bungle Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 I did not go on Tuesday, but having seen an incredibly overweight looking Skacel struggle all game on Saturday, I frankly wonder what all the ridiculous hype over playing him was about. Joe Mills looks a much better LB.
Window Cleaner Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 I did not go on Tuesday, but having seen an incredibly overweight looking Skacel struggle all game on Saturday, I frankly wonder what all the ridiculous hype over playing him was about. Joe Mills looks a much better LB. He's a "star" dontchya know; How was the NFL?
Scummer Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 I thought he was one of our better players actually. Mills played quite well when he came on at left wing. I don't think people say Skacel is a world beater, just that as we are paying him so much money, we may as well be playing him. He is plenty good enough to get in our team.
bungle Posted 27 October, 2008 Author Posted 27 October, 2008 He's a "star" dontchya know; How was the NFL? The NFL was excellent, albeit I have a massive hangover today. Also, the Saints actually won, which was a bonus.
ladysaint Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 I did not go on Tuesday, but having seen an incredibly overweight looking Skacel struggle all game on Saturday, I frankly wonder what all the ridiculous hype over playing him was about. Joe Mills looks a much better LB. Is that what got you so fired up on Saturday about then.
bungle Posted 27 October, 2008 Author Posted 27 October, 2008 I thought he was one of our better players actually. Mills played quite well when he came on at left wing. I don't think people say Skacel is a world beater, just that as we are paying him so much money, we may as well be playing him. He is plenty good enough to get in our team. Skacel just didn't seem with it. He and BWP didn't seem to have a clue how to link up in the 1st half, but I also thought his passing was off and his defending was not brilliant (although overshadowed by Lloyd James). I just think Mills is a much better option than playing Skacel for the sake of "experience" - which is apparantly why we 'need' him in the team.
bungle Posted 27 October, 2008 Author Posted 27 October, 2008 Is that what got you so fired up on Saturday about then. Nope.
Window Cleaner Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 Skacel just didn't seem with it. He and BWP didn't seem to have a clue how to link up in the 1st half, but I also thought his passing was off and his defending was not brilliant (although overshadowed by Lloyd James). I just think Mills is a much better option than playing Skacel for the sake of "experience" - which is apparantly why we 'need' him in the team. We need him in the team because he cost a lot of money and gets paid a lot. When you've got player like that,doesn't matter how unfit, fat or useless they are you've got to play them,because they're "stars". Rupert has made Jan play him because he's fed up with hearing about the knob. When we go down he'll say 'Yep, but I told you Skacel was crap,but you insisted".
Scummer Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 Skacel just didn't seem with it. He and BWP didn't seem to have a clue how to link up in the 1st half, but I also thought his passing was off and his defending was not brilliant (although overshadowed by Lloyd James). I just think Mills is a much better option than playing Skacel for the sake of "experience" - which is apparantly why we 'need' him in the team. I thought BWP was far more deserving of criticism. Fair enough, left wing isn't his natural position, but there's no excuse for his lazy attitude. Skacel with Mills looked far more productive. I'd give those two a run of games together.
bungle Posted 27 October, 2008 Author Posted 27 October, 2008 I thought BWP was far more deserving of criticism. Fair enough, left wing isn't his natural position, but there's no excuse for his lazy attitude. Skacel with Mills looked far more productive. I'd give those two a run of games together. I am in two minds with BWP. He was lazy at times, but then he was also the only Saints player who beat his man and looked dangerous on occasion. It was the worst I'd seen him play this season, mind. I would have Mills back in at LB and maybe go Surman left wing until this Gasmi guy is fit and then see how he does there.
Window Cleaner Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 I am in two minds with BWP. He was lazy at times, but then he was also the only Saints player who beat his man and looked dangerous on occasion. It was the worst I'd seen him play this season, mind. I would have Mills back in at LB and maybe go Surman left wing until this Gasmi guy is fit and then see how he does there. Gasmi doesn't play on the wing, he's a playmaker.
OldNick Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 Rudi will be gone before the end of the week, probably wednesday the Tractor is on its way tocollect him a mate from that end tells me
Thedelldays Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 rudi - what a huge waste of hype and money...another great burley buy..
Scummer Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 Rudi will be gone before the end of the week, probably wednesday the Tractor is on its way tocollect him a mate from that end tells me I wouldn't be surprised. A large part of me thinks that the only reason we've played him in the last couple of games was to show another club that he is capable of playing. Same as we did with John last week.
um pahars Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 Rudi will be gone before the end of the week, probably wednesday the Tractor is on its way tocollect him a mate from that end tells me With us still paying some of his wages (a deal that we refused to countenance a few months back, which would indicate how desperate we are to save some ££££'s)????? Maybe we should have let Webster go back there as well, saving £££'s on his salary????? ££££'s that coud have gone towards keeping more important players. There have been choices, we just seem to be making the wrong ones.
Scummer Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 Maybe we should have let Webster go back there as well, saving £££'s on his salary????? To be fair, Webster coaches the bloke who's been our player of the season so far. If he'd gone we might be doing even worse.
alpine_saint Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 We are letting Skacel go, and still paying part of his wages ? Superb, one crass mistake follows another. We must be really near administration to risk weakening the team to save that few bob.
alpine_saint Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 Rudi will be gone before the end of the week, probably wednesday the Tractor is on its way tocollect him a mate from that end tells me And no doubt you and Lowe will be f**king delighted.
chocco boxo Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 Could the tractor not run Lowe over in the car park before picking up Rudi?
um pahars Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 To be fair, Webster coaches the bloke who's been our player of the season so far. If he'd gone we might be doing even worse. With all due respect (and I fully accept Davis has performed well this season) I have to say I don't think a goalkeeping coach on some serious wonga is a priority at this point in time!!!!!! The story is that Webster wanted o go to Ipswich, Ipswich wanted him, but we held out for compensation. Ipsich baulked at that and went elsewhere for their coach. We could have saved some decent wonga, but played it all wrong. Another poor choice.
Window Cleaner Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 Rudi will be gone before the end of the week, probably wednesday the Tractor is on its way tocollect him a mate from that end tells me Tractor? If he's as fat and unfit as Bungle says they'll need a JCB.
OldNick Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 With us still paying some of his wages (a deal that we refused to countenance a few months back, which would indicate how desperate we are to save some ££££'s)????? Maybe we should have let Webster go back there as well, saving £££'s on his salary????? ££££'s that coud have gone towards keeping more important players. There have been choices, we just seem to be making the wrong ones.I dont know the details Um but if he is off the wage bill then that is good. Some get all lathered up about him, I myself dont get too concerned if he goes , afterall he played saturday. I understand if the deal is worse than in the summer that is not good but Im not privy to the the costings. If he performs they hopefully will buy him straight out. SJ and Rudi will knock a large chunk off the losses and the bank will be happy. The fans wont be happy but we may get somone in (another midfielder I think I read !!!!)
OldNick Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 And no doubt you and Lowe will be f**king delighted. Alpine as sombody who actually goes and has saints as part of my relaxation/pastime I am not happy that the squad is weakened. Your outburst is not called for, if he had played every week with SJ , alongside Rasiak and Saga you still wouldnt go when you lived here. So dont give me all your nonsense.
OldNick Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 Tractor? If he's as fat and unfit as Bungle says they'll need a JCB.lol
alpine_saint Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 Alpine as sombody who actually goes and has saints as part of my relaxation/pastime I am not happy that the squad is weakened. Your outburst is not called for, if he had played every week with SJ , alongside Rasiak and Saga you still wouldnt go when you lived here. So dont give me all your nonsense. Ah, the old attendace last resort from a Lowe apologist.
um pahars Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 I dont know the details Um but if he is off the wage bill then that is good. I would certainly have preferred him to have gone rather than John (but that's only if the manager decided to play him!!!!!!!!!), but perhaps the question should be why have we put 9 or so new faces on the wage bill (along with all the fees that come with them)?
OldNick Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 Ah, the old attendace last resort from a Lowe apologist.No pointing out the fact. Im not a RL apologist, Ijust see that a football club is vet complex and you cant blame one person for relegation. I was surprised to see Charlton just above us, and they havent as yet had to cull their squad. It will happen very soon and they will be with us in the mire. Unless you get your costings sorted at teh moment NO club will be allowed to over borrow.
alpine_saint Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 No pointing out the fact. And what possible relevance does this fact have ? You are running out of defences for your own viewpoint, so are resorting to belitting the opinion of others. Weak and pathetic.
OldNick Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 I would certainly have preferred him to have gone rather than John (but that's only if the manager decided to play him!!!!!!!!!), but perhaps the question should be why have we put 9 or so new faces on the wage bill (along with all the fees that come with them)?I doubt that the 9 have cost much at all. Morgan being the exception. I dont think many would argue that he will become a very good acquisition. Holmes,Perry and the others were free agents, weren't they which is different to free transfers i think you will find.
OldNick Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 And what possible relevance does this fact have ? You are running out of defences for your own viewpoint, so are resorting to belitting the opinion of others. Weak and pathetic. I think it was valid in the fact that you were throwing your arms up in disbelief that the club are desperately trying to get their finances in order. For someone who rarely tried to help in that direction to stir the pot seemed out of order. You also started by making a comment that i was happy that we were weakening the squad, which is not the case.
bungle Posted 27 October, 2008 Author Posted 27 October, 2008 Are any of you able to talk about football (and the ability or otherwise of particularly players) or by default do you just talk about your boardroom nonsense? At last count you had 27,352 threads for that. This thread was to discuss the merits of playing Rudi Skacel, or otherwise.
OldNick Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 Are any of you able to talk about football (and the ability or otherwise of particularly players) or by default do you just talk about your boardroom nonsense? At last count you had 27,352 threads for that. This thread was to discuss the merits of playing Rudi Skacel, or otherwise. Thats fair but as Rudi is probably off the arguement moves from the validity of ridding us of his wages against his ability. At present I dont believe he has made himself a must play memeber of the team.Although I would like to have seen him utilised a bit more wioth the young lads as i think he had the potential to helpo bring them on.
AndyNorthernSaints Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 I did not go on Tuesday, but having seen an incredibly overweight looking Skacel struggle all game on Saturday, I frankly wonder what all the ridiculous hype over playing him was about. Joe Mills looks a much better LB. He did alright tuesday and the defence looked alot more solid and resilient. The team overall played better which was probably due to Wotton, James and McGoaldrought being dropped. For some reason 2 of these were recalled for Swansea. Rudi at least knows how to win a freekick when getting presured by an attacker which came in handy on tuesday. On saturday no one was making runs or space to recieve passes which made it difficult to keep possession. Agree that Mills has potential unlike James to play at this level but without other experienced players around him it is alot to ask for him to make the left back berth his own. IMO Skacel and Surman on the left would be a good combination.
Kaiser Soze Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 Watching Saints has driven me to drink recently and I didn't even realise Skacel was playing until I was told otherwise after the game....
bungle Posted 27 October, 2008 Author Posted 27 October, 2008 Watching Saints has driven me to drink recently and I didn't even realise Skacel was playing until I was told otherwise after the game.... Recently?!
saint-crinny Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 This whole thread is so depressing. We are a shambles and it's heart-breaking
OldNick Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 This whole thread is so depressing. We are a shambles and it's heart-breakingAt present it is only a rumour from the Ipswich end and so we have to wait and see if it really is correct.
Gorgiesaint Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 At present it is only a rumour from the Ipswich end and so we have to wait and see if it really is correct. What - that our threads are depressing, SFC are a shambles or that Kaizer Soze's been driven to drink??
um pahars Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 I doubt that the 9 have cost much at all. Morgan being the exception. I dont think many would argue that he will become a very good acquisition. Holmes,Perry and the others were free agents, weren't they which is different to free transfers i think you will find. And as you and others have pointed out in the past, there is no such thing as a free transfer or a free agent. And as you have often said, there will be agents fees, loan fees, signing on fees, accomodation expenses, wages etc etc etc. Add all those fees & wages up (and things such as Webster's salary) and you have a nice little sum that may have been better spent on bringing in some experience or retaining the good players we already had. We obviously have had some latitude with regards the finances, so let's not pretend otherwise.
OldNick Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 And as you and others have pointed out in the past, there is no such thing as a free transfer or a free agent. And as you have often said, there will be agents fees, loan fees, signing on fees, accomodation expenses, wages etc etc etc. Add all those fees & wages up (and things such as Webster's salary) and you have a nice little sum that may have been better spent on bringing in some experience or retaining the good players we already had. We obviously have had some latitude with regards the finances, so let's not pretend otherwise. Some of that is true to say. A free agent normally doesnt have so much leeway as they are not sittig on a comfy contract and so more ameinable in the negotiations. They also would not be in such a strong bargaining position in the relocation issue either. Yes you are right there would be a small amount of money available after Rasiak, Saga and the like were taken off the wage bill. If we had kept NP would he have been able to stomach losing all his senior players like the club has decided as the best way forward? It is a massive ask of anyone and so NP would or whoever would have a terrible time. I wanted NP to stay for the unity he provided, but as a football manager I wasnt that impressed, but it is only my opinion.
um pahars Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 If we had kept NP would he have been able to stomach losing all his senior players like the club has decided as the best way forward? It is a massive ask of anyone and so NP would or whoever would have a terrible time. I wanted NP to stay for the unity he provided, but as a football manager I wasnt that impressed, but it is only my opinion. I also didn't think that NP was the finished article, but he certainly installed some steel, passion and belief in both the team and the players. For the first time in ages there was a semblence of spirit and unity about the place. His comments (and I have put them up here many times) show he was more than willing to work with, and use, the youngsters, and that he was also aware of our financial problems. He knew players had to go. I also think he would have been his own man and only brought in players he wanted to bring in, and he would have only played te way he wanted to play, i.e. I don't think he would have stood for any interference, interference which IMHO is addingto our problems.
Ex Lion Tamer Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 tbf he's probably overweight because he's demotivated by being frozen out for no other reason than being fortunate enough to have a good contract
sadoldgit Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 I also didn't think that NP was the finished article, but he certainly installed some steel, passion and belief in both the team and the players. For the first time in ages there was a semblence of spirit and unity about the place. His comments (and I have put them up here many times) show he was more than willing to work with, and use, the youngsters, and that he was also aware of our financial problems. He knew players had to go. I also think he would have been his own man and only brought in players he wanted to bring in, and he would have only played te way he wanted to play, i.e. I don't think he would have stood for any interference, interference which IMHO is addingto our problems. And I remember Harry Redknapp saying we would definately go up. People say things all of the time for whatever reason. Go talk to Throbber.
um pahars Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 And I remember Harry Redknapp saying we would definately go up. People say things all of the time for whatever reason. Go talk to Throbber. Are we still in Pearson dipped out mode:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Ash Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 Rupert has made Jan play him because he's fed up with hearing about the knob. When we go down he'll say 'Yep, but I told you Skacel was crap,but you insisted". Of course that is what happened and of course that will happen. Do we not have enough to moan about without theorising about unlikely and improbable future events? We are letting Skacel go, and still paying part of his wages ? Superb, one crass mistake follows another. We must be really near administration to risk weakening the team to save that few bob. Saving any money on him would be a good bit of business, if nobody will take him off our hands and pay all his wages we'll have to pay a bit. That is the way it works when you need money. Anybody who had seen either of his performances last week will realise there is not much to worry about; on saturday he put in the most disinterested performance I have ever seen anyone in a Saints shirt put in. Experience, talent, ability, reputation and wages count for nothing if you're not going to put a shift in.
sadoldgit Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 Are we still in Pearson dipped out mode:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: You still don't get it do you? Every time you use those stupid rolley eyes things it makes you look like Alpine ( and trust me, that is not a good thing). If you don't want to check with Throbber fine. It just proves that you will only believe what suits your agenda.
Channon's Sideburns Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 I doubt that the 9 have cost much at all. Morgan being the exception. I dont think many would argue that he will become a very good acquisition. Holmes,Perry and the others were free agents, weren't they which is different to free transfers i think you will find. Sorry Nick, but loading the squad with cheap sh1te does us no good at all - remember the last time we went for squad numbers over squad quality???? Funnily enough, Rupes was here then, and guess what??? We got relegated - deja vu....
um pahars Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 If you don't want to check with Throbber fine. It just proves that you will only believe what suits your agenda. Here's what Rich had to say a few days ago about the ditching of Pearson: "I guess they had to do their best to convince the fans that not renewing Pearson's contract and bringing in Poortvlieet was a positive thing for the club, and not, as it actually was, a huge risk given the level at which he has coached and the complete lack of success that foreign coaches seem to have had at Championship level." Don't really pick up any vibes there that the decision wasn't there's to make. Feel free to embellish us with tales of how Pearson dipped out :rolleyes:
sadoldgit Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 Here's what Rich had to say a few days ago about the ditching of Pearson: "I guess they had to do their best to convince the fans that not renewing Pearson's contract and bringing in Poortvlieet was a positive thing for the club, and not, as it actually was, a huge risk given the level at which he has coached and the complete lack of success that foreign coaches seem to have had at Championship level." Don't really pick up any vibes there that the decision wasn't there's to make. Feel free to embellish us with tales of how Pearson dipped out :rolleyes: How many days ago? You might like to recheck with him. By the way, how old are you?
um pahars Posted 27 October, 2008 Posted 27 October, 2008 How many days ago? You might like to recheck with him. Considering you were wetting yourself yesterday and demanding proof, proof and more proof, just feel free to post up the "new revelations" of how Pearson dipped out. I've got Pearson's number still, so I'll give him a call straight away to get his view on them. By the way, how old are you? 14 & 3/4 years :smt061:smt113
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now