Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

January 2020 transfer rumours thread (Deadline Day starts Page 283)

1243244246248249351

Comments

  • Addickted said:
    Addickted said:
    Sounds like our midfield problems have been resolved by the loan signing of Ranger's Greg Docherty.

    More a wigwam than a marquee.
    Have we signed him then?
    mart77 said:
    Addickted said:
    Sounds like our midfield problems have been resolved by the loan signing of Ranger's Greg Docherty.

    More a wigwam than a marquee.
    Is that confirmed?
    Not confirmed, but pretty confident it's happening.

    Addickted said:
    Sounds like our midfield problems have been resolved by the loan signing of Ranger's Greg Docherty.

    More a wigwam than a marquee.
    Source ?

    According to some, my made up source B)
    I believe.
  • Redrobo said:
    Addickted said:
    Addickted said:
    Sounds like our midfield problems have been resolved by the loan signing of Ranger's Greg Docherty.

    More a wigwam than a marquee.
    Have we signed him then?
    mart77 said:
    Addickted said:
    Sounds like our midfield problems have been resolved by the loan signing of Ranger's Greg Docherty.

    More a wigwam than a marquee.
    Is that confirmed?
    Not confirmed, but pretty confident it's happening.

    Addickted said:
    Sounds like our midfield problems have been resolved by the loan signing of Ranger's Greg Docherty.

    More a wigwam than a marquee.
    Source ?

    According to some, my made up source B)
    I believe.
    I actually think he will be a useful signing. Would still like Maddison or the Watford CM as well though. Different roles.
  • Confident if Bow has chosen a CM he will be able to get the most out of him.
  • Sounds like we're going to miss out on Maddison then.
    Think we were always going to tbh. He wants to move back up north. If he really wanted to sign for us im sure a deal wouldve been struck by now
    It’s not that simple. He wants to go up North but it’s not just him to consider...he has a young family 
  • Docherty not in Rangers squad tonight
  • Cafc43v3r said:
    Jamie19 said:
    wmcf123 said:
    Jamie19 said:
    Hypothetical but would people take Clarke-Harris, Maddison and Gnanduillet if it meant Taylor leaves ? 
    No no no.  Never seen any of them play and none of them have a proven championship record .  Selling our best player in January has never worked well - Parker, Reid, Kermorgant
    But we never invested or replaced those players.
    But it was OK when Kermorgant left because we signed Reza and Polish Pete. You can read the comments saying exactly that on here.
    We shouldn't have sold Yann, when we did, I don't think anyone would argue with that. 

    We should never have signed Polish Pete or Reza, I don't think anyone would argue with that. 

    But people seem to forget we stayed up that season.  The later half of the next season we played some of the most exciting attacking football I have ever seen at the Valley.  We didn't get relegated because we sold Yann, or signed Polish.

    I can't imagine many people left the Hull game, 18 months after we sold Yann, moaning about it.  Selling Yann was a symptom, not the cause of our problems.  Yann wasn't sold with the best intentions of the club, the team or the fans at the forefront.

    Like Walsh, Hales, Flanagan, Bent, Grant, Gorman, Polish Pete, Reza, and countless others, Taylor will leave one day.  Maybe it will be a stick to beat MS with, maybe it will be a stick that is never used, maybe he will be forgotten 6 months later.

    Charlton fans, generally, seem to get overly attached to certain players, and defend them with all their heart.  That's an good thing, some times it's missed placed. Mr Morrison is the best example, of recent years. 

    I did a points per game, and average league position of a Charlton legends last 100 games for the club, it makes grim reading for those that wouldn't criticise him, but I think it's meaning full.  If you want it for VotV just PM :wink:


    You can always pick out odd games or short sequences of matches, but we never got anywhere near replacing Kermorgant in the side until 2018 and that was one of the reasons we went down in 2016 and stayed down for three years. My comment has nothing to do with ESI, it's about the endless ability of football fans in general to swallow and regurgitate any old nonsense in these situations. If we sell Taylor, we will be more likely to go down, as we were in 2014 after we sold Kermorgant.
    But its OK to regurgitate any old nonsense that we got relegated in 2014, because we sold Yann , because we didn't. 

    We didn't get relegated 2 years later because Yann wasn't there. 

    Yes Taylor is good, yes we are better with him (at present) than with out him but we aren't a one man team.  He isn't "that good" we recovered from the loss of Mendonca, Hunt, BWP, even Yann, even Parker.  The fact things went the shape of a pear years later isn't as simple as that.  With 2020 vision we should have sold Mendonca, Hunt, and BWP after promotion. As an example. 
  • Cafc43v3r said:
    Jamie19 said:
    wmcf123 said:
    Jamie19 said:
    Hypothetical but would people take Clarke-Harris, Maddison and Gnanduillet if it meant Taylor leaves ? 
    No no no.  Never seen any of them play and none of them have a proven championship record .  Selling our best player in January has never worked well - Parker, Reid, Kermorgant
    But we never invested or replaced those players.
    But it was OK when Kermorgant left because we signed Reza and Polish Pete. You can read the comments saying exactly that on here.
    We shouldn't have sold Yann, when we did, I don't think anyone would argue with that. 

    We should never have signed Polish Pete or Reza, I don't think anyone would argue with that. 

    But people seem to forget we stayed up that season.  The later half of the next season we played some of the most exciting attacking football I have ever seen at the Valley.  We didn't get relegated because we sold Yann, or signed Polish.

    I can't imagine many people left the Hull game, 18 months after we sold Yann, moaning about it.  Selling Yann was a symptom, not the cause of our problems.  Yann wasn't sold with the best intentions of the club, the team or the fans at the forefront.

    Like Walsh, Hales, Flanagan, Bent, Grant, Gorman, Polish Pete, Reza, and countless others, Taylor will leave one day.  Maybe it will be a stick to beat MS with, maybe it will be a stick that is never used, maybe he will be forgotten 6 months later.

    Charlton fans, generally, seem to get overly attached to certain players, and defend them with all their heart.  That's an good thing, some times it's missed placed. Mr Morrison is the best example, of recent years. 

    I did a points per game, and average league position of a Charlton legends last 100 games for the club, it makes grim reading for those that wouldn't criticise him, but I think it's meaning full.  If you want it for VotV just PM :wink:


    You can always pick out odd games or short sequences of matches, but we never got anywhere near replacing Kermorgant in the side until 2018 and that was one of the reasons we went down in 2016 and stayed down for three years. My comment has nothing to do with ESI, it's about the endless ability of football fans in general to swallow and regurgitate any old nonsense in these situations. If we sell Taylor, we will be more likely to go down, as we were in 2014 after we sold Kermorgant.
    While selling Yann was a mistake, to be fair it was more the lousy signings in the summer of 2015 which relegated us at the end of that season. AND having the worst manager in our history in charge for several months! 

    I'm still suspicious of Bournemouth around that period too, flouting FFP rules (which helped them give Yann a much better deal than us) to get promoted


  • Really don’t get why we’re not going all out for Maddison at this point. He’s exactly what we need 
    I just don't understand why this comment has got so many likes.

    What does 'go all out for Maddison' even mean. Because our owner has lots of money should we just give him what he asks for?

    What if 'going all out for Maddison' means making him the highest paid player at the club. Is he worth that investment? Remember this is a player who has never played above League One Level and has been rumoured to have an attitude issue. 

    If 'we go all out for Maddison' how does that affect other players we want to bring in this window. Will their agents demand more money now as they believe there player, who has championship experience, should be close to wages to Maddison.

    If 'we go all out for Maddison' how does him coming into the squad on high wages effect the current squad. Will they want better contracts? Or will team moral be affected as someone has come in with less experience then them but is earning more money.
    Or more simply, how do we know we haven't gone all out for Maddison?

    He might be happy to wait until Friday to decide, regardless of what we offer.
  • Sponsored links:


  • CAFCDB said:
    CAFCDB said:
    My view on the JCH bid is that he is a replacement for Lyle. Brentford have probably come back in for him, esp after losing last night & that's why we have put in a (late) bid for him. 

    I know RD supposedly said our bid for Toney last August was not a replacement for Taylor, but I dont buy that bullshit.....esp when it was with RD in charge. 

    At least we are looking at buying decent in form & experienced strikers (Toney, Gnadduillet & JCH) rather than very young loanees from Spurs, Watford or Norwich. 
    Cawley has already said our Toney bid was as a replacement for Taylor so it was massive BS from Roland 
    It was Bowyer who said that not RD.
    Either way Roland had no intention of playing Taylor and Toney alongside each other 
    How do you know that?
    Because Cawley revealed our bid for Toney was as a replacement for Lyle....
  • CAFCDB said:
    CAFCDB said:
    CAFCDB said:
    My view on the JCH bid is that he is a replacement for Lyle. Brentford have probably come back in for him, esp after losing last night & that's why we have put in a (late) bid for him. 

    I know RD supposedly said our bid for Toney last August was not a replacement for Taylor, but I dont buy that bullshit.....esp when it was with RD in charge. 

    At least we are looking at buying decent in form & experienced strikers (Toney, Gnadduillet & JCH) rather than very young loanees from Spurs, Watford or Norwich. 
    Cawley has already said our Toney bid was as a replacement for Taylor so it was massive BS from Roland 
    It was Bowyer who said that not RD.
    Either way Roland had no intention of playing Taylor and Toney alongside each other 
    How do you know that?
    Because Cawley revealed our bid for Toney was as a replacement for Lyle....
    LB said he was to play alongside Taylor, depends whether you believe Cawley or LB
  • Maddison would probably prefer Hull given he’s from that way... well, he was born in Durham but you get the point.
  • Scoham said:
    Really don’t get why we’re not going all out for Maddison at this point. He’s exactly what we need 
    I just don't understand why this comment has got so many likes.

    What does 'go all out for Maddison' even mean. Because our owner has lots of money should we just give him what he asks for?

    What if 'going all out for Maddison' means making him the highest paid player at the club. Is he worth that investment? Remember this is a player who has never played above League One Level and has been rumoured to have an attitude issue. 

    If 'we go all out for Maddison' how does that affect other players we want to bring in this window. Will their agents demand more money now as they believe there player, who has championship experience, should be close to wages to Maddison.

    If 'we go all out for Maddison' how does him coming into the squad on high wages effect the current squad. Will they want better contracts? Or will team moral be affected as someone has come in with less experience then them but is earning more money.
    Or more simply, how do we know we haven't gone all out for Maddison?

    He might be happy to wait until Friday to decide, regardless of what we offer.
    Ha ha, indeed. I added that to the end of my rant. 

    I understand this is a forum for debate, and fans are frustrated because they are worried we might get relegated and want to express those views. But it irks me how fans seem to simplify football transfers without thinking about them in a wider context.

    Once again if you've not seen it, watch that Chris Wilder documentary footage and it will least give you some idea of what goes on. It's just not a simple case of waving your magic money wand and getting the players in. 
  • edited January 2020
    Really don’t get why we’re not going all out for Maddison at this point. He’s exactly what we need 
    I just don't understand why this comment has got so many likes.

    What does 'go all out for Maddison' even mean. Because our owner has lots of money should we just give him what he asks for?

    What if 'going all out for Maddison' means making him the highest paid player at the club. Is he worth that investment? Remember this is a player who has never played above League One Level and has been rumoured to have an attitude issue. 

    If 'we go all out for Maddison' how does that affect other players we want to bring in this window. Will their agents demand more money now as they believe there player, who has championship experience for example, should be close to wages to Maddison.

    If 'we go all out for Maddison' how does him coming into the squad on high wages effect the current squad. Will they want better contracts? Or will team moral be affected as someone has come in with less experience then them but is earning more money.

    How do you know Bowyer and Gallen didn't go 'all out for Maddison' and deemed his wage demands not worth it?
    I think we did go all out for him but its so far not been enough, whether that's money wise or out current state as a team/club who knows. 
  • ross1 said:
    CAFCDB said:
    CAFCDB said:
    CAFCDB said:
    My view on the JCH bid is that he is a replacement for Lyle. Brentford have probably come back in for him, esp after losing last night & that's why we have put in a (late) bid for him. 

    I know RD supposedly said our bid for Toney last August was not a replacement for Taylor, but I dont buy that bullshit.....esp when it was with RD in charge. 

    At least we are looking at buying decent in form & experienced strikers (Toney, Gnadduillet & JCH) rather than very young loanees from Spurs, Watford or Norwich. 
    Cawley has already said our Toney bid was as a replacement for Taylor so it was massive BS from Roland 
    It was Bowyer who said that not RD.
    Either way Roland had no intention of playing Taylor and Toney alongside each other 
    How do you know that?
    Because Cawley revealed our bid for Toney was as a replacement for Lyle....
    LB said he was to play alongside Taylor, depends whether you believe Cawley or LB
    ross1 said:
    CAFCDB said:
    CAFCDB said:
    CAFCDB said:
    My view on the JCH bid is that he is a replacement for Lyle. Brentford have probably come back in for him, esp after losing last night & that's why we have put in a (late) bid for him. 

    I know RD supposedly said our bid for Toney last August was not a replacement for Taylor, but I dont buy that bullshit.....esp when it was with RD in charge. 

    At least we are looking at buying decent in form & experienced strikers (Toney, Gnadduillet & JCH) rather than very young loanees from Spurs, Watford or Norwich. 
    Cawley has already said our Toney bid was as a replacement for Taylor so it was massive BS from Roland 
    It was Bowyer who said that not RD.
    Either way Roland had no intention of playing Taylor and Toney alongside each other 
    How do you know that?
    Because Cawley revealed our bid for Toney was as a replacement for Lyle....
    LB said he was to play alongside Taylor, depends whether you believe Cawley or LB
    Yes of course, that may have been the officially line in the summer to not cause any backlash but Cawley said this a few weeks ago so the truth probably came to light later on when bows could tell the truth 
  • Sponsored links:


  • I wouldn't have wanted it, but if we HAD signed Toney in August as a direct replacement for Lyle, then it wouldn't have been a bad bit of business actually, as shown by how much his value seems to have gone up since then.
  • Maddison would probably prefer Hull given he’s from that way... well, he was born in Durham but you get the point.
    Yeah, it's all a karzi
  • I wouldn't have wanted it, but if we HAD signed Toney in August as a direct replacement for Lyle, then it wouldn't have been a bad bit of business actually, as shown by how much his value seems to have gone up since then.
    I said that at the time and got pelters for it.
  • Addickted said:
    Sounds like our midfield problems have been resolved by the loan signing of Ranger's Greg Docherty.

    More a wigwam than a marquee.
    Someone on Facebook says it'll be announced tomorrow.
  • edited January 2020
    Really don’t get why we’re not going all out for Maddison at this point. He’s exactly what we need 
    I just don't understand why this comment has got so many likes.

    Like Envy. It's not attractive.
  • Scoham said:
    Addickted said:
    Sounds like our midfield problems have been resolved by the loan signing of Ranger's Greg Docherty.

    More a wigwam than a marquee.
    Someone on Facebook says it'll be announced tomorrow.
    Facebook makes the other forms of social media look like bastions of truth.
  • So Docherty is on his way? That slipped under the radar with all the nonsense re: Clarke-Harris and then Maddison.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!