Brooks article in the Guardian

[Pinchy]

Good article. It does read a bit as though Howe had Wilder's pants down but as others have said the fee for a largely unknown, want-away Championship player was decent. Bournemouth is a much bigger fish than Sheffield United currently and good luck to him.

Nobody, repeat absolutely nobody, offered more even though Bournemouth’s offer was well-known for several days or weeks.

Bournemouth never have been, are not, and never will be, a ‘bigger fish’ than Sheffield United.

Blades fans - Wallowing in Inferiority since 1889.

 

[IdLiketoRogerMoore]

Nobody, repeat absolutely nobody, offered more even though Bournemouth’s offer was well-known for several days or weeks.

Bournemouth never have been, are not, and never will be, a ‘bigger fish’ than Sheffield United.

Blades fans - Wallowing in Inferiority since 1889.

View attachment 45548

Simples. Don't sell then...

 

[BushBlade]

Simples. Don't sell then...

That may have been an option (not one I agree with if the player wants to leave but that’s been done to death) although my understanding of the ownership dispute is that neither could agree on how to fund this season’s projected deficits, so they decided not to bother. That indicates to me that without the Brooks money, we wouldn’t have strengthened. The fact we’ve taken a loan against future payments seems to support this hypothesis.

 

[iBlade.]

Nobody, repeat absolutely nobody, offered more even though Bournemouth’s offer was well-known for several days or weeks.

Bournemouth never have been, are not, and never will be, a ‘bigger fish’ than Sheffield United.

Blades fans - Wallowing in Inferiority since 1889.

View attachment 45548

Naturally people will define the term ‘bigger fish’ in different ways. Having said that I would have thought it very difficult for anyone not arrive to the conclusion that any top half Premiership side are currently a bigger fish than Sheffield United.

Never mind wallowing in inferiority, try taking the rose coloured specs off.

 

[BushBlade]

Nobody, repeat absolutely nobody, offered more even though Bournemouth’s offer was well-known for several days or weeks.

Bournemouth never have been, are not, and never will be, a ‘bigger fish’ than Sheffield United.

Blades fans - Wallowing in Inferiority since 1889.

View attachment 45548

If you judge them on league position and turnover, they clearly are. If you judge them on history and stadium capacity, they’re not.

It’s a matter of personal opinion which of these metrics are more relevant.

 

[I should coco]

If you judge them on league position and turnover, they clearly are. If you judge them on history and stadium capacity, they’re not.

Sensible, considered and objective. Who could possibly argue with that......

t’s a matter of personal opinion which of these metrics are more relevant.

It is Pinchy we are talking about.

He's like King Cnut with his tired "No one is bigger than the Blades and my cap stays firmly undoffed" diatribe.

 

[Kozzy_is_my_Dad]

Great, this will turn into another thread about how we got fleeced for Brooks. 5 pager.

And I fully intend to help us realise that dream.

I'm just preparing my best flounce, at which point Sean Thornton asks me "which other bids were on the table, that was the going rate" and we go round and round, like Groundhog Day.

Still, it will never stop me from feeling incensed.

 

[I should coco]

Still, it will never stop me from feeling incensed.

 

[Sean Thornton]

And I fully intend to help us realise that dream.

I'm just preparing my best flounce, at which point Sean Thornton asks me "which other bids were on the table, that was the going rate" and I have no comeback or sensible so we go round and round, like Groundhog Day.

Still, it will never stop me from feeling incensed.

Edit for the sake of accuracy Kozzy.


I do notice however that at £20m now, his forum value hasn't increased at all since we sold him......

 

[Pinchy]

Naturally people will define the term ‘bigger fish’ in different ways. Having said that I would have thought it very difficult for anyone not arrive to the conclusion that any top half Premiership side are currently a bigger fish than Sheffield United.

Never mind wallowing in inferiority, try taking the rose coloured specs off.

Bournemouth. Fucking Bournemouth.

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

Good article surprisingly from the Liberal Lefties / luvvies Rag. AKA Islington Gazette.

I trust you understand that you have shown a total lack of respect to the Guardian, the newspaper declared today by a US-based research centre to be Britain's most trusted newspaper. I doubt whether the Daily Mail will be announcing the figure that it achieved for trustworthiness...

 

[BushBlade]

I trust you understand that you have shown a total lack of respect to the Guardian, the newspaper declared today by a US-based research centre to be Britain's most trusted newspaper. I doubt whether the Daily Mail will be announcing the figure that it achieved for trustworthiness...

Not really empirical though. And being the most trustworthy newspaper is like being the ‘most benign dictator’.

 

[blade too long]

Simples. Don't sell then...

Why did Liverpool sell SUAREZ to Barca
All clubs trade players
Brooks was not irreplaceable for us as us being top shows

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

Not really empirical though. And being the most trustworthy newspaper is like being the ‘most benign dictator’.

If you ask people what their opinion is, and report their opinions, that is empirical (i.e. based on observations). You are confusing ‘trusted’ and ‘trustworthy’. Newspapers are increasingly untrustworthy, but compared with social media, they are paragons of virtue. Independent news organisations are extremely important in our digital world.

 

[Bugboyblade]

The thing is he wanted to go. Do we need players at the club who dont want to be here?

 

[Balham]

Sensible, considered and objective. Who could possibly argue with that......



It is Pinchy we are talking about.

He's like King Cnut with his tired "No one is bigger than the Blades and my cap stays firmly undoffed" diatribe.

The irony being that Cnut knew he couldn't stop the tide and he was instead proving the fallibility of man.

We have a lovely 10% sell on clause.

Isn't it 20%?

 

[BushBlade]

If you ask people what their opinion is, and report their opinions, that is empirical (i.e. based on observations). You are confusing ‘trusted’ and ‘trustworthy’. Newspapers are increasingly untrustworthy, but compared with social media, they are paragons of virtue. Independent news organisations are extremely important in our digital world.

It’s stretching the definition of empirical though, if it’s based on people’s opinions. Empirical tends to mean the observation of actual events, like measuring the expansion of a metal under different temperatures for example. If the study is asking for people’s opinion then I think you may be confusing trusted and trustworthy.

The way to measure the trustworthiness of a news outlet would be to subject every story it runs to scrutiny and verification and then work out the percentage of stories it runs that aren’t true. Is that what this study did? I’ve tried to find it but I’ve had a google fail.

 

[nopigfansintown]

Lovely player with undoubted talent, but for me, in our team he was somewhat of a luxury player for the way we play. If selling him at the time meant the release of some cash to bring in Egan, Norwood and McGoldrick then i'm all over that. We sold one good youngster (unproven in the PL at the time) to fund 3 good pro's. Would we be top of the league f we had kept Brooks and not signed those 3? i'm not so sure?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing really and it might have gone the other way. We would all be lording the deal if Brooks was sat on the bench at Bournemouth, but he's not and we move on.

Wilder has stated that the Brooks money is untouched. Or "barely touched".

 

[Sean Thornton]

That may have been an option (not one I agree with if the player wants to leave but that’s been done to death) although my understanding of the ownership dispute is that neither could agree on how to fund this season’s projected deficits, so they decided not to bother. That indicates to me that without the Brooks money, we wouldn’t have strengthened. The fact we’ve taken a loan against future payments seems to support this hypothesis.

#settlingformediocrity

 

[vorpal blade]

At this rate he could end up joining one of the big names in the Premier League.

Well of course he will .... his agents only got him sold for £10M so they can wait a year or two and sell him to Man Utd. or Liverpool or whoever for £50M. That way the agents get 10% of £60M ...... that's why they didn't sell him immediately to Man Utd or Liverpool for £30M this summer.*

And OF COURSE, it was very obvious to anyone who has watched football over the years (particularly those who remember Johann Cruyff) that Brooks is the most talented footballer to come into English football for many years.



*and its OBVIOUSLY why he wasn't sold straight to Madrid or Bayern or someone ... this way the agent gets another 10% of a hell of a lot more million pounds in 4 years time.

 

[Sean Thornton]

The thing is he wanted to go. Do we need players at the club who dont want to be here?

We should Terry Waite them and chain them to a radiator in Tuftys office until Matchday.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Wilder has stated that the Brooks money is untouched. Or "barely touched".

That was then......

 

[nopigfansintown]

Ah, the curious case of David Brooks rears it's head again.It will be a recurring thread down the years.

I thought that we'd be building the side around him this season, playing him as another playmaker/deep lying striker ala Mcgoldrick; or as a wide player in some variant of three up top. This was due, in part, to the difficulty in obtaining affordable strikers of sufficient quality with our budget. I didn't see him having the capacity - off the ball - to replace the bounce slayer, so couldn't see him replacing him (see Woodburn for a contemporary example of this). I was worried about his return from glandular fever, and thought it unwise for us to bring him back last season (bad personal experience). When he left, for the price he did, I thought it was a sign that we were desperate for the cash or we had grave doubts about his recovery. We wouldn't sell the most talented forward player we've had in generations for that price - would we? Everything Wilder has said since then contradicts that notion, and the fact that we were very publicly trying to sign Waghorn and Freeman seems to back him up (not that I doubt his veracity). Wilder has also expressed regret, but has explained that ultimately he though it the right thing to do. I think a year or two more at United and 11.5 million would look very cheap. I am glad that if he had to go at that price it was a Bournemouth rather than a top six club. We were lucky to see the Walker clause activated: realistically it was his last chance of a big move when he went to Man City. I would argue that Spurs' stadium situation is the only reason that transfer happened. Brooks is a late developer and will get a huge move, so it's not all doom and gloom. It seems like we have barely touched the money, so the upswing is: top of the league without Brooks; almost all the money left; high chance of United benefiting from his sell on clause. It could be worse. January will be very interesting.

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

It’s stretching the definition of empirical though, if it’s based on people’s opinions. Empirical tends to mean the observation of actual events, like measuring the expansion of a metal under different temperatures for example. If the study is asking for people’s opinion then I think you may be confusing trusted and trustworthy.

The way to measure the trustworthiness of a news outlet would be to subject every story it runs to scrutiny and verification and then work out the percentage of stories it runs that aren’t true. Is that what this study did? I’ve tried to find it but I’ve had a google fail.

It is a study of people’s perceptions. So the ‘fact’ that more people trust the Guardian than other newspapers is based on the empirical observation of the attitudes of more than 16000 adults. That sounds like a large enough sample to be broadly accurate. But of course it does not mean that they are right - perhaps the paper just lies convincingly. And if you take a Trumpian line, you could assert that it is fake news, because it is reported on p.2 of today’s Guardian. That’s why trust in the media is such an important issue.

 

[stringer]

But isn't it the case that he is flourishing at Bournemouth (and for Wales) playing on the right of a front three, with some freedom to roam? Wilder doesn't play 3 at the front. Brooks hasn't got the same attributes as Duffy (who has?), and he only occasionally looked effective as a second striker for us; well, principally in the match at S6, where he earned our undying admiration, but you don't get to play against a defence as bad as that very often...

So he can only ever play on the right of a front three because he’s done well there for Bournemouth? Last season was his first in senior football, interrupted badly by glandular fever. I wouldn’t look too much into that to be honest. He’d have made United an even more dangerous threat this season

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

So he can only ever play on the right of a front three because he’s done well there for Bournemouth? Last season was his first in senior football, interrupted badly by glandular fever. I wouldn’t look too much into that to be honest. He’d have made United an even more dangerous threat this season

Agree the glandular fever set him back, but that would have been part of the problem for us. The position he looks effective in, wide right, is not part of our set-up, and with the way football is now, we don’t have the time to develop his play in other positions. Selling Brooks gave us a better chance of promotion this season, and that has to be the priority. All about opinions, but I think it was a chance worth taking.

 

[Sean Thornton]

So he can only ever play on the right of a front three because he’s done well there for Bournemouth? Last season was his first in senior football, interrupted badly by glandular fever. I wouldn’t look too much into that to be honest. He’d have made United an even more dangerous threat this season

Book deal gone then?

 

[Northyorksblade]

I can't be bothered to even read the thread. As far as I'm concerned, I'll always look out for him, will be interested in his career, as I have been with Harry, Kyle, Kyle and Jags.
But that's it, he's gone. All this regurgitating every time his name is mentioned is pointless.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

That may have been an option (not one I agree with if the player wants to leave but that’s been done to death) although my understanding of the ownership dispute is that neither could agree on how to fund this season’s projected deficits, so they decided not to bother. That indicates to me that without the Brooks money, we wouldn’t have strengthened. The fact we’ve taken a loan against future payments seems to support this hypothesis.

Not selling Jags, Walker, Naughton, Lowton, Maguire, Calvert Lewin, Brookes we wouldn't have to strengthen.

 

[BushBlade]

Not selling Jags, Walker, Naughton, Lowton, Maguire, Calvert Lewin, Brookes we wouldn't have to strengthen.

Give over with that bollocks, I’m not interested.