. Sadly given our current predicament this is obviously a pretty forlorn task.
l444ry Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 No the point was about two entirely different era's in the transfer market. And yes, other than Mahrez we do have to spend big money to get quality. If the right players were available then I'm sure we'd be going all out to get them. Sadly given our current predicament this is obviously a pretty forlorn task. The two different eras have nothing to do with it. Transfer fees are relative anyway. Mahrez could be described as an gem but Bojan (£1.5m), Lescott and Pantillimon (Free), Creswell (£4m) show that there are plenty more out there. The difference for me is that O'Neill's sides would never limp to defeat as we do week in and week out. Nobody hammers us scorewise but on possession we get pulverised.
Gary Eatfood Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 The two different eras have nothing to do with it. Transfer fees are relative anyway. Mahrez could be described as an gem but Bojan (£1.5m), Lescott and Pantillimon (Free), Creswell (£4m) show that there are plenty more out there. The difference for me is that O'Neill's sides would never limp to defeat as we do week in and week out. Nobody hammers us scorewise but on possession we get pulverised. We went in for Cresswell, he chose WHU. Lescott is on around 50k a week and Pantillimon I don't really rate. Bojan was a good buy for £3m but do you really think he would've joined a newly promoted club over a club that's been in the Prem for a few seasons now? Possession is a whole other debate. Also, how can we have limped to defeat when we won the 2nd half 1-0. We got it wrong from the start yesterday and couldn't recover. Other teams with better quality players have fared less well at Old Trafford this season then we did.
l444ry Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 We went in for Cresswell, he chose WHU. Lescott is on around 50k a week and Pantillimon I don't really rate. Bojan was a good buy for £3m but do you really think he would've joined a newly promoted club over a club that's been in the Prem for a few seasons now? Possession is a whole other debate. Also, how can we have limped to defeat when we won the 2nd half 1-0. We got it wrong from the start yesterday and couldn't recover. Other teams with better quality players have fared less well at Old Trafford this season then we did. No offense meant but you're more slippery than a barrel load of eels! Haha! Been good exchanging views Gary.
Haydos Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 And bloody good managers along the way ...and changed the ones that weren't doing the business Love it 100% behind the Southampton model Pearson / Adkins model would be a good start Await the pro pearson arrows from the communist party on Foxtalk lol Is Ronald Koeman available as a replacement? Were Southampton 20th when they sacked Adkins?
Rob1742 Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 You can't conpare the ONeill era with today. If you did that you might as well bring Arthur Rowley into the equation. It is different, different managers, board etc. One thing for sure, what we did in those days set us up to go bust. It took the manager to leave, a wrong replacement and we were in administration. Giving big long term contracts, no break clauses to encourage players to join us was a risky strategy that created boom and bust.
Foxylady64 Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 Players that are valued at more than £10mil aren't interested in coming to LCFC in fact it's fairly obvious that those that are valued much less than that don't fancy it. I get the distinct impression that not many 'quality' players actually fancy the idea of a relegation battling season and anyone who thought it wouldn't be is a tad naive. does that mean Kramaric isn't a "quality" player?
davieG Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 does that mean Kramaric isn't a "quality" player? He didn't cost more than £10M. I'm pretty sure he'd preferred someone else but both he and his former club were desperate.
Bettsj2 Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 Martin O'Neill managed top ten fiishes by bringing in quality and experience. Cottee, Marshall, Collymore, Parker etc. etc. Why does it have to be £10million or nothing? I find it hard to accept that the owners wouldn't back Pearson. O'Neill didnt sign Parker. MWAHAHAHAHA!
RedSoxUK Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 Pretty sure we've already established that the 180m figure was misquoted by Thai press. Top 5 finish within 3 years I imagine was a target the owners set to themselves if we managed to sustain ourselves in the Prem this year.
GaelicFox Posted 1 February 2015 Author Posted 1 February 2015 All the execs, or one in particular? What makes you think that Stringer is being played? Pearson won't talk to him, the owners communicate through the PR comms people and they only have to give general and vague answers to any RL questions. The guy's dead to the club whilst Pearson is there at the mo. He may as well ask the programme sellers what's going on at the club. He had his chances and miscalculated how Pearson would react to his constant lines of questioning. The execs will never go on record against the manager whilst he's there - the PR people vet an prep them. Maybe just one
GaelicFox Posted 1 February 2015 Author Posted 1 February 2015 Is Ronald Koeman available as a replacement? Were Southampton 20th when they sacked Adkins? The were 3pts above bottom 3 and going no where They had balls and now look a champions league team in making There no bigger than us !!!!!!! Frank De B. Is
Foxes1 Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 It's obvious they were misquoted they said 180 million Thai Baht
l444ry Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 O'Neill didnt sign Parker. MWAHAHAHAHA! Well spotted. Original point remains though.
Bettsj2 Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 Well spotted. Original point remains though. Sorry but FT rules clearly state that any incorrect historical reference renders the main point null and void.
MooseBreath Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 It's obvious they were misquoted they said 180 million Thai Baht No they said 10 billion baht which was at the time about £180m. It wasn't so much a misquote as a misinterpretation, it clearly wasn't a literal transfer budget and never applied to this one season.
GaelicFox Posted 1 February 2015 Author Posted 1 February 2015 No they said 10 billion baht which was at the time about £180m. It wasn't so much a misquote as a misinterpretation, it clearly wasn't a literal transfer budget and never applied to this one season. Well 3 season would have been a good start to try and achieve those goals not 9 ! The next telly deal is going to be rediculas , BT sport are going hard at Sky now Being around for that party will cement the well run clubs in this league
st albans fox Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 let's wait until Tuesday morning before getting our knickers in a twist on the financial commitment of the owners. The salient point here is that if we are relegated, we HAVE to bounce straight back re the new TV deal.
CosbehFox Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 The two different eras have nothing to do with it. Transfer fees are relative anyway. Mahrez could be described as an gem but Bojan (£1.5m), Lescott and Pantillimon (Free), Creswell (£4m) show that there are plenty more out there. The difference for me is that O'Neill's sides would never limp to defeat as we do week in and week out. Nobody hammers us scorewise but on possession we get pulverised. And what wages for those four players then? Bojan and Lescott will be collecting 50k plus. Different markets now, players happy to sit on the bench at the likes of Chelsea and collect dollar. Not like Izzet who was eager to play first team football. When is the last time you saw players come from the likes of Oxford & Port Vale and be ready for Premier League football? Secondarily, the attitudes are very different in that era between players.
Bayfox Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 Yep French 2nd division and players like him are the exception. Izzet and Lennon were two quality British players (at the time) who we were able to pick up in a less inflated market. This would be next to impossible now. izzet was a chelsea reserve who we had no idea if he would be any good at the time.how can you say he was quality. we had know idea how that would turn out.
l444ry Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 And what wages for those four players then? Bojan and Lescott will be collecting 50k plus. Different markets now, players happy to sit on the bench at the likes of Chelsea and collect dollar. Not like Izzet who was eager to play first team football. When is the last time you saw players come from the likes of Oxford & Port Vale and be ready for Premier League football? Secondarily, the attitudes are very different in that era between players. You know all that as fact then do you? You're probably right in one respect, Clubs with money like Chelsea don't generally operate in our markets, unless you count Kramaric who doesn't fit your criteria of bench warmer. So your second point doesn't make any sense. Anyway, this is all way off the original point I was making and we're getting nowhere.
CosbehFox Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 Not fact. But it's doesn't a brain scientist to work why Bojan should go from being at some of the worlds biggest clubs to Stoke or Lescott decides that coming back to his home town is worthy. They don't come cheap. Kramaric is a complete breakaway from the norm. There's very little point comparing O'Neills team in PL to that of now. The sport is even more money driven.
l444ry Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 Not fact. But it's doesn't a brain scientist to work why Bojan should go from being at some of the worlds biggest clubs to Stoke or Lescott decides that coming back to his home town is worthy. They don't come cheap. Kramaric is a complete breakaway from the norm. There's very little point comparing O'Neills team in PL to that of now. The sport is even more money driven. Let's get this clear then....Leicester City have no right to attempt to sign players like Bojan and Lescott etc. because teams like WBA and Stoke are more wealthy and attractive to them. You can't be serious. Although you could be right, we're about to take a player who can't even get into Stoke's side.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.