Demitri_C Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 teamtalk is saying mon has watched curtis davies on several occasions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent_Bob Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 And whatever happened to the QPR winger Lee Cook whith the £10m pricetag? I haven't seen much of him, so I have no idea if he is worth £10m or not (probably isn't), but at least we have a player (Hendrie) we can use as a part of the deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncy_chris Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Cook is certainly not worth £10M! But, I heard a few days back that Tottenham or maybe another club were thinking of bidding £3M for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted January 9, 2007 Moderator Share Posted January 9, 2007 teamtalk is saying mon has watched curtis davies on several occasions... I know for a fact he's been at more than one Albion match in the last few weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncy_chris Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Do we really need Davies though? Another young centre back, when we've already got Cahill and Ridge. I think it would be a bit of a kick in the teeth for those two. To be honest I think he's looking at Gera as a plan B or C if Wright Phillips or Young don't come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jez Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Rumours are Gera is about to join Villaboro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted January 9, 2007 VT Supporter Share Posted January 9, 2007 Not to arsed about Gera! If he were that good he would shine in the championship! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didiersix Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Do we really need Davies though? Another young centre back, when we've already got Cahill and Ridge. I think it would be a bit of a kick in the teeth for those two. I never understand this attitude. If I was Cahill and Ridge I would be saying 'bring it on' - firstly because we need to increase our strength in depth and secondly because you have to back yourself - competition for places can only be a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent_Bob Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Do we really need Davies though? Another young centre back, when we've already got Cahill and Ridge. I think it would be a bit of a kick in the teeth for those two. I never understand this attitude. If I was Cahill and Ridge I would be saying 'bring it on' - firstly because we need to increase our strength in depth and secondly because you have to back yourself - competition for places can only be a good thing. I think the question is relevant. It would mean we have five players for that position when everyone is fit. That would mean good players won't even make the bench. I'm all for strength in depth, but five quality central defenders seems a little bit too much, considering there are several other positions where we don't even have a first choice player that's good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didiersix Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Do we really need Davies though? Another young centre back, when we've already got Cahill and Ridge. I think it would be a bit of a kick in the teeth for those two. I never understand this attitude. If I was Cahill and Ridge I would be saying 'bring it on' - firstly because we need to increase our strength in depth and secondly because you have to back yourself - competition for places can only be a good thing. I think the question is relevant. It would mean we have five players for that position when everyone is fit. That would mean good players won't even make the bench. I'm all for strength in depth, but five quality central defenders seems a little bit too much, considering there are several other positions where we don't even have a first choice player that's good enough. But then you have to think that Laursen may not be fit, MON thinks that Davies is better than all of them etc etc. If he is better than what we have now, then that can only be good, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent_Bob Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Do we really need Davies though? Another young centre back, when we've already got Cahill and Ridge. I think it would be a bit of a kick in the teeth for those two. I never understand this attitude. If I was Cahill and Ridge I would be saying 'bring it on' - firstly because we need to increase our strength in depth and secondly because you have to back yourself - competition for places can only be a good thing. I think the question is relevant. It would mean we have five players for that position when everyone is fit. That would mean good players won't even make the bench. I'm all for strength in depth, but five quality central defenders seems a little bit too much, considering there are several other positions where we don't even have a first choice player that's good enough. But then you have to think that Laursen may not be fit, MON thinks that Davies is better than all of them etc etc. If he is better than what we have now, then that can only be good, no? Yes. But I would rather have a striker that scores than another defender on the bench. If I have to choose that is. If I can have both, then I have no problems with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x_villain Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 I think the question is relevant. It would mean we have five players for that position when everyone is fit. That would mean good players won't even make the bench. I'm all for strength in depth, but five quality central defenders seems a little bit too much, considering there are several other positions where we don't even have a first choice player that's good enough. Yes but that means relying on a player who has played 20 games in 2 and a half seasons and I don't think that's very clever. If Laursen is fit, fine, we can send one of the younger lads on loan. He's usually not fit so one extra defender would come in handy IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent_Bob Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 I think the question is relevant. It would mean we have five players for that position when everyone is fit. That would mean good players won't even make the bench. I'm all for strength in depth, but five quality central defenders seems a little bit too much, considering there are several other positions where we don't even have a first choice player that's good enough. Yes but that means relying on a player who has played 20 games in 2 and a half seasons and I don't think that's very clever. If Laursen is fit, fine, we can send one of the younger lads on loan. He's usually not fit so one extra defender would come in handy IMO. No. I am relying on Mellberg, Cahill and Ridgewell. Two of those has to bee injured or suspended before we need someone to play out of position. It's not ideal, but Hughes, Delaney, Barry and Bouma can all play there in an emergency. It would still be fine to have another central defender, but I would not make it my first priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnePablo Posted January 9, 2007 Author Share Posted January 9, 2007 Have we signed Defoe yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrusr Posted January 9, 2007 VT Supporter Share Posted January 9, 2007 I think the question is relevant. It would mean we have five players for that position when everyone is fit. That would mean good players won't even make the bench. I'm all for strength in depth, but five quality central defenders seems a little bit too much, considering there are several other positions where we don't even have a first choice player that's good enough. Yes but that means relying on a player who has played 20 games in 2 and a half seasons and I don't think that's very clever. If Laursen is fit, fine, we can send one of the younger lads on loan. He's usually not fit so one extra defender would come in handy IMO. No. I am relying on Mellberg, Cahill and Ridgewell. Two of those has to bee injured or suspended before we need someone to play out of position. It's not ideal, but Hughes, Delaney, Barry and Bouma can all play there in an emergency. It would still be fine to have another central defender, but I would not make it my first priority. Don't forget Samuel. Agreed though, other positions required first (RW! HINT HINT!) and perhaps that is what MON was looking at instead of Davies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubbs Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Anyone know if its true SWP has rejected a move to SPAM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remotevillan Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Anyone know if its true SWP has rejected a move to SPAM? It seems to be true. I read it in the paper today and it seems definite and concrete. He seems to be stubborn about staying at Chelsea though. A loan for him might be on the cards though Jose seems to want the dosh now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddy Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 It's all gone very quiet on the SWP to West Ham front and suddenly they seem to be chasing Ljungberg. So although no-one knows for definite, it certainly looks that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jez Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Its all gone very quite on the whole SWP front. Could be want to stay at Chelsea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelle Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 It's all gone very quiet on the SWP to West Ham front and suddenly they seem to be chasing Ljungberg. So although no-one knows for definite, it certainly looks that way. Yeah, I too think that the Ljungberg rumour would indicate that SWP has turned them down. OT but I doubt very much that Freddie will go there. But I've been wrong before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts