Mostyn6 Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 3 minutes ago, Uptherams said: Would score as many goals as Martin and would cost us half to a third what we would receive for Martin. It would be fantastic business. That's what you want when you sell your better players. To not just cash in but to replace the loss of such a player. Bamford is a goalscorer. impact player at best at this level and higher. He's not equipped for 90mins as a striker, and doesn't work hard enough to be on the wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannable Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 3 minutes ago, Uptherams said: Would score as many goals as Martin and would cost us half to a third what we would receive for Martin. It would be fantastic business. That's what you want when you sell your better players. To not just cash in but to replace the loss of such a player. Bamford is a goalscorer. That's not the point… if we're getting rid of Martin for not really being a Pearson type player why the hell would we go for Bamford?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palimpsest Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 2 minutes ago, inter politics said: I'd rather gamble on the guy who is 5 years younger and scored 60 goals and numerous assists in the past three seasons...seems better odds to me. That's the point of a gamble mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inter politics Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 No, you talked about the gamble of Bent vs. Martin...if you want to win your gamble, Martin is the guy to bet on, not Bent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptherams Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 1 minute ago, Mostyn6 said: impact player at best at this level and higher. He's not equipped for 90mins as a striker, and doesn't work hard enough to be on the wing. Goalscorer at this level and he looks like he will be available this summer. Wigan have already made a £3m bid. The consensus is that price tags have become inflated. In particular for a forward/goalscorer. To the point where around £10m is considered the new bench mark. In this market Bamford will be a bargain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palimpsest Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 1 minute ago, inter politics said: No, you talked about the gamble of Bent vs. Martin...if you want to win your gamble, Martin is the guy to bet on, not Bent. No, I want to go for the longer odds please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 4 minutes ago, Uptherams said: Goalscorer at this level and he looks like he will be available this summer. Wigan have already made a £3m bid. The consensus is that price tags have become inflated. In particular for a forward/goalscorer. To the point where around £10m is considered the new bench mark. In this market Bamford will be a bargain. but he's not a 90minute man. We have Bent to do the impact sub role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeDerby Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 16 minutes ago, Uptherams said: Would score as many goals as Martin and would cost us half to a third what we would receive for Martin. It would be fantastic business. That's what you want when you sell your better players. To not just cash in but to replace the loss of such a player. Bamford is a goalscorer. What makes you think we could get Bamford for 1/2-1/3 of Martins price? He would be around the same price, probably more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptherams Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 5 minutes ago, cannable said: That's not the point… if we're getting rid of Martin for not really being a Pearson type player why the hell would we go for Bamford?! Bent puts in as little effort as Martin. Yet he was leading our front line first game of the season. Work that one out. The reason we would go for Bamford is because we can swap out Martin for a player that is also a goalscorer and for 1/3 -1/2 what we receive for Martin. People keep saying we should play Blackman up top. Well Bamford almost never played in his favoured position for us. Was stuck out wide where Blackman is and still found the net often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptherams Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 3 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said: but he's not a 90minute man. We have Bent to do the impact sub role. So? Take him off after 70 minutes, after he has scored a goal. Like you just said, we have Bent for the impact sub role. So Bamford starts, Bent sits on the bench and then we use the rest of the funds we receive from Martin and Hendrick for the 'Pearson type' forward. Two of them even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 Just now, Uptherams said: So? Take him off after 70 minutes, after he has scored a goal. Like you just said, we have Bent for the impact sub role. So Bamford starts, Bent sits on the bench and then we use the rest of the funds we receive from Martin and Hendrick for the 'Pearson type' forward. Two of them even. you miss the point, not only is he not a 90 min man, but he also cannot play the number 9 role. He's too lightweight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derbyram1 Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 Martin could easily get you 20 goals a season, Bent won't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackNwhites Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 Six million, no deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptherams Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 6 minutes ago, JoeDerby said: What makes you think we could get Bamford for 1/2-1/3 of Martins price? He would be around the same price, probably more! Because he is not part of Chelsea's plans. Where as buying indispensable players from your competitors, who come across these players once a decade, leads to inflated prices. Selling these players is the biggest thing that happens to them in their history. Where as for the likes of Chelsea it's not even a blip on their radar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptherams Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 3 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said: you miss the point, not only is he not a 90 min man, but he also cannot play the number 9 role. He's too lightweight. No he isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritty Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 6 minutes ago, Derbyram1 said: Martin could easily get you 20 goals a season, Bent won't! Odd statement given Bent's record at Premier league level and his goals per games ratio (when he starts, not counting coming on as a sub for 5 mins) at Championship level Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeDerby Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 1 minute ago, Uptherams said: Because he is not part of Chelsea's plans. Where as buying indispensable players from your competitors, who come across these players once a decade, leads to inflated prices. Selling these players is the biggest thing that happens to them in their history. Where as for the likes of Chelsea it's not even a blip on their radar. Just because he's not part of their plans doesn't mean they will sell him for next to nothing. They will sell the player on what the player is worth, he's a proven championship scorer + 5 years younger than Martin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannable Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 12 minutes ago, Uptherams said: Bent puts in as little effort as Martin. Yet he was leading our front line first game of the season. Work that one out. The reason we would go for Bamford is because we can swap out Martin for a player that is also a goalscorer and for 1/3 -1/2 what we receive for Martin. People keep saying we should play Blackman up top. Well Bamford almost never played in his favoured position for us. Was stuck out wide where Blackman is and still found the net often. Football's a simple game… but it's not that simple. It's clear Pearson wants somebody who can stretch defences and counter at pace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannable Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 8 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said: you miss the point, not only is he not a 90 min man, but he also cannot play the number 9 role. He's too lightweight. I actually think he'd be quite a good #10… better than Ince though? Naaah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptherams Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 1 minute ago, JoeDerby said: Just because he's not part of their plans doesn't mean they will sell him for next to nothing. They will sell the player on what the player is worth, he's a proven championship scorer + 5 years younger than Martin! Yep. When he goes to someone else in this league and starts scoring goals people will be saying what a bargain. We could have gone for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.e1137248055f4860a45521e03d96f7b5.thumb.jpg.2355a3b1794fd60ce9e1342e6d520be8.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.