pork pie fox
Well-Known Member
Can’t believe we treat our players well, what’s wrong with us? They should be flogged daily, the bastards.
Can’t believe we treat our players well, what’s wrong with us? They should be flogged daily, the bastards.
I know, players must be right selfish ****s wanting to play (or not) for us.Can’t believe we treat our players well, what’s wrong with us? They should be flogged daily, the bastards.
It is most probably just a load of shit. Like most of the stuff on the tinternet.This is an odd one. Not just because it doesn't really say anything (@pork pie fox might have a point about transfer pundits), but also because it quotes Top. When does he ever comment on transfers?
If players are treated in the way you seem to suggest, they may become entitled to leave the club with no fee payable. Probably not what we want or need.Are we being too nice to the unwanted players?
BR seems to include all of them through the main preseason plans irrespective of whether they are likely to feature or not. This is the right thing to do if you're a nice chap. However, it doesn't nudge them towards the exit does it?
At some clubs, and at ours under managers like Puel or Pearson, those who weren't part of the managers plans were simply excluded from the main group and didn't travel to training camps or play in the games. As a result, the players knew that they had to get out and so were more proactive about it.
A player made to train separately and told to find a new club will be on to their agent sharpish. A player treated very nicely might not.
It seems to me that we've gone out of our way to get about thirty players game time in preseason when we should have focused on twenty and left the rest out.
If players are treated in the way you seem to suggest, they may become entitled to leave the club with no fee payable. Probably not what we want or need.
Depends doesn't it, if you have players (reportedly) on silly wages that are adding nothing, then what's to lose by them just leaving?If players are treated in the way you seem to suggest, they may become entitled to leave the club with no fee payable. Probably not what we want or need.
Doesn't make what I said incorrect though. And in a season like last season, we did have to play him.Eh? I'm just proposing the same as many clubs are doing right now. It's something we've done many, many times before. Sometimes you need to make it clear to players that their future is elsewhere.
Just look at someone like Choudhury. This is the fourth window in a row that we've been actively trying to move him on and he's still here because we were stupid enough to give him a contract well beyond his value to anyone. Because we're nice and include him and he knows that he'll get the occasional game, he can justify staying put. If we'd sidelined him and told him that he wasn't going to play under any circumstances, he'd be long gone.
Doesn't make what I said incident though. And in a season like last season, we did have to play him.
I know that and I know the root of the problem. But I don't think BN's suggestion has any merit in solving it.But if we don't get rid of players, there will be several who can't be named in the 25 man Premier League squad.
P | Pld | Pts | |
1 | Liverpool | 11 | 28 |
2 | Manchester C | 11 | 23 |
3 | Chelsea | 11 | 19 |
4 | Arsenal | 11 | 19 |
5 | Nottm F | 11 | 19 |
6 | Brighton | 11 | 19 |
7 | Fulham | 11 | 18 |
8 | Newcastle | 11 | 18 |
9 | Aston Villa | 11 | 18 |
10 | Tottenham | 11 | 16 |
11 | Brentford | 11 | 16 |
12 | Bournemouth | 11 | 15 |
13 | Manchester U | 11 | 15 |
14 | West Ham | 11 | 12 |
15 | Leicester | 11 | 10 |
16 | Everton | 11 | 10 |
17 | Ipswich | 11 | 8 |
18 | Palace | 11 | 7 |
19 | Wolves | 11 | 6 |
20 | Southampton | 11 | 4 |