CannockVillan Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Never mind all that, the article said Kozak was back in training. Yeah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Are you all this argumentative away from here? Sheeeeeesh, there isn't even anything to argue about at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn1982 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Real shame when you read things like "we couldn't do £9m for him" in regards to Ba. Not because of Ba himself, but just because of the fact that we literally can't do £9m for a transfer fee nowadays, a fee that really isn't that big relatively speaking in the Premier League. Paying £9m for a 29yo is silly for a club in our position. There'd be zero sell on value never mind the massive contract he'd want. If rumours of a £5m bid for Ali are correct and last summers £8m for cleverley it shows there is money available for the right signing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanpabloangel18 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 lol @ cleverley ever being 'the right signing' 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 You can't turn round to others and tell them they can't have an opinion on coaching or tactics because they're not hanging round bodymoor heath, and then at the same time act like you were the middle man trying to sort out the cleverly signing. That's a little hypocritical of you. What the actual blazes? I'm guessing at the numbers as much as you are, but everything I've said is in the public domain. Training sessions are NOT in the public domain. Also plenty of papers reported the price days before deadline day and it only became a loan right at the end of deadline day. Admit it, you can't produce a single article quoting his price at more than 6 million, and even if you could that wouldn't necessarily be true. I seem to remember 4 million being quoted. We don't know which is right, but what we do know 100% for sure is that Cleverly is not with us because Lambert was given 8 million to spend on him, he's here because we've loaned him. Once again ignoring any facts out there. Let's both at the very least admit that opinion is divided as to who is ignoring facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Admit it, you can't produce a single article quoting his price at more than 6 million A simple google search will let you find one by the telegraph on august 28th and one from the metro on the same date. and even if you could that wouldn't necessarily be true. Oh so you don't really want me to find one then. And I assume any article that backs your idea up must be true?Let's both at the very least admit that opinion is divided as to who is ignoring facts. No, its pretty clearly the guy who said we're not in a relegation battle, goal scoring was fine last season and seems to be part of the team that signed cleverly for the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost_of_Pongo_Waring Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Lambert had £8m in the summer and made the decision that Tom Cleverley would be the best use of that money. Fortunately we didn't conclude the permanent transfer of the player for that fee at the time. Luck rather than judgement. IMO we needed width and we needed creativity far more than we needed a player like Cleverley and Lambert (through his signings/tactics) is largely to blame for our lack of goals up to now. Hopefully with the additions of both Sinclair and Gil he has solved this problem. I really hope he has. Prove it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Look at the post above yours for the answer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I think it was Don't_Do_It_Doug that used this first but its become extremely poignant now. So many people trying to win the internet. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CannockVillan Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Thee may be a few reasons why we can't do £9m for Ba. First we may not see it as VFM and second whilst may have the cash the fact of our earlier accumulated losses prevents us from spending it under FFP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Look at the post above yours for the answer! Not weighin on this argument or anything, but metro and telegraph articles are proof nowadays? The world has fallen off the edge... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Its not proof of an exact figure. I think its proof that this £8 million is part of a loan deal is rubbish though. The exact figure isn't really the issue. The point was that money was available to the manager and he selected cleverly to try and spend it on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Look at the post above yours for the answer! Not weighin on this argument or anything, but metro and telegraph articles are proof nowadays? The world has fallen off the edge... The Telegraph are normally pretty reliable and it was confirmed on Sky Sports. Which source would you have liked to have seen it on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 The point was that money was available to the manager and he selected cleverly to try and spend it on. Yes - agreed. Seems pretty obvious as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Admit it, you can't produce a single article quoting his price at more than 6 million A simple google search will let you find one by the telegraph on august 28th and one from the metro on the same date. I'll give you that one: There are quite a few such articles. My bad. Now admit that the newspapers very often make things up. Note that Everton supposedly offered 5 million, and somehow he nearly got sold to them. That suggests that the quoted 7.5 million is quite possibly bollocks. Can you explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost_of_Pongo_Waring Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Look at the post above yours for the answer! Rumours are not proof. All the press at the time said Everton wanted Cleverley but only wanted a loan and Man Utd wouldn't loan him, they wanted a sale. Yet we loaned him. There have been plenty of articles about how Man Utd were going to sign Vlaar, yet Vlaar himself said they were rubbish. Vlaar stated that If Man Utd were interested in him there would have been some sort of contact, and there had been none. Just because it's written in a newspaper, or on a website, does not make it a fact. Neither you, me, or anyone else on here know if we were ever going to offer £8mill for Cleverly. None of us know if Lambert actually made a cash bid for him. None of us know how the 'reported' interest in buying him turned into a loan. For all any of us know Lambert could have been after a loan from the beginning. You're blaming Lamnert for something he not only didn't actually do but you've no proof he ever wanted to or tried to. The only fact about the Cleverly signing is we didn't pay £8mill for him, we loaned him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 It's quite hilarious that here we are discussing a single one of Lambert's less successful LOAN signings, when 1. we all accepted that we needed strengthening in midfield and 2. we're mostly agreed that overall his signings have been good. The argument that he should have spent the money elsewhere is highly debatable without the use of hindsight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) No, its pretty clearly the guy who said we're not in a relegation battle, goal scoring was fine last season and seems to be part of the team that signed cleverly for the club. - I'm more than happy to be "the guy" who said we're not in a relegation battle after 22 games. - Goal scoring was okay-ish last season, even with Benteke out. You'd have to be some pigheaded bastard to say that Lambert had no right to expect things to improve with Benteke's return. And if you expected goal scoring to improve, you would very obviously spend on defence and midfield as priority. Do you actually disagree with this?? - How disingenuous is that last little dig? You're interpreting the known facts just as much as I am. Edited January 31, 2015 by CrackpotForeigner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Lambert had £8m in the summer and made the decision that Tom Cleverley would be the best use of that money. Once again: Lambert was NOT "given 8 million to buy Cleverley". 8 million was the buying option price set by Man Utd as part of the LOAN deal.permanent What the agreed transfer fee was before the deal fell through nobody knows, but it may have been more like 3 million. As others have said, the results under Lambert have been bad enough without having to make stuff up to use against him. And now you are making things up! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn1982 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Lambert had £8m in the summer and made the decision that Tom Cleverley would be the best use of that money. Once again: Lambert was NOT "given 8 million to buy Cleverley". 8 million was the buying option price set by Man Utd as part of the LOAN deal.permanent What the agreed transfer fee was before the deal fell through nobody knows, but it may have been more like 3 million. As others have said, the results under Lambert have been bad enough without having to make stuff up to use against him. And now you are making things up! I thought with Cleverley Everton wanted to pay £5m or have a loan then we said we'd have him for £7.5m which was the asking price but he wanted Everton. They messed about and he came back to us and to get it sorted in time we took the loan with an option to buy. Either way a substantial bit of money was available to buy him outright last summer. I'd say if we took that option it'd come out of this years figures hence the other deals are split or put off till the summer. FFP will see a lot of these loans to buy deals IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts