Bruce on Injuries - The Journal.


Status
Not open for further replies.
Gyan was Bruce’s plan B for Bent anyway, hence why they never trained together ;).

As Montana has so kindly pointed out we are skint and need to sell before we buy unless Short fancies more of his money to being wasted.

I'm not saying you're wrong but the club should have had a better line up for the next CF then if they were going to replace Jones/Campbell ;)

P.S. I think Gyan was Bents replacement and I think bent knew Gyan was bent's replacement - which was why he wanted away and another reason that the club should have been prepared ;)
 
They are running a multi million pound business not a f***ing ket shop :lol:

I could even give them a pass if it came totally out of the blue if there hadn't been the massive hint in the summer that everything wasn't tickety boo

They say otherwise so that's the end of that.
 
If any other manager ( especially one who didnt support NUFC as a bairn ) had brought in the loans bruce has, the usual bleaters would say nowt.
They look for every possible reason to have a go. Pathetic the lot of them.

these wankers are in essence saying we'd prefer a smaller squad to choose from rather than bring loans in, because that is what the financial constraints we operate under amount to.
Our injuries have only compounded the situation.
Of course that both Meyler and campbell's knees have given way is bruces' fault.
Defoe stamping on gordon is bruce's fault.
Turner colliding with a goal post is Bruce's fault.
Gyan & Welbeck pulling hammies is Bruce's fault.
Without the loans we'd have been royally fecked, but no we shouldnt have them.
hey keep waghorn, a dismal failure at CCC level, it's better than a loan.
Who needs Onuoha we;ve got the master circus act defender Noz, he's no good but he's not on loan.
People bleat about Muntari but he instrumental in our wins against Wigan and Bolton.
But hey no we should have kept daryl murphy or leadbitter.

Get fucked man, who he supports has nowt to do with it.

We had 5 loan players this season, thats potentially half of our out field team that doesn;t belong to us. Thats not good for the future as this summers spending will testify. We have to spend big we have no choice.
 
Behave man- in your previous posts you've already said that us fans could tell something was up in October - I find it hard to believe we were the only one's.

Fair point. I'm just going off Quinns own words which mark it out as being his last few weeks where there was a demonstrable change. Perhaps we're just far more attuned to impending disaster after all these years.
 
The problem with January is the inflated fees,

Then we didn't get enough then (as was proven by your next point)

Did Newcastle have one for Carroll?

Not really so they made sure that a) Liverpool massively overpaid b) they did at least have a body to play (Ranger/Ameobi/Best/Lovenkrands and still they got Kudui in)

Do Manchester United have one for Rooney?

There contingency is to pay him not to leave - you can't have it both ways :lol:

Fair point. I'm just going off Quinns own words which mark it out as being his last few weeks where there was a demonstrable change. Perhaps we're just far more attuned to impending disaster after all these years.

It was one of the reasons I now fecking hate Bent, I was defending him from about the October saying that he was injured, brought back too early, not enough support or loss of confidence or anything but him wanting away - turtally hoodwinked :oops:
 
The problem with January is the inflated fees, how do you have a contingency for Bent leaving? Did Newcastle have one for Carroll? Do Manchester United have one for Rooney? I think you are asking too much.

Although possibly not to the same level, we’ll be having to pay top whack for strikers in the summer, chairman know we will be desperate for strikers, so will be demanding top dollar for their assets. They will want their hands on some of the £24 mil. Agents will love us as well.
 
Then we didn't get enough then (as was proven by your next point)



Not really so they made sure that a) Liverpool massively overpaid b) they did at least have a body to play (Ranger/Ameobi/Best/Lovenkrands and still they got Kudui in)



There contingency is to pay him not to leave - you can't have it both ways :lol:

We tried that and still got shafted.
 
The problem with January is the inflated fees, how do you have a contingency for Bent leaving? Did Newcastle have one for Carroll? Do Manchester United have one for Rooney? I think you are asking too much.

You have a list of strikers you'd sign given the chance.

Or maybe at least strikers to replace the injured Campbell?
 
Then we didn't get enough then (as was proven by your next point)

Not really so they made sure that a) Liverpool massively overpaid b) they did at least have a body to play (Ranger/Ameobi/Best/Lovenkrands and still they got Kudui in)

There contingency is to pay him not to leave - you can't have it both ways :lol:

1) Bent's fee was inflated and means nothing to the next point
2) Liverpool paid more in desperation for a younger player. It's Liverpool decision and theirs alone as to why they bid so much for Carroll. Not one of Newcastle's remaining strikers would have been good enough for the fans. At that point, Gyan, Campbell and Welbeck would have been chosen over Newcastle's five by anybody here.
3) Have what both ways?
 
Although possibly not to the same level, we’ll be having to pay top whack for strikers in the summer, chairman know we will be desperate for strikers, so will be demanding top dollar for their assets. They will want their hands on some of the £24 mil. Agents will love us as well.

All true. However, the market is so much freer that any negative effects of having £24m burning a hole in our pockets will be far outweighed by the ability for us to walk away from a deal that doesn't provide value in order to pursue one that does. There is no doubt in my mind that we'll get a better player - at a better price - by buying in the summer market.
 
Although possibly not to the same level, we’ll be having to pay top whack for strikers in the summer, chairman know we will be desperate for strikers, so will be demanding top dollar for their assets. They will want their hands on some of the £24 mil. Agents will love us as well.

We shall see, it is possible though. Villa's and Liverpool's madness took me by my surprise but you could argue that the outlay has paid off to some extent.
 
All true. However, the market is so much freer that any negative effects of having £24m burning a hole in our pockets will be far outweighed by the ability for us to walk away from a deal that doesn't provide value in order to pursue one that does. There is no doubt in my mind that we'll get a better player - at a better price - by buying in the summer market.

The extra £m's we'll spend being outweighed by the TV & prize money we'll have lost out on by our poor 2nd half showing?
 
We tried that and still got shafted.

No we didn't, in Rooney's case Man Utd have made a concious decision that he's not going anywhere until they are ready to sell him and they will keep playing the game of paying him more.

We gave Bent one rise and then were 'shocked and stunned' when he handed in a transfer request and sold him (I would have as well the cheeky fucker).

But what happens when Rooney hands in a request (and there's rumours and suggestions that he'll go to Man City) - they have a bit of a stand off and then they pay him.

As I said I've no problem with us selling him but a) I'd have held out until the last 10 mins of transfer deadline day and b) I'd have made damn sure that I'd have a list of other players in my back pocket from the first time around - updated with current position.
 
Get fucked man, who he supports has nowt to do with it.

We had 5 loan players this season, thats potentially half of our out field team that doesn;t belong to us. Thats not good for the future as this summers spending will testify. We have to spend big we have no choice.

what if we end up signing all of those loan players? how does it look then?
 
I said it at the time and I say it again now, I think you'd be foolish to believe that SAFC were playing the wide-eyed ingénue in the Bent deal. I think they sanctioned his sale as a calculated risk (they were 7th at the time, Gyan and Welbeck were there to fire in the goals) but it nearly backfired.

I cannot see how the Quinn-on-a-warpath-about-pubs-showing-the-match isn't related to Short asking to see more bums on seats to justify his outlay.

Short wants SAFC be more self-sufficient, so maybe he floated the idea that we had to let a marquee name go in order to fund further purchases. I know a lot of people think that's a bullshit idea, and that's fair enough, but it's my opinion and I'll stick with it.

Bruce has been unlucky (although possibly complicit) with injuries, but I don't think he's helped himself either.
 
1) Bent's fee was inflated and means nothing to the next point
2) Liverpool paid more in desperation for a younger player. It's Liverpool decision and theirs alone as to why they bid so much for Carroll. Not one of Newcastle's remaining strikers would have been good enough for the fans. At that point, Gyan, Campbell and Welbeck would have been chosen over Newcastle's five by anybody here.
3) Have what both ways?

they were both crocked
the contingency - you seem to be suggesting that we didn't have a contingency for bent wanting away because it isn't possible and the same goes for Rooney. But Man Utd do have one and they aren't afraid to use it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top