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

Charlie Kirk (p68 - released by Barrow)

1…2526283031…72

Comments

  • Six-a-bag-of-nuts
    Six-a-bag-of-nuts
    Scoham said:
    timken said:
    The sale of (or retention of)charlie kirk could be the most important transfer business we do in terms of releasing funds or acquiring (and using appropriately)a quality footballer.Is he a young paddy powel.i.e a winger with no pace but effective if used right
    Hopefully big sell on fees for Gomez and Pope early in the window are the most important deals of the window.
    Has anybody at the club made any comment that some or all of such funds will be ploughed back into recruitment?
    Isn't it possible TS will usecthe money to offset losses?
  • ShootersHillGuru
    ShootersHillGuru
    Scoham said:
    timken said:
    The sale of (or retention of)charlie kirk could be the most important transfer business we do in terms of releasing funds or acquiring (and using appropriately)a quality footballer.Is he a young paddy powel.i.e a winger with no pace but effective if used right
    Hopefully big sell on fees for Gomez and Pope early in the window are the most important deals of the window.
    Absolutely this. Can see Burnley cashing in on Pope even though it’s now probable they’ll remain in the PL. money from him used to strengthen the team. I’m less confident Gomez will go.
  • Scoham
    Scoham
    Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
    Scoham said:
    timken said:
    The sale of (or retention of)charlie kirk could be the most important transfer business we do in terms of releasing funds or acquiring (and using appropriately)a quality footballer.Is he a young paddy powel.i.e a winger with no pace but effective if used right
    Hopefully big sell on fees for Gomez and Pope early in the window are the most important deals of the window.
    Has anybody at the club made any comment that some or all of such funds will be ploughed back into recruitment?
    Isn't it possible TS will usecthe money to offset losses?
    Possible, realistically he’d probably split the money by investing some and paying bills with the rest.
  • cafcfan1990
    cafcfan1990
    ShootersHillGuru said:
    Scoham said:
    timken said:
    The sale of (or retention of)charlie kirk could be the most important transfer business we do in terms of releasing funds or acquiring (and using appropriately)a quality footballer.Is he a young paddy powel.i.e a winger with no pace but effective if used right
    Hopefully big sell on fees for Gomez and Pope early in the window are the most important deals of the window.
    Absolutely this. Can see Burnley cashing in on Pope even though it’s now probable they’ll remain in the PL. money from him used to strengthen the team. I’m less confident Gomez will go.
    I think the opposite. I just can’t see who will be interested in Pope whereas Gomez needs to leave Liverpool if he wants to get back in the England squad. Admittedly given he doubles up as RB cover Klopp probably wouldn’t want to lose him.!
  • Cafc43v3r
    Cafc43v3r
    cafcfan1990 said:
    ShootersHillGuru said:
    Scoham said:
    timken said:
    The sale of (or retention of)charlie kirk could be the most important transfer business we do in terms of releasing funds or acquiring (and using appropriately)a quality footballer.Is he a young paddy powel.i.e a winger with no pace but effective if used right
    Hopefully big sell on fees for Gomez and Pope early in the window are the most important deals of the window.
    Absolutely this. Can see Burnley cashing in on Pope even though it’s now probable they’ll remain in the PL. money from him used to strengthen the team. I’m less confident Gomez will go.
    I think the opposite. I just can’t see who will be interested in Pope whereas Gomez needs to leave Liverpool if he wants to get back in the England squad. Admittedly given he doubles up as RB cover Klopp probably wouldn’t want to lose him.!
    Pope is in that awkward situation that the number of clubs that would both want him and can afford him is very small, if it even exists.
  • Henry Irving
    Henry Irving
    Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
    Scoham said:
    timken said:
    The sale of (or retention of)charlie kirk could be the most important transfer business we do in terms of releasing funds or acquiring (and using appropriately)a quality footballer.Is he a young paddy powel.i.e a winger with no pace but effective if used right
    Hopefully big sell on fees for Gomez and Pope early in the window are the most important deals of the window.
    Has anybody at the club made any comment that some or all of such funds will be ploughed back into recruitment?
    Isn't it possible TS will usecthe money to offset losses?
    How can they make a statement about funds we haven't got and may never get.

    And even if  we get some extra money it would be foolish to tell other clubs and agent that we are planning to spend £x of on players 
  • se9addick
    se9addick
    Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
    Scoham said:
    timken said:
    The sale of (or retention of)charlie kirk could be the most important transfer business we do in terms of releasing funds or acquiring (and using appropriately)a quality footballer.Is he a young paddy powel.i.e a winger with no pace but effective if used right
    Hopefully big sell on fees for Gomez and Pope early in the window are the most important deals of the window.
    Has anybody at the club made any comment that some or all of such funds will be ploughed back into recruitment?
    Isn't it possible TS will usecthe money to offset losses?
    Such a statement would probably be the stupidest thing they could do.
  • Garrymanilow
    Garrymanilow
    cafcfan1990 said:
    ShootersHillGuru said:
    Scoham said:
    timken said:
    The sale of (or retention of)charlie kirk could be the most important transfer business we do in terms of releasing funds or acquiring (and using appropriately)a quality footballer.Is he a young paddy powel.i.e a winger with no pace but effective if used right
    Hopefully big sell on fees for Gomez and Pope early in the window are the most important deals of the window.
    Absolutely this. Can see Burnley cashing in on Pope even though it’s now probable they’ll remain in the PL. money from him used to strengthen the team. I’m less confident Gomez will go.
    I think the opposite. I just can’t see who will be interested in Pope whereas Gomez needs to leave Liverpool if he wants to get back in the England squad. Admittedly given he doubles up as RB cover Klopp probably wouldn’t want to lose him.!
    West Ham for Pope wouldn't surprise me, depending on whether Fulham manage to convince Areola to go back to them or not. It sounds like West Ham might be on course to get him permanently, but if they don't then Fabianski is 37 and they'll want a younger keeper
  • Sponsored links:


  • Covered End
    Covered End
    se9addick said:
    Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
    Scoham said:
    timken said:
    The sale of (or retention of)charlie kirk could be the most important transfer business we do in terms of releasing funds or acquiring (and using appropriately)a quality footballer.Is he a young paddy powel.i.e a winger with no pace but effective if used right
    Hopefully big sell on fees for Gomez and Pope early in the window are the most important deals of the window.
    Has anybody at the club made any comment that some or all of such funds will be ploughed back into recruitment?
    Isn't it possible TS will usecthe money to offset losses?
    Such a statement would probably be the stupidest thing they could do.
    Awaits a TS statement  ;)
  • cafcfan1990
    cafcfan1990
    Garrymanilow said:
    cafcfan1990 said:
    ShootersHillGuru said:
    Scoham said:
    timken said:
    The sale of (or retention of)charlie kirk could be the most important transfer business we do in terms of releasing funds or acquiring (and using appropriately)a quality footballer.Is he a young paddy powel.i.e a winger with no pace but effective if used right
    Hopefully big sell on fees for Gomez and Pope early in the window are the most important deals of the window.
    Absolutely this. Can see Burnley cashing in on Pope even though it’s now probable they’ll remain in the PL. money from him used to strengthen the team. I’m less confident Gomez will go.
    I think the opposite. I just can’t see who will be interested in Pope whereas Gomez needs to leave Liverpool if he wants to get back in the England squad. Admittedly given he doubles up as RB cover Klopp probably wouldn’t want to lose him.!
    West Ham for Pope wouldn't surprise me, depending on whether Fulham manage to convince Areola to go back to them or not. It sounds like West Ham might be on course to get him permanently, but if they don't then Fabianski is 37 and they'll want a younger keeper
    Not a terrible shout. Them or Newcastle seems the only real options
  • Airman Brown
    Airman Brown
    Henry Irving said:
    Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
    Scoham said:
    timken said:
    The sale of (or retention of)charlie kirk could be the most important transfer business we do in terms of releasing funds or acquiring (and using appropriately)a quality footballer.Is he a young paddy powel.i.e a winger with no pace but effective if used right
    Hopefully big sell on fees for Gomez and Pope early in the window are the most important deals of the window.
    Has anybody at the club made any comment that some or all of such funds will be ploughed back into recruitment?
    Isn't it possible TS will usecthe money to offset losses?
    How can they make a statement about funds we haven't got and may never get.

    And even if  we get some extra money it would be foolish to tell other clubs and agent that we are planning to spend £x of on players 
    I don’t see how Sandgaard can run the club over time without using transfer receipts to fund operating losses.
  • AFKABartram
    AFKABartram
    Cafc43v3r said:
    Airman Brown said:
    Henry Irving said:
    Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
    Scoham said:
    timken said:
    The sale of (or retention of)charlie kirk could be the most important transfer business we do in terms of releasing funds or acquiring (and using appropriately)a quality footballer.Is he a young paddy powel.i.e a winger with no pace but effective if used right
    Hopefully big sell on fees for Gomez and Pope early in the window are the most important deals of the window.
    Has anybody at the club made any comment that some or all of such funds will be ploughed back into recruitment?
    Isn't it possible TS will usecthe money to offset losses?
    How can they make a statement about funds we haven't got and may never get.

    And even if  we get some extra money it would be foolish to tell other clubs and agent that we are planning to spend £x of on players 
    I don’t see how Sandgaard can run the club over time without using transfer receipts to fund operating losses.
    He already has.........and there is nothing wrong with it either.
    It’s been quite a few clubs way of existence for quite a few years 
  • Henry Irving
    Henry Irving
    Airman Brown said:
    Henry Irving said:
    Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
    Scoham said:
    timken said:
    The sale of (or retention of)charlie kirk could be the most important transfer business we do in terms of releasing funds or acquiring (and using appropriately)a quality footballer.Is he a young paddy powel.i.e a winger with no pace but effective if used right
    Hopefully big sell on fees for Gomez and Pope early in the window are the most important deals of the window.
    Has anybody at the club made any comment that some or all of such funds will be ploughed back into recruitment?
    Isn't it possible TS will usecthe money to offset losses?
    How can they make a statement about funds we haven't got and may never get.

    And even if  we get some extra money it would be foolish to tell other clubs and agent that we are planning to spend £x of on players 
    I don’t see how Sandgaard can run the club over time without using transfer receipts to fund operating losses.
    Neither can I and that's fine as long as there is a balance  between investing in the squad to increase success and reducing losses.

    The vast majority of the losses will be player fees and wages anyway.

    A Pope or Gomez windfall could be a godsend allowing  TS to both boost the quality in the squad and reduce losses in the short term.
  • Exiled_Addick
    Exiled_Addick
    edited May 2022
    AFKABartram said:
    Cafc43v3r said:
    Airman Brown said:
    Henry Irving said:
    Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
    Scoham said:
    timken said:
    The sale of (or retention of)charlie kirk could be the most important transfer business we do in terms of releasing funds or acquiring (and using appropriately)a quality footballer.Is he a young paddy powel.i.e a winger with no pace but effective if used right
    Hopefully big sell on fees for Gomez and Pope early in the window are the most important deals of the window.
    Has anybody at the club made any comment that some or all of such funds will be ploughed back into recruitment?
    Isn't it possible TS will usecthe money to offset losses?
    How can they make a statement about funds we haven't got and may never get.

    And even if  we get some extra money it would be foolish to tell other clubs and agent that we are planning to spend £x of on players 
    I don’t see how Sandgaard can run the club over time without using transfer receipts to fund operating losses.
    He already has.........and there is nothing wrong with it either.
    It’s been quite a few clubs way of existence for quite a few years 
    Yes, it keeps getting painted like it’s some kind of nefarious action by an owner when it’s the actually the reality of being a middling sized club. It’s only “bad news” if the owner is syphoning off funds to his personal bank account. Otherwise it’s just a perfectly legitimate source of income to use to help keep the club in business. 
  • Scoham
    Scoham
    edited May 2022
    Happens even at the highest level, Chelsea with their loan system for example and by selling academy graduates who don’t break into their first team. It’s a way they bridge the income gap to other top clubs with higher revenue.
  • Airman Brown
    Airman Brown
    edited May 2022
    Cafc43v3r said:
    Airman Brown said:
    Henry Irving said:
    Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
    Scoham said:
    timken said:
    The sale of (or retention of)charlie kirk could be the most important transfer business we do in terms of releasing funds or acquiring (and using appropriately)a quality footballer.Is he a young paddy powel.i.e a winger with no pace but effective if used right
    Hopefully big sell on fees for Gomez and Pope early in the window are the most important deals of the window.
    Has anybody at the club made any comment that some or all of such funds will be ploughed back into recruitment?
    Isn't it possible TS will usecthe money to offset losses?
    How can they make a statement about funds we haven't got and may never get.

    And even if  we get some extra money it would be foolish to tell other clubs and agent that we are planning to spend £x of on players 
    I don’t see how Sandgaard can run the club over time without using transfer receipts to fund operating losses.
    He already has.........and there is nothing wrong with it either.
    I haven’t suggested there is. I was responding to the idea that summer transfer windfalls should or might be reinvested in signings. If anyone has suggested it might be avoided it’s TS himself with his fanciful ideas about commercial revenue and ticket sales in L1 and the Championship.
  • Cafc43v3r
    Cafc43v3r
    Airman Brown said:
    Cafc43v3r said:
    Airman Brown said:
    Henry Irving said:
    Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
    Scoham said:
    timken said:
    The sale of (or retention of)charlie kirk could be the most important transfer business we do in terms of releasing funds or acquiring (and using appropriately)a quality footballer.Is he a young paddy powel.i.e a winger with no pace but effective if used right
    Hopefully big sell on fees for Gomez and Pope early in the window are the most important deals of the window.
    Has anybody at the club made any comment that some or all of such funds will be ploughed back into recruitment?
    Isn't it possible TS will usecthe money to offset losses?
    How can they make a statement about funds we haven't got and may never get.

    And even if  we get some extra money it would be foolish to tell other clubs and agent that we are planning to spend £x of on players 
    I don’t see how Sandgaard can run the club over time without using transfer receipts to fund operating losses.
    He already has.........and there is nothing wrong with it either.
    I haven’t suggested there is. I was responding to the idea that summer transfer windfalls should or might be reinvested in signings. If anyone has suggested it might be avoided it’s TS himself with his fanciful ideas about commercial revenue and ticket sales in L1 and the Championship.
    I didn't suggest you had, I was avoiding the potential pile on for being anti-TS when it was just a statement of fact. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • Cafc43v3r
    Cafc43v3r
    Exiled_Addick said:
    AFKABartram said:
    Cafc43v3r said:
    Airman Brown said:
    Henry Irving said:
    Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
    Scoham said:
    timken said:
    The sale of (or retention of)charlie kirk could be the most important transfer business we do in terms of releasing funds or acquiring (and using appropriately)a quality footballer.Is he a young paddy powel.i.e a winger with no pace but effective if used right
    Hopefully big sell on fees for Gomez and Pope early in the window are the most important deals of the window.
    Has anybody at the club made any comment that some or all of such funds will be ploughed back into recruitment?
    Isn't it possible TS will usecthe money to offset losses?
    How can they make a statement about funds we haven't got and may never get.

    And even if  we get some extra money it would be foolish to tell other clubs and agent that we are planning to spend £x of on players 
    I don’t see how Sandgaard can run the club over time without using transfer receipts to fund operating losses.
    He already has.........and there is nothing wrong with it either.
    It’s been quite a few clubs way of existence for quite a few years 
    Yes, it keeps getting painted like it’s some kind of nefarious action by an owner when it’s the actually the reality of being a middling sized club. It’s only “bad news” if the owner is syphoning off funds to his personal bank account. Otherwise it’s just a perfectly legitimate source of income to use to help keep the club in business. 
    How many times have we heard Roland trousered the Grant fee.........
  • Chunes
    Chunes
    edited May 2022
    seth plum said:
    Chunes said:
    Billy_Mix said:
    Karim_myBagheri said:
    Sent him back to us so they can re negotiate buying him for a cheaper price. 

    https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/blackpool-still-interested-in-summer-deal-for-charlton-athletic-winger/
    Crewe took our pants down in spectacular fashion on CK
    Expectations of getting a significant 6 figure fee for that one-paced lightweight are cloud cuckoo land.

    Our experience with DJ and CK suggests there's quite the gulf between midtable 4th and midtable 3rd division quality 
    He was never rubbish for an us, he just wasn't good either. And yet a Championship club is interesting in buying him so clearly we didn't see his best. 
    I’m afraid I disagree in terms of Kirk when playing for us.
    It was like playing with ten men, and he occupied a significant position.
    The other players understandably saw him as an outlet, or at least as part of any progressive play we tried to construct, but he never stepped up. I think his waste of space play was a liability during matches.
    I honestly can’t recall in my minds eye anything good he ever did at Charlton, I have better memories of Christophe Lepoint.
    I am sure he is a good guy, and I am sorry he lost his dad, but it may be best and civilised all round if he moved on.
    I said he wasn't rubbish and I stand by that. I'd define 'rubbish' as someone misplacing passes, losing possession easily, hiding, etc. (ala Alex Gilbey). Kirk was pretty tidy, although didn't offer much attacking threat. There were no gasps of frustration going round when he was on the pitch.
  • SoundAsa£
    SoundAsa£
    Chunes said:
    seth plum said:
    Chunes said:
    Billy_Mix said:
    Karim_myBagheri said:
    Sent him back to us so they can re negotiate buying him for a cheaper price. 

    https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/blackpool-still-interested-in-summer-deal-for-charlton-athletic-winger/
    Crewe took our pants down in spectacular fashion on CK
    Expectations of getting a significant 6 figure fee for that one-paced lightweight are cloud cuckoo land.

    Our experience with DJ and CK suggests there's quite the gulf between midtable 4th and midtable 3rd division quality 
    He was never rubbish for an us, he just wasn't good either. And yet a Championship club is interesting in buying him so clearly we didn't see his best. 
    I’m afraid I disagree in terms of Kirk when playing for us.
    It was like playing with ten men, and he occupied a significant position.
    The other players understandably saw him as an outlet, or at least as part of any progressive play we tried to construct, but he never stepped up. I think his waste of space play was a liability during matches.
    I honestly can’t recall in my minds eye anything good he ever did at Charlton, I have better memories of Christophe Lepoint.
    I am sure he is a good guy, and I am sorry he lost his dad, but it may be best and civilised all round if he moved on.
    I said he wasn't rubbish and I stand by that. I'd define 'rubbish' as someone misplacing passes, losing possession easily, hiding, etc. (ala Alex Gilbey). Kirk was pretty tidy, although didn't offer much attacking threat. There were no gasps of frustration going round when he was on the pitch.
    I can safely say he was one of the worst pieces of ‘rubbish’ business we have done in my 64 years of support.

  • Chunes
    Chunes
    SoundAsa£ said:
    Chunes said:
    seth plum said:
    Chunes said:
    Billy_Mix said:
    Karim_myBagheri said:
    Sent him back to us so they can re negotiate buying him for a cheaper price. 

    https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/blackpool-still-interested-in-summer-deal-for-charlton-athletic-winger/
    Crewe took our pants down in spectacular fashion on CK
    Expectations of getting a significant 6 figure fee for that one-paced lightweight are cloud cuckoo land.

    Our experience with DJ and CK suggests there's quite the gulf between midtable 4th and midtable 3rd division quality 
    He was never rubbish for an us, he just wasn't good either. And yet a Championship club is interesting in buying him so clearly we didn't see his best. 
    I’m afraid I disagree in terms of Kirk when playing for us.
    It was like playing with ten men, and he occupied a significant position.
    The other players understandably saw him as an outlet, or at least as part of any progressive play we tried to construct, but he never stepped up. I think his waste of space play was a liability during matches.
    I honestly can’t recall in my minds eye anything good he ever did at Charlton, I have better memories of Christophe Lepoint.
    I am sure he is a good guy, and I am sorry he lost his dad, but it may be best and civilised all round if he moved on.
    I said he wasn't rubbish and I stand by that. I'd define 'rubbish' as someone misplacing passes, losing possession easily, hiding, etc. (ala Alex Gilbey). Kirk was pretty tidy, although didn't offer much attacking threat. There were no gasps of frustration going round when he was on the pitch.
    I can safely say he was one of the worst pieces of ‘rubbish’ business we have done in my 64 years of support.

    I can't take that seriously.
  • DubaiCAFC
    DubaiCAFC
    SoundAsa£ said:
    Chunes said:
    seth plum said:
    Chunes said:
    Billy_Mix said:
    Karim_myBagheri said:
    Sent him back to us so they can re negotiate buying him for a cheaper price. 

    https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/blackpool-still-interested-in-summer-deal-for-charlton-athletic-winger/
    Crewe took our pants down in spectacular fashion on CK
    Expectations of getting a significant 6 figure fee for that one-paced lightweight are cloud cuckoo land.

    Our experience with DJ and CK suggests there's quite the gulf between midtable 4th and midtable 3rd division quality 
    He was never rubbish for an us, he just wasn't good either. And yet a Championship club is interesting in buying him so clearly we didn't see his best. 
    I’m afraid I disagree in terms of Kirk when playing for us.
    It was like playing with ten men, and he occupied a significant position.
    The other players understandably saw him as an outlet, or at least as part of any progressive play we tried to construct, but he never stepped up. I think his waste of space play was a liability during matches.
    I honestly can’t recall in my minds eye anything good he ever did at Charlton, I have better memories of Christophe Lepoint.
    I am sure he is a good guy, and I am sorry he lost his dad, but it may be best and civilised all round if he moved on.
    I said he wasn't rubbish and I stand by that. I'd define 'rubbish' as someone misplacing passes, losing possession easily, hiding, etc. (ala Alex Gilbey). Kirk was pretty tidy, although didn't offer much attacking threat. There were no gasps of frustration going round when he was on the pitch.
    I can safely say he was one of the worst pieces of ‘rubbish’ business we have done in my 64 years of support.

    Plenty worse that's for sure, Abbott to name one..
  • Billy_Mix
    Billy_Mix
    Cafc43v3r said:
    cafcfan1990 said:
    ShootersHillGuru said:
    Scoham said:
    timken said:
    The sale of (or retention of)charlie kirk could be the most important transfer business we do in terms of releasing funds or acquiring (and using appropriately)a quality footballer.Is he a young paddy powel.i.e a winger with no pace but effective if used right
    Hopefully big sell on fees for Gomez and Pope early in the window are the most important deals of the window.
    Absolutely this. Can see Burnley cashing in on Pope even though it’s now probable they’ll remain in the PL. money from him used to strengthen the team. I’m less confident Gomez will go.
    I think the opposite. I just can’t see who will be interested in Pope whereas Gomez needs to leave Liverpool if he wants to get back in the England squad. Admittedly given he doubles up as RB cover Klopp probably wouldn’t want to lose him.!
    Pope is in that awkward situation that the number of clubs that would both want him and can afford him is very small, if it even exists.
    If there's not much demand, he won't command much of a fee, will he?
  • Billy_Mix
    Billy_Mix
    Chunes said:
    seth plum said:
    Chunes said:
    Billy_Mix said:
    Karim_myBagheri said:
    Sent him back to us so they can re negotiate buying him for a cheaper price. 

    https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/blackpool-still-interested-in-summer-deal-for-charlton-athletic-winger/
    Crewe took our pants down in spectacular fashion on CK
    Expectations of getting a significant 6 figure fee for that one-paced lightweight are cloud cuckoo land.

    Our experience with DJ and CK suggests there's quite the gulf between midtable 4th and midtable 3rd division quality 
    He was never rubbish for an us, he just wasn't good either. And yet a Championship club is interesting in buying him so clearly we didn't see his best. 
    I’m afraid I disagree in terms of Kirk when playing for us.
    It was like playing with ten men, and he occupied a significant position.
    The other players understandably saw him as an outlet, or at least as part of any progressive play we tried to construct, but he never stepped up. I think his waste of space play was a liability during matches.
    I honestly can’t recall in my minds eye anything good he ever did at Charlton, I have better memories of Christophe Lepoint.
    I am sure he is a good guy, and I am sorry he lost his dad, but it may be best and civilised all round if he moved on.
    I said he wasn't rubbish and I stand by that. I'd define 'rubbish' as someone misplacing passes, losing possession easily, hiding, etc. (ala Alex Gilbey). Kirk was pretty tidy, although didn't offer much attacking threat. There were no gasps of frustration going round when he was on the pitch.
    partly cos his involvement was so fleeting and depending where you were sat as to what you could hear by way of 'comment'/gasps/etc
  • SoundAsa£
    SoundAsa£
    golfaddick said:
    DubaiCAFC said:
    SoundAsa£ said:
    Chunes said:
    seth plum said:
    Chunes said:
    Billy_Mix said:
    Karim_myBagheri said:
    Sent him back to us so they can re negotiate buying him for a cheaper price. 

    https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/blackpool-still-interested-in-summer-deal-for-charlton-athletic-winger/
    Crewe took our pants down in spectacular fashion on CK
    Expectations of getting a significant 6 figure fee for that one-paced lightweight are cloud cuckoo land.

    Our experience with DJ and CK suggests there's quite the gulf between midtable 4th and midtable 3rd division quality 
    He was never rubbish for an us, he just wasn't good either. And yet a Championship club is interesting in buying him so clearly we didn't see his best. 
    I’m afraid I disagree in terms of Kirk when playing for us.
    It was like playing with ten men, and he occupied a significant position.
    The other players understandably saw him as an outlet, or at least as part of any progressive play we tried to construct, but he never stepped up. I think his waste of space play was a liability during matches.
    I honestly can’t recall in my minds eye anything good he ever did at Charlton, I have better memories of Christophe Lepoint.
    I am sure he is a good guy, and I am sorry he lost his dad, but it may be best and civilised all round if he moved on.
    I said he wasn't rubbish and I stand by that. I'd define 'rubbish' as someone misplacing passes, losing possession easily, hiding, etc. (ala Alex Gilbey). Kirk was pretty tidy, although didn't offer much attacking threat. There were no gasps of frustration going round when he was on the pitch.
    I can safely say he was one of the worst pieces of ‘rubbish’ business we have done in my 64 years of support.

    Plenty worse that's for sure, Abbott to name one..
    Loads more......loads, loads more.

    Kirk joined us during one of our worst footballing periods ever, sinking to 2nd bottom at one stage. At the same time he has just lost his father & moved hundreds of miles away from his family. Then a new manager took over who wanted to play players out of position (defenders & wingers as wing backs)  - a formation that doesn't suit Kirk. 

    Any wonder why he might not have been playing as well as he could. I think it would he foolish to sell him when we havent really given him a chance, in a settled team playing in his favoured position. 

    Christ, we gave players like Ben Reeves &  Josh Parker more time than Kirk had.
    He didn’t really want to be here in the first place….and never settled, for whatever reason/reasons.
    What makes you think he would want to return?
    I’d be very surprised to say the least.
  • Southbank
    Southbank
    Chunes said:
    seth plum said:
    Chunes said:
    Billy_Mix said:
    Karim_myBagheri said:
    Sent him back to us so they can re negotiate buying him for a cheaper price. 

    https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/blackpool-still-interested-in-summer-deal-for-charlton-athletic-winger/
    Crewe took our pants down in spectacular fashion on CK
    Expectations of getting a significant 6 figure fee for that one-paced lightweight are cloud cuckoo land.

    Our experience with DJ and CK suggests there's quite the gulf between midtable 4th and midtable 3rd division quality 
    He was never rubbish for an us, he just wasn't good either. And yet a Championship club is interesting in buying him so clearly we didn't see his best. 
    I’m afraid I disagree in terms of Kirk when playing for us.
    It was like playing with ten men, and he occupied a significant position.
    The other players understandably saw him as an outlet, or at least as part of any progressive play we tried to construct, but he never stepped up. I think his waste of space play was a liability during matches.
    I honestly can’t recall in my minds eye anything good he ever did at Charlton, I have better memories of Christophe Lepoint.
    I am sure he is a good guy, and I am sorry he lost his dad, but it may be best and civilised all round if he moved on.
    I said he wasn't rubbish and I stand by that. I'd define 'rubbish' as someone misplacing passes, losing possession easily, hiding, etc. (ala Alex Gilbey). Kirk was pretty tidy, although didn't offer much attacking threat. There were no gasps of frustration going round when he was on the pitch.
    There were from me. He could not shoot, beat a man or cross. Mostly passed back when the ball was passed to him, but I concede he did do that tidily.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories

“Marketplace”

Sponsored links: