Reply With Quotewe dont though do we monte weve been a selling club from the mid 60s im afraid dont think ccv did owt wrong yesterday but i do expect flecky to come straight back in saturday so its between ccv and bash for rcb spot
Hall Of Fame
I know what you are saying SOB - but I really hate the fact that we are a "kindergarten" for bigger teams.....can't wait for the time when we are able to hold onto our decent players.Originally Posted by shorehamoldboy
Great to see Moore back in the team yesterday and looking strong and competent (when needed?!)....and really CCV should lose his place once Fleck is back - all good IMHO
Loanees should only be used when needed, not get a regular place in the team.
UTB
Hall Of Fame
we dont though do we monte weve been a selling club from the mid 60s im afraid dont think ccv did owt wrong yesterday but i do expect flecky to come straight back in saturday so its between ccv and bash for rcb spot
Hall Of Fame
Leon,Clayton,Billy,Caolan,Ched..........do we need anymore......yes only if one or two move out on loan.
Hall Of Fame
might leave cole for now and get murphy in who can play out wide or just in behind leon hes still only 28 and has that bit of quality and thats the type of player we should be looking at also good pace which weve not really got in abundance at this minute
Hall Of Fame
My thoughts exactly. If we sell Brooks, he's not in our long term plans - so what benefit is it to us to continue developing him? Why not bring someone in for the long term so we can reap the benefits?
That's not to say all loanees are a bad idea, I'd just sooner develop our own youngsters than those of other clubs.
Hall Of Fame
your both right of course but our policy over the last few years has been to sell our best youngster to fund orher signings and it will continue until we find an investor to put money up front for players so that we can hang on to these youngsters
Hall Of Fame
woody pal ,all day long, also danny ingsAre ya thinkin of Woodbourn,or Sturridge on loan Twirls?UTCB
Hall Of Fame
The last few kids we've sold, their fees have mostly gone on the electric bill, I guess. Brooks is the first one who's fee can be used for more than funding losses, and therefore it could make a significant difference to us.
I'm reminded of an old business friend of mine who once said 'its okay to kill the favourite son, if it means the rest of the family can survive'. I think this is how I'm feeling about Brooks. I'd love to keep him, but is it worth the gamble that we keep him and fall short of the play-offs for the want of a player or two. The other side is how much of a gamble that his sale will give us the boost to get there anyway. I admit, I'm still a bit sceptical about who is available to come in, hit the ground running and give us an instant improvement. No one any good ever gets bought and sold in January.
I did think that our alarming loss of form after Coutts injury was going to see us finishing mid-table, but we seem to be back on track after yesterday. I'd need to see more than beating a hopeless Sunderland and hopefully Bolton to give me confidence that we are play-off bound, at least. I know we can't wait to see if we get 8 wins from the next 10 games. Glad the decision isn't on my desk.
Hall Of Fame
That isn't my point at all. I'm not unrealistic. If we can get a good price for him I haven't got an issue in selling him. Bigger clubs than us sell their best players. I just think that selling and loaning back is short sighted and smacks of short-termism when we could be buying players for the future.
Hall Of Fame
yeah but if he helps us get in the play offs be worth it wouldnt it weve nowt to lose in a deal like that plus good money for chris to bring good quality players in that can take us to the next level providing of course he sees enough of the cash and thats another thread
Posting Permissions