ESR Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 I just think that with the club constantly saying they will spend (A certain player) type fees if its the right player and the right deal for the club then they should, whether that is a player coming in or a player already at our club, the board need to act now to tie Commons up for a longer stay. He's an important player in our team, when he plays to his potential he is devastating, and it will be VERY hard in finding another player of his quality that would want to join our club, and for less wages than what he's on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red fever Posted October 14, 2010 Author Share Posted October 14, 2010 Who is the replacement for Rob Hulse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terrymalloy Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 Who is the replacement for Rob Hulse Why are you so concerned ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
number10 Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 You said all our best players. That's one player you've listed. Shaun Barker is with us for the forseeable future. Kris Commons is a Derby County player. In other areas we have improved on our outgoing players. Hulse is just one example. Just one. No answer then, other than fiddling with semantics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duracell Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 No answer then, other than fiddling with semantics? We currently have Shefki Kuqi, if you really want an answer. But all other outgoings have been covered by replacements who, on the evidence so far, have improved our squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorecambeRam Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 And we haven`t exactly missed Hulse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 Look at it this way....Hulse is the ex missus that's dumped you, Kuqi is the slag that your using to get your leg over whilst you look for another decent woman. Clough is now on the pull.....hopefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 Look at it this way....Hulse is the ex missus that's dumped you, Kuqi is the slag that your using to get your leg over whilst you look for another decent woman. Clough is now on the pull.....hopefully. ..thats really beautiful.....wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
number10 Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 We currently have Shefki Kuqi, if you really want an answer. But all other outgoings have been covered by replacements who, on the evidence so far, have improved our squad. So our replacement for the main striker last season is a loan player. Despite having all summer to identify and purchase targets. The recent defensive shortage also speaks volumes about a lack of spending over the summer given the fact that it is common knowledge about several players injury proneness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hucknall Ram Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 So our replacement for the main striker last season is a loan player. Despite having all summer to identify and purchase targets. The recent defensive shortage also speaks volumes about a lack of spending over the summer given the fact that it is common knowledge about several players injury proneness. Think everyone admits its far from a prefect whats happened with Rob Hulse and lack of strikers but what you got to think about over the summer we had three strikers fighting over one spot. then two of them get injured. Then we get a offer for Hulse, we accept it. At this moment in time looks like a good deal, he still to play for QPR because he injured. So if Hulse was still here, there be less money to spend on transfer fees and wages, may of affected getting Kqui on loan. The fact is he could of gone for even less in Jauary and still have pay something like £150k in wages in the mean time, when he would be on the injury table Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 Have we missed Hulse since he's gone? No. Would we be in a better position had Hulse stayed? No as he's still injured. Would we be in a worse position had Hulse stayed? Possibly, would we have been able to bring in Kuqi had Hulse still on the wage bill? It just seems rather pointless to me dragging up the Hulse sale now, he's gone and for me Clough made the right decision. It could so easily could of gone the other way and we couldn't get anyone in on loan and struggling at the bottom of the table but we're not so let's move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 It appears that some of the old circular debates from the DET are resurfacing on here - I am guilty of it too jumping onto the financial thread elsewhere - I will bite my lip on this one though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex W Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 It appears that some of the old circular debates from the DET are resurfacing on here - I am guilty of it too jumping onto the financial thread elsewhere - I will bite my lip on this one though. Indeed, and number10 appears to be at the head of it as per usual Ah, the good old days...... Speaking of which, still trying to get that site sorted, just waiting on an email back from Delaroy to send me the database tools etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramesses Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 It appears that some of the old circular debates from the DET are resurfacing on here - I am guilty of it too jumping onto the financial thread elsewhere - I will bite my lip on this one though. http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a141/knottyceltic/personal/groundhogd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex W Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 Speaking of which, still trying to get that site sorted, just waiting on an email back from Delaroy to send me the database tools etc. Should clarify as someone has mentioned this in a PM to me, it's not the old database, it will be a brand new one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 Should clarify as someone has mentioned this in a PM to me, it's not the old database, it will be a brand new one. So what's he actually giving you then as I see he's whacked a new site up on dcfctoday.co.uk PHPBB what the old forum ran on is free, all you need is a domain and hosting and install the forum then your away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex W Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 So what's he actually giving you then as I see he's whacked a new site up on dcfctoday.co.uk PHPBB what the old forum ran on is free, all you need is a domain and hosting and install the forum then your away. Just replied to your PM, Daveo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
number10 Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 Think everyone admits its far from a prefect whats happened with Rob Hulse and lack of strikers but what you got to think about over the summer we had three strikers fighting over one spot. then two of them get injured. Then we get a offer for Hulse, we accept it. At this moment in time looks like a good deal, he still to play for QPR because he injured. So if Hulse was still here, there be less money to spend on transfer fees and wages, may of affected getting Kqui on loan. The fact is he could of gone for even less in Jauary and still have pay something like £150k in wages in the mean time, when he would be on the injury table The Hulse money has not been spent, so the fact that he was sold to make room for other players is incorrect anyway... If a Loan deal such as Kuqis relies of the permanent sale of a top player, that is evidence of a massive intentional step backwards from the board. You cannot replace good players with temporary players that are not as good. it doers not make good footballing sense. Sure, the Hulse sale is 'fair enough' if the money is spent wisely on a replacement. The board would not put in the cash for Hooper, Vaughan, or any other permanent replacement that Clough actuyally wanted though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex W Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 The Hulse money has not been spent, so the fact that he was sold to make room for other players is incorrect anyway... If a Loan deal such as Kuqis relies of the permanent sale of a top player, that is evidence of a massive intentional step backwards from the board. You cannot replace good players with temporary players that are not as good. it doers not make good footballing sense. I presume Nigel looked at the injury Hulse had, and considering the fact that he's still injured, sold him so that he got as much money as possible. Not good that we haven't replaced him, but they've said that they've been unable to get the men they wanted. So the only thing we can do is get adequate loans in who will put their all in, and keep trying to get either a good loan signing in or we manage to get one of our targets (which seems unlikely in January, I expect to see movement in the summer for a top striker) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 The Hulse money has not been spent, so the fact that he was sold to make room for other players is incorrect anyway... If a Loan deal such as Kuqis relies of the permanent sale of a top player, that is evidence of a massive intentional step backwards from the board. You cannot replace good players with temporary players that are not as good. it doers not make good footballing sense. Sure, the Hulse sale is 'fair enough' if the money is spent wisely on a replacement. The board would not put in the cash for Hooper, Vaughan, or any other permanent replacement that Clough actuyally wanted though. and heres me thinking we loaned Kuqi and Bueno after Hulse went Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.