egg

Your 1st point makes my point. The manager assessed then both and preferred Mayuka. Your 2nd point is impossible to answer. Mayuka was a let down, no doubt about it but whether Billy would have done better is speculation. My opinion though is that he would have struggled in the prem but we'll never know.

You gonna explain why personal tragedy and charity work makes a player deserving of a chance? You gonna explain why Billy's commitment to the cause makes him more deserving of a prem chance than, for example, Hammond who after all helped us to 2 promotions?

It's a silly question as the manager didn't have the benefit of hindsight when he made his decision. That said, I think Mayuka has more ability and pace than Billy and I can understand why he was chosen ahead of him. I get the point that Billy could have snatched a late goal from the bench but I'm of the 'if you're not good enough to start you're not good enough to be on the bench' school of thought.

I haven't mentioned RL but he got his chance as he's good enough. Please answer the question.

In what way? Nobody will buy him or take him on loan cos of wages. The club aren't involving him as he's not in the managers plans. Please explain in simple terms how he's being treated like crap.

Of the rubbish you've posted that's up there. Doing charity work and suffering in his family life does not make Billy a prem player and/or deserving of a chance. Do those factors make him more deserving of a squad place than say Hammond was? You deserve a chance if you're good enough. He isn't.

No, they're different players with different abilities. If you want comparables within our club look at Hammond, Barnard, Chaplow, Forte. They weren't good enough either. The thing is the vast majority of us knew that the above 4 weren't up to it. All of them played a role in getting us from league 1. Hammond arguably played a bigger role than Billy. Based on your, and others, argument that Billy might have been good enough if we just gave the poor lad a crack presumably you say that 4 should all have had a crack too? I just don't get why Billy is so deserving of much more sentiment and support than his peers.

Goal scoring in the lower leagues and pre season kickabouts hardly prove he's good enough for the prem. It's should be obvious to anyone who's seen him play that he's not enough for the prem. Adkins and Pochetino have assssed him correctly.

Eh? Are you saying that because Billy has achieved something for the club he shouldn't be compared to other players who have chosen to do the same is him? To put it another way, are you saying its ok for him to put money before playing football cos he's a bit of a one season hero?

So you think that "owning" a player who could be a major flop (Delgado) or force a move (tevez) or see out his contract and give zero return (countless examples) is always better than having a player on loan? "Owning" a player can be a financial disaster. Based on last season of course many west brom fans would rather they owned lukaku, but at least an equal number would have preferred not to have owned odemwingie, for example.

...

I get your view that permanent buys are better than loans if you can afford them. I disagree.

As surprised as I am that many agree with me that osvaldo would be a better option up top, I'm more surprised that so many people put him in the 10 position. Serious question but why do people think that he'll do better in sn unfamiliar role than Ramirez, Lallana, Davis or even Morgan? SRL is a talisman but we shouldn't try to accommodate him if (and I emphasise if) we have better options, should we?

This is a thread on a particular issue so I don't want to get into a debate. I just think loans make a lot of sense and often fill a hole for a short term. I don't buy into the whole owning a player thing. The bottom line is that players will go if they want to and will stay and reap the perks of the contract if that suits them. Ownership of a player gives no guarantee that the player will stick around and/or that you'll get a return when he's sold, particularly if he chooses to see out his contract.

Was going to say him but I'm not sure he was unpopular. Cracking player though.

Apologies, your point wasn't clear but i don't agree your point now that you've clarified it. I'm in doubt west brom fans would rather have had a season of lukaku than no lukaku. Everton fans will no doubt be looking forward to having him, and Barry, for the season. Next season is next season. Your best players aren't guaranteed to be around next season. Ask Spurs fans.

Agreed. You only need to watch Ramirez play for Uruguay to get an idea of how he would improve us with a mobile player like osvaldo ahead of him.

I was thinking more the likes of Saganowski (I think) who was great as loanee but awful with the security of a contract.

What makes you think that loan players will give less for the cause than permanent players, particularly in the build up to a world cup? If anything loan players can put more effort in as they are either trying to prove something to their parent clubs or looking for a permanent move. We've got history on that front.

Exactly. You don't build a team on sentiment. Chaplow, Sharp, Hammond etc were good enough to get us up but the club has outgrown their ability. You only "deserve" a chance if you're good enough. Sharp, and the others, aren't. I don't buy all this we blocked a move rubbish either. There's no evidence of it and why would we. We moved Puncheon on to a prem side and unless anyone can give a credible explanation I can't accept we would treat Sharp differently. On subject. Decent window. The jury was always out for me on Vw and still is but the others look good. We've kept the good uns and tied down Shaw and others. We're in good shape - B+

I think he meant that he had "retired" for the night, not retired from future posting.

As a man who's sold pies in the Milton (and taken them from the freezer, put them in the oven, put them back in the freezer before repeating the process next game) and am a pie eating fat boy, I regard myself as an expert in this area. Fast food pies are mostly crap. Football pies are generally worse but last seasons offerings were less crap than the norm. JBS is allowed to expect a certain standard from his pie (or pasty) and I know him to be a cultured man. Swapping last years pasty for a pukka is like trading Luke Shaw for Lee Molyneux. JBS has every right to be upset and should be allowed a little moan.

Well put. People want different things out of their day at footy. Personally I don't get why people get ****ed before the game or collect programmes or hang around for autographs or abuse the ref or stand up when they have a seat etc etc etc but if that enhances their day out then fine. I also don't get why someone eats **** food at the match but if they want or need to that's fine. If they think the food should be better or better value and have a moan about it then that's fine too. I don't think it's fine though for people who post an opinion on all but every thread to criticise someone to voice an opinion on something relevant to their day at the footy.

Yes. Strong 2nd string.

Good post John. I'm not going to get into the whole "this place has gone downhill" business but some of the replies to your perfectly sensible opening post were ridiculous. Like you say, if people haven't got a sensible point its best not to make comment.