The "Nothing to see here"Transfer thread

[thebish]

Odds on the winger being Zaha??
Red fans I know seem to think he will spend more time out on loan this season, can't see why myself as surely he must be worth at least a try for them.

They wouldn't loan him outside the Premiership

why??

[PC1978]

Odds on the winger being Zaha??
Red fans I know seem to think he will spend more time out on loan this season, can't see why myself as surely he must be worth at least a try for them.

They wouldn't loan him outside the Premiership

Obviously, the Dougie factor was the inspiration for this popping into my head.

[BWFC_Insane]

Sorry, just to sum up, he's fired off a load of names with the precision of a blunderbuss, the majority of whom haven't signed (and, prediction time! probably never will) and theres nothing vague about it?

I'm 100% consistent too.

We'll probably sign some players this summer, from different leagues and of different ages, if they're available and everyone agrees to the deal and we have the money. And Dougie wants them. But I'm very confident that we're looking at football players, nudge nudge, wink, wink.

Which names has he "fired out" that have been wrong? So far? You keep saying this, but I want to know what he's got wrong.

And he's naming targets that doesn't mean them not signing in the end means he is "wrong".

Case in point he named Baptiste in the Mirror in May. Subsequently Freedman gave quotes to the BN talking about why he had "signed Baptiste" and the position he wanted him to play in. As it stands the player is still not official and MAY join Palace. However, that clearly does not equate to him making it up.

So come on what are these examples of targets he's named who are wrong?

[CrazyHorse]

So he's said we're trying to sign a winger on loan. And describes him as "tasty". And from the premiership.

I don't think not naming him is being vague. It's because primarily he'll want the story in the paper first but presumably he also doesn't want to piss of his source by giving the information away too early and scuppering any potential deal.

He wrote about Beckord and Hall weeks, and weeks ago and neither of those are as yet officially Bolton players. I'd hardly say thats vague.

It's just the nature of transfers, taking their time and sometimes breaking down late on.

Anyone who thinks he hasn't got a reliable and seemingly constant source at Bolton feeding him accurate stories must be completely deluded. I don't think the BN have beaten him to a story yet. Clearly the club have their prorities in who they give the information out to, for whatever reason that may be. But it certainly is clear as day.

Anyway, haven't you spent the last three years citing the fact that Nixon is Coyles mate as a reason to prove that his drunken ramblings are true?
But Coyle isn't at Bolton any more (on account of him being a cancer iirc) so how come Nico is still magically delivering the goods?

[thebish]

Sorry, just to sum up, he's fired off a load of names with the precision of a blunderbuss, the majority of whom haven't signed (and, prediction time! probably never will) and theres nothing vague about it?

I'm 100% consistent too.

We'll probably sign some players this summer, from different leagues and of different ages, if they're available and everyone agrees to the deal and we have the money. And Dougie wants them. But I'm very confident that we're looking at football players, nudge nudge, wink, wink.

Which names has he "fired out" that have been wrong? So far? You keep saying this, but I want to know what he's got wrong.

And he's naming targets that doesn't mean them not signing in the end means he is "wrong".

Case in point he named Baptiste in the Mirror in May. Subsequently Freedman gave quotes to the BN talking about why he had "signed Baptiste" and the position he wanted him to play in. As it stands the player is still not official and MAY join Palace. However, that clearly does not equate to him making it up.

So come on what are these examples of targets he's named who are wrong?

whilst i get your point - and generally agree with you that Nixon is obviously a more clued-up source then the BEN - that just seems obvious..

if LK names players that Nixon has fingered (sorry!) who we didn't sign - then you have pretty much already said that you will then claim that they must have been targets - so weren't wrong! thing is - we will NEVER really know about most of these names whether they were actually targets or not - so it's a bit of an unknowable science on both sides... you'll just claim they must have been - so Nixon wasn't making it up - but you would only be guessing - and LK would have no concrete evidence to refute it...

[thebish]

But Coyle isn't at Bolton any more (on account of him being a cancer iirc) so how come Nico is still magically delivering the goods?

because Coyle bugged the office before he left... the fat kit man was an ex FBI agent...

[Enoch]

I wager the fat kit man was an ex unemployed!

[borgetti_wanderers]

But Coyle isn't at Bolton any more (on account of him being a cancer iirc) so how come Nico is still magically delivering the goods?

because Coyle bugged the office before he left... the fat kit man was an ex FBI agent...

I'm sure that rather large gentleman collected the balls after pre match warm up.

[boltonboris]

I'm not sure he genuinely thinks he's an ex FBI agent, to be honest Borgy

[BWFC_Insane]

Sorry, just to sum up, he's fired off a load of names with the precision of a blunderbuss, the majority of whom haven't signed (and, prediction time! probably never will) and theres nothing vague about it?

I'm 100% consistent too.

We'll probably sign some players this summer, from different leagues and of different ages, if they're available and everyone agrees to the deal and we have the money. And Dougie wants them. But I'm very confident that we're looking at football players, nudge nudge, wink, wink.

Which names has he "fired out" that have been wrong? So far? You keep saying this, but I want to know what he's got wrong.

And he's naming targets that doesn't mean them not signing in the end means he is "wrong".

Case in point he named Baptiste in the Mirror in May. Subsequently Freedman gave quotes to the BN talking about why he had "signed Baptiste" and the position he wanted him to play in. As it stands the player is still not official and MAY join Palace. However, that clearly does not equate to him making it up.

So come on what are these examples of targets he's named who are wrong?

whilst i get your point - and generally agree with you that Nixon is obviously a more clued-up source then the BEN - that just seems obvious..

if LK names players that Nixon has fingered (sorry!) who we didn't sign - then you have pretty much already said that you will then claim that they must have been targets - so weren't wrong! thing is - we will NEVER really know about most of these names whether they were actually targets or not - so it's a bit of an unknowable science on both sides... you'll just claim they must have been - so Nixon wasn't making it up - but you would only be guessing - and LK would have no concrete evidence to refute it...

First I'd like to see the "extended" list he's got wrong.

Because if as LK and others are suggesting he's just "firing off randomly" then there should be a whole catalogue of names to reel off.......

[thebish]

First I'd like to see the "extended" list he's got wrong.

Because if as LK and others are suggesting he's just "firing off randomly" then there should be a whole catalogue of names to reel off.......

and then you'd reply "well - how do we know they weren't targets?" - and nothing would be solved!

[a1]

So he's said we're trying to sign a winger on loan. And describes him as "tasty". And from the premiership.

I don't think not naming him is being vague. It's because primarily he'll want the story in the paper first but presumably he also doesn't want to piss of his source by giving the information away too early and scuppering any potential deal.

He wrote about Beckord and Hall weeks, and weeks ago and neither of those are as yet officially Bolton players. I'd hardly say thats vague.

It's just the nature of transfers, taking their time and sometimes breaking down late on.

Anyone who thinks he hasn't got a reliable and seemingly constant source at Bolton feeding him accurate stories must be completely deluded. I don't think the BN have beaten him to a story yet. Clearly the club have their prorities in who they give the information out to, for whatever reason that may be. But it certainly is clear as day.

it's raheem sterling from ages ago, as someone further back said.

[BWFC_Insane]

First I'd like to see the "extended" list he's got wrong.

Because if as LK and others are suggesting he's just "firing off randomly" then there should be a whole catalogue of names to reel off.......

and then you'd reply "well - how do we know they weren't targets?" - and nothing would be solved!

Be better to see this vast list first.......

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I've got a vast list... to starboard. Thank feck it'll be July soon.

[ChrisC]

Nixon says there will be something in the paper on Sunday regarding a target.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Nixon says there will be something in the paper on Sunday regarding a target.

[ChrisC]

Nixon says there will be something in the paper on Sunday regarding a target.

I know this forum to well.. When I wrote target, I deleted it knowing someone would be along with a piss taking picture Then I thought, sod it.. and left it sat there to be targeted (see what I did there?)

[Lost Leopard Spot]

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Nixon is infuriating and loves the attention but is frequently right

He hasn't named Sterling

On Sterling, there's a lot of cack and hearsay ("he's got 12 kids by 32 different women!") but I did hear from a decent source that Robbie Fowler advised Liverpool not to improve RS's wages, pointing out that he had been there himself as a young player on a lot of money and it affected his game. Liverpool upped Sterling's wage, Sterling went badly off the boil...

[plymouth wanderer]

First I'd like to see the "extended" list he's got wrong.

Because if as LK and others are suggesting he's just "firing off randomly" then there should be a whole catalogue of names to reel off.......

and then you'd reply "well - how do we know they weren't targets?" - and nothing would be solved!

I won't say that Bish, tell me.