Another injury

[Prufrock]

BWFCi's point makes sense. He means we could've used the money we used for N'Gog to pay Johan's wages, which would in itself have kept him here, IF, we hadn't shunted him out to wherever in midfield coz we clearly rated Sturridge higher. As it happens Johan didn't like midfield so he left. Not sure I agree with it, given if he'd stayed he'd defo have been playing up top this year, but it makes sense.

[bobo the clown]

Except, we did borrow Sturridge who then showed what a class act he was and the striker that Elmander could never have been.

Maybe it's fair to wonder if Davies should have been the one shunted aside.

However, Elmander never showed the faintest inclination to re-sign. In his 3 seasons with us he showed REAL class in only the first half of that final one. At that the talk became that various clubs fancied him & he fancied his chances. The move out wide to accommodate Sturridge p'd him off & it must be said that it showed. His pouting when Sturridge did (frequently) score was clear & they had a good few spats on-pitch as well.

So that didn't help, but I believe he never planned to sign a new one. He must have been mightily disappointed that his big-time offers never came through & the move to Turkey was v much a money oriented one.

He served his time with us. Did nothing bad, nor - apart from 3 months last season - little that good. He moved on & can point the finger at Coyle or Gartside for bits & bobs but he didn't, truly, do much to deserve us the break the bank (again).

How's he doing in the Ottoman empire, btw ?

[thebish]

BWFCi's point makes sense. He means we could've used the money we used for N'Gog to pay Johan's wages, which would in itself have kept him here, IF, we hadn't shunted him out to wherever in midfield coz we clearly rated Sturridge higher. As it happens Johan didn't like midfield so he left. Not sure I agree with it, given if he'd stayed he'd defo have been playing up top this year, but it makes sense.

we don't actually know that elmo left because he didn't like being shunted about. and if he didn't - then if he would have gone anyway - then the money would not have been "enough" to keep him, would it?

[BWFC_Insane]

Except, we did borrow Sturridge who then showed what a class act he was and the striker that Elmander could never have been.

Maybe it's fair to wonder if Davies should have been the one shunted aside.

However, Elmander never showed the faintest inclination to re-sign. In his 3 seasons with us he showed REAL class in only the first half of that final one. At that the talk became that various clubs fancied him & he fancied his chances. The move out wide to accommodate Sturridge p'd him off & it must be said that it showed. His pouting when Sturridge did (frequently) score was clear & they had a good few spats on-pitch as well.

So that didn't help, but I believe he never planned to sign a new one. He must have been mightily disappointed that his big-time offers never came through & the move to Turkey was v much a money oriented one.

He served his time with us. Did nothing bad, nor - apart from 3 months last season - little that good. He moved on & can point the finger at Coyle or Gartside for bits & bobs but he didn't, truly, do much to deserve us the break the bank (again).

How's he doing in the Ottoman empire, btw ?

Comparing Elmander to Sturridge is completely pointless, as Sturridge was never our player, would have cost 20 odd million quid to sign and would never have actually signed for us.

Fact is that Elmander is considerably better than any striker we have on the books now.

His workrate, running and all round effort helped us to play the system we did last year. Now we have the dads army strikeforce, without that movement and running we look very very predictable!

[Gary the Enfield]

Except, we did borrow Sturridge who then showed what a class act he was and the striker that Elmander could never have been.

Maybe it's fair to wonder if Davies should have been the one shunted aside.

However, Elmander never showed the faintest inclination to re-sign. In his 3 seasons with us he showed REAL class in only the first half of that final one. At that the talk became that various clubs fancied him & he fancied his chances. The move out wide to accommodate Sturridge p'd him off & it must be said that it showed. His pouting when Sturridge did (frequently) score was clear & they had a good few spats on-pitch as well.

So that didn't help, but I believe he never planned to sign a new one. He must have been mightily disappointed that his big-time offers never came through & the move to Turkey was v much a money oriented one.

He served his time with us. Did nothing bad, nor - apart from 3 months last season - little that good. He moved on & can point the finger at Coyle or Gartside for bits & bobs but he didn't, truly, do much to deserve us the break the bank (again).

How's he doing in the Ottoman empire, btw ?

Comparing Elmander to Sturridge is completely pointless, as Sturridge was never our player, would have cost 20 odd million quid to sign and would never have actually signed for us.

Fact is that Elmander is considerably better than any striker we have on the books now.

His workrate, running and all round effort helped us to play the system we did last year. Now we have the dads army strikeforce, without that movement and running we look very very predictable!

...and yet we've still managed to score more goals than at the same time last year. And we are currently joint 7th in terms of goals scored.

I've said before attack is not really the issue. It's our defence that ain't working and the constant change that Coyle has had to deal with through injury, suspension or tactical naivety is costing us time and again. Two goals last Saturday came from rank bad defending on corners. We currently concede almost twice as many as we score. That's not down to the Dad's Army strikeforce.

[boltonboris]

BWFCi's point makes sense. He means we could've used the money we used for N'Gog to pay Johan's wages, which would in itself have kept him here, IF, we hadn't shunted him out to wherever in midfield coz we clearly rated Sturridge higher. As it happens Johan didn't like midfield so he left. Not sure I agree with it, given if he'd stayed he'd defo have been playing up top this year, but it makes sense.

That's a dangerous game though.. Even if you have the money in the coffers to pay him what he wanted, every fecker else would want to be paid more too. There's obviously a wage structure in place. If he was by far and away the best player at the club, then yeah great, but he wasn't really, was he?

[BWFC_Insane]

Except, we did borrow Sturridge who then showed what a class act he was and the striker that Elmander could never have been.

Maybe it's fair to wonder if Davies should have been the one shunted aside.

However, Elmander never showed the faintest inclination to re-sign. In his 3 seasons with us he showed REAL class in only the first half of that final one. At that the talk became that various clubs fancied him & he fancied his chances. The move out wide to accommodate Sturridge p'd him off & it must be said that it showed. His pouting when Sturridge did (frequently) score was clear & they had a good few spats on-pitch as well.

So that didn't help, but I believe he never planned to sign a new one. He must have been mightily disappointed that his big-time offers never came through & the move to Turkey was v much a money oriented one.

He served his time with us. Did nothing bad, nor - apart from 3 months last season - little that good. He moved on & can point the finger at Coyle or Gartside for bits & bobs but he didn't, truly, do much to deserve us the break the bank (again).

How's he doing in the Ottoman empire, btw ?

Comparing Elmander to Sturridge is completely pointless, as Sturridge was never our player, would have cost 20 odd million quid to sign and would never have actually signed for us.

Fact is that Elmander is considerably better than any striker we have on the books now.

His workrate, running and all round effort helped us to play the system we did last year. Now we have the dads army strikeforce, without that movement and running we look very very predictable!

...and yet we've still managed to score more goals than at the same time last year. And we are currently joint 7th in terms of goals scored.

I've said before attack is not really the issue. It's our defence that ain't working and the constant change that Coyle has had to deal with through injury, suspension or tactical naivety is costing us time and again. Two goals last Saturday came from rank bad defending on corners. We currently concede almost twice as many as we score. That's not down to the Dad's Army strikeforce.

The main thing we miss Elmander for was his ability to defend from the front, and combine that work with still being our top scorer.

We may get goals through Klasnic when paired with Davies, but lets not pretend it looks like a balanced strike force that offers us the right balance to the side's shape and play.

[Lord Kangana]

BWFCi's point makes sense. He means we could've used the money we used for N'Gog to pay Johan's wages, which would in itself have kept him here, IF, we hadn't shunted him out to wherever in midfield coz we clearly rated Sturridge higher. As it happens Johan didn't like midfield so he left. Not sure I agree with it, given if he'd stayed he'd defo have been playing up top this year, but it makes sense.

That's a dangerous game though.. Even if you have the money in the coffers to pay him what he wanted, every fecker else would want to be paid more too. There's obviously a wage structure in place. If he was by far and away the best player at the club, then yeah great, but he wasn't really, was he?

Indeed. It was Eddie Davies' decision to only offer 1 year to Elmander, not Coyle's. Elmander chose to look elsewhere for a longer deal, which is his prerogative.

[BWFC_Insane]

BWFCi's point makes sense. He means we could've used the money we used for N'Gog to pay Johan's wages, which would in itself have kept him here, IF, we hadn't shunted him out to wherever in midfield coz we clearly rated Sturridge higher. As it happens Johan didn't like midfield so he left. Not sure I agree with it, given if he'd stayed he'd defo have been playing up top this year, but it makes sense.

That's a dangerous game though.. Even if you have the money in the coffers to pay him what he wanted, every fecker else would want to be paid more too. There's obviously a wage structure in place. If he was by far and away the best player at the club, then yeah great, but he wasn't really, was he?

Indeed. It was Eddie Davies' decision to only offer 1 year to Elmander, not Coyle's. Elmander chose to look elsewhere for a longer deal, which is his prerogative.

And where is the proof of that?

[Lord Kangana]

Go seek it. You'll find it.

[BWFC_Insane]

Go seek it. You'll find it.

In other words you've made it up.

There is not a cat in hells chance that if Coyle had said "I really want to keep Elmander lets use the money we'll save by selling Habsi and not signing a striker to give him an extended deal" that Gartside and or Eddie Davies would turn round and say "nah we will only offer him a 1 year deal".

Coyle makes the footballing decisions. If he wanted to offer Elmander a 3 year deal and make him a key part of his plans then that would have been offered.

As it is he didn't and keep saying that he thought he could do better things with the money. Good plan Owen, good plan!

[thebish]

Go seek it. You'll find it.

In other words you've made it up.

There is not a cat in hells chance that if Coyle had said "I really want to keep Elmander lets use the money we'll save by selling Habsi and not signing a striker to give him an extended deal" that Gartside and or Eddie Davies would turn round and say "nah we will only offer him a 1 year deal".

Coyle makes the footballing decisions. If he wanted to offer Elmander a 3 year deal and make him a key part of his plans then that would have been offered.

As it is he didn't and keep saying that he thought he could do better things with the money. Good plan Owen, good plan!

and where is the proof of that?

[BWFC_Insane]

Go seek it. You'll find it.

In other words you've made it up.

There is not a cat in hells chance that if Coyle had said "I really want to keep Elmander lets use the money we'll save by selling Habsi and not signing a striker to give him an extended deal" that Gartside and or Eddie Davies would turn round and say "nah we will only offer him a 1 year deal".

Coyle makes the footballing decisions. If he wanted to offer Elmander a 3 year deal and make him a key part of his plans then that would have been offered.

As it is he didn't and keep saying that he thought he could do better things with the money. Good plan Owen, good plan!

and where is the proof of that?

Its blatantly obvious that we don't have a chairman and owner telling the manager who to sell and who to buy.

Yes ultimately they will dictate the finances, but not the footballing decisions. That has been said by Gartside, Owen etc an asbolute shedload.

[BWFC_Insane]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13468682.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"If Johan goes that will free up a lot of finance because he was our record signing and on a terrific contract.
"That is money I can use to bring exciting young players to the club."

So that equates to buying said players then realising you've wasted your money and sticking with Old Man Davies and Calum Best impersonater Klasnic up front then?

As I said before, brilliant plan!

[boltonboris]

Coyle makes the footballing decisions. If he wanted to offer Elmander a 3 year deal and make him a key part of his plans then that would have been offered.

With all due respect..

BOLLOCKS! The manager doesn;t sit in negotiations. he'll have said "Yeah let's try and keep him" Board-persons then decide what and what not to offer.

[thebish]

Go seek it. You'll find it.

In other words you've made it up.

There is not a cat in hells chance that if Coyle had said "I really want to keep Elmander lets use the money we'll save by selling Habsi and not signing a striker to give him an extended deal" that Gartside and or Eddie Davies would turn round and say "nah we will only offer him a 1 year deal".

Coyle makes the footballing decisions. If he wanted to offer Elmander a 3 year deal and make him a key part of his plans then that would have been offered.

As it is he didn't and keep saying that he thought he could do better things with the money. Good plan Owen, good plan!

and where is the proof of that?

Its blatantly obvious that we don't have a chairman and owner telling the manager who to sell and who to buy.

Yes ultimately they will dictate the finances, but not the footballing decisions. That has been said by Gartside, Owen etc an asbolute shedload.

you ask LK for proof - but when asked yourself you simply say "it is blatantly obvious". where is the proof?

[BWFC_Insane]

Coyle makes the footballing decisions. If he wanted to offer Elmander a 3 year deal and make him a key part of his plans then that would have been offered.

With all due respect..

BOLLOCKS! The manager doesn;t sit in negotiations. he'll have said "Yeah let's try and keep him" Board-persons then decide what and what not to offer.

Of course he doesn't sit in negotiations.

But you're not telling me that he doesn't advise how much of his budget he wants to use...

Otherwise

PG "Good news Owen we've got Johan signed up for the next two years".

OC "great lets crack open the irn bru"

PG "Just be aware that we've given him a 10M bonus and are paying him 80K a week so basically you need to sell a few and can't buy anyone"

[BWFC_Insane]

Go seek it. You'll find it.

In other words you've made it up.

There is not a cat in hells chance that if Coyle had said "I really want to keep Elmander lets use the money we'll save by selling Habsi and not signing a striker to give him an extended deal" that Gartside and or Eddie Davies would turn round and say "nah we will only offer him a 1 year deal".

Coyle makes the footballing decisions. If he wanted to offer Elmander a 3 year deal and make him a key part of his plans then that would have been offered.

As it is he didn't and keep saying that he thought he could do better things with the money. Good plan Owen, good plan!

and where is the proof of that?

Its blatantly obvious that we don't have a chairman and owner telling the manager who to sell and who to buy.

Yes ultimately they will dictate the finances, but not the footballing decisions. That has been said by Gartside, Owen etc an asbolute shedload.

you ask LK for proof - but when asked yourself you simply say "it is blatantly obvious". where is the proof?

He was alleging our owner made footballing decisions.

Which is totally out of sync with everything that was said at the fans forum, with every article thats been written about Eddie Davies, with every tweet Gartside has made about Owen deciding upon players etc etc....

I've no doubt that Eddie Davies sets the budget for transfers. No doubt at all. But Eddie Davies tells Coyle how to use that budget? Not having it. Otherwise might as well say Eddie Davies forced us to buy Shittu for 2M on 15K a week. Its as plausible as a bloke who wants very little day to day involvement, decided that a player could only be offered a 1 year deal. Ridiculous.

[Tombwfc]

BWFCi's point makes sense. He means we could've used the money we used for N'Gog to pay Johan's wages, which would in itself have kept him here, IF, we hadn't shunted him out to wherever in midfield coz we clearly rated Sturridge higher. As it happens Johan didn't like midfield so he left. Not sure I agree with it, given if he'd stayed he'd defo have been playing up top this year, but it makes sense.

That's a dangerous game though.. Even if you have the money in the coffers to pay him what he wanted, every fecker else would want to be paid more too. There's obviously a wage structure in place. If he was by far and away the best player at the club, then yeah great, but he wasn't really, was he?

I can't see many players at the club who were or are in any position to start demanding pay-rises (Lee, possibly). Even then though, it doesn't seem like we made any effort to re-sign Elmander outside of the joke offer we put to him in November, so what his demands were are a bit irrelevant, we didn't negotiate. We (Davies, Gartside and Coyle) clearly thought we could do better with that money.

FWIW, I have a vague recollection of Eddie Davies being interviewed by GMR and making it clear that he didn't think Elmander was up to much or that he had given value for his money. The truth is I don't think any of us know to what extent the three main parties are involved in negotiations (It's Eddie Davies' money, Gartside's job and Owen Coyle's budget and ultimately he's the one who gets sacked if it goes wrong. You'd think all would have a certain amount of imput). Of course, that doesn't stop people from talking as though the last manager did all his transfer dealings on his own, so I don't know.

[boltonboris]

Coyle makes the footballing decisions. If he wanted to offer Elmander a 3 year deal and make him a key part of his plans then that would have been offered.

With all due respect..

BOLLOCKS! The manager doesn;t sit in negotiations. he'll have said "Yeah let's try and keep him" Board-persons then decide what and what not to offer.

Of course he doesn't sit in negotiations.

But you're not telling me that he doesn't advise how much of his budget he wants to use...

Otherwise

PG "Good news Owen we've got Johan signed up for the next two years".

OC "great lets crack open the irn bru"

PG "Just be aware that we've given him a 10M bonus and are paying him 80K a week so basically you need to sell a few and can't buy anyone"

Riiiiiight...

Coyle won't have any say over what he thinks we should offer a player.