Fortune out for rest of season?

[Fiery Blade]

Apparantly during Saturdays marathon stint as substitute Fortune has picked up a hamstring injury that may put him out for most of the season!
Do these guys ever run in training
Are we a rest home for the terminally crocked
Fortune , Bennett, Camara and Williamson are injured every time they turn out perhaps they should take up something less strenuous like knitting!:thumbdown:

 

[davidpinder]

Apparantly during Saturdays marathon stint as substitute Fortune has picked up a hamstring injury that may put him out for most of the season!
Do these guys ever run in training
Are we a rest home for the terminally crocked
Fortune , Bennett, Camara and Williamson are injured every time they turn out perhaps they should take up something less strenuous like knitting!:thumbdown:

using the same boots as john Ebbrell??

 

[davidpinder]

Saw Benno in m,hall on friday actually wasn't struggling carrying a load of bags for his missus. No strapping on either hand must have seen him 3 times in total.

 

[lenners]

Apparantly during Saturdays marathon stint as substitute Fortune has picked up a hamstring injury that may put him out for most of the season!
Do these guys ever run in training
Are we a rest home for the terminally crocked
Fortune , Bennett, Camara and Williamson are injured every time they turn out perhaps they should take up something less strenuous like knitting!:thumbdown:

Who was it who was defending this signing as being an example of United's planning this season?
Never a wise move and now a wages burden we could and should have done without.

 

[Micalijo]

Who was it who was defending this signing as being an example of United's planning this season?
Never a wise move and now a wages burden we could and should have done without.

What's the problem? McCabe has said we will have funds available in January hasn't he? I think he even used 'substantial' or 'significant' didn't he?

I believe him. Don't you?

 

[Ollessendro]

Apparantly during Saturdays marathon stint as substitute Fortune has picked up a hamstring injury that may put him out for most of the season!

Good riddance Fiery. He was dire against Barnsley and (even though he was on the pitch for only 5 minutes) still managed to gift Bristol a goal. He is shite and shouldn't be allowed to put on a Blades shirt again!?

The way we are picking up injuries is worrying ..... but this my firned is no great loss.

 

[Houso]

Isn't Fortune only on a contract until January anyway?

Edit: Indeed he is:

'Jonathan's signed now, it's just a short term thing until Christmas' - Blackwell

 

[Foxy]

Who was it who was defending this signing as being an example of United's planning this season?
Never a wise move and now a wages burden we could and should have done without.

I wasn't defending the signing as such, merely saying that surely it was an example of planning, rather than a complete lack of planning.

Whether or not its successful planning is another matter entirely.

Out of interest, who would have played at CB instead of him vs. Barnsley, had we not signed him?

Still no doubt it's another "faked" injury and excuse anyway

 

[Micalijo]

I'm pretty sure we'll hear Blackwell talking at some stage about Fortune as if he has been a mainstay of our team this season and how he will be badly missed - a bit like Naysmith for example.

 

[lenners]

I wasn't defending the signing as such, merely saying that surely it was an example of planning, rather than a complete lack of planning.

Whether or not its successful planning is another matter entirely.

Out of interest, who would have played at CB instead of him vs. Barnsley, had we not signed him?

Still no doubt it's another "faked" injury and excuse anyway

Nice try. It was shyte planning. They could have signed me to play centre half and it would have been an example of planning.
Sold Bromby without an adequate replacement in place and we're now signing another one on loan as the merry-go-round continues.
I'd rather we signed players who we want at the club full-time rather than a series of loans who are going to amount to spending the same, if not more, in wages anyway.
And even if we're going short-term, acquire players who are fit.

 

[Liaminho9]

Sheffield United player injured... sounds about right

 

[oldblade]

I wasn't defending the signing as such, merely saying that surely it was an example of planning, rather than a complete lack of planning.

Whether or not its successful planning is another matter entirely.

Out of interest, who would have played at CB instead of him vs. Barnsley, had we not signed him?

Still no doubt it's another "faked" injury and excuse anyway

But we shouldn't have ever needed him. We had a better player than him - Bromby. But we were so busy with our masterclass planning that we sold him! And that may have been a very short term financial gain. I rather suspect that the loan players we have brought in in that position are on higher wages than Bromby was.

 

[beechblade]

I wasn't defending the signing as such, merely saying that surely it was an example of planning, rather than a complete lack of planning.

Whether or not its successful planning is another matter entirely.

Out of interest, who would have played at CB instead of him vs. Barnsley, had we not signed him?

Still no doubt it's another "faked" injury and excuse anyway

He's only on a short term contract till January isn't he? Thats what I heard on Radio Sheff when we siged.

 

[DuncDisorderly]

He's only on a short term contract till January isn't he? Thats what I heard on Radio Sheff when we siged.

Correct. He'll be back on the bus home with good wishes by the time you read this...

 

[Foxy]

Nice try. It was shyte planning.

As I said, the quality of the planning is irrelevant.

You said we'd had a chronic lack of planning, we clearly didn't, we planned.

On the Bromby one... Bromby was one of, if not Watford's highest wage earner, he also wanted guarenteed first team football. Many said we shouldn't have brought him back and that he was crap, till we moved him on again, then he became another superstar. For the record, I quite like Brombs

 

[oldblade]

I have never thought of Bromby as anything other than a reasonable player who provided adequate cover. But his sale was perplexing and it did leave us short in central defence which was bound to cause problems when any injuries or suspensions struck. This isn't hindsight. Many, many posters were voicing this at the time of his sale. And I do consider him to be better than Fortune and Taylor.

 

[lenners]

As I said, the quality of the planning is irrelevant.

You said we'd had a chronic lack of planning, we clearly didn't, we planned.

On the Bromby one... Bromby was one of, if not Watford's highest wage earner, he also wanted guarenteed first team football. Many said we shouldn't have brought him back and that he was crap, till we moved him on again, then he became another superstar. For the record, I quite like Brombs

Nope, we clearly ferked up big time over the centre half position.
Being forced into a series of short-term measures does not represent planning, even more so when one of the players was a less than wise signing in the first place.
You can't claim the quality of planning is irrelevant. We haven't got Baldrick in charge, have we?

 

[cooperblade]

I thought the only thing more strange than selling Bromby was re-signing Bromby.

I've been surprised how much the Leeds fan dislike him. Apparently there are rumours that Grayson only signed him because they're old cricket mates! They think we've sold them a dud and won't have it when I tell them he's actually not that bad.

 

[oldblade]

As I said, the quality of the planning is irrelevant.

You said we'd had a chronic lack of planning, we clearly didn't, we planned.

We have 'dealt' with with the central defence problem on an ad hoc basis. This is not planning, it is an almost day-by-day reaction (slight exaggeration, but you get my drift) to a poor situation brought about by a lack of planning.

 

[Foxy]

We have 'dealt' with with the central defence problem on an ad hoc basis. This is not planning, it is an almost day-by-day reaction (slight exaggeration, but you get my drift) to a poor situation brought about by a lack of planning.

By bringing Fortune in pre-season (albeit not giving him a contract till later) is hardly a lack of planning or a day to day reaction.

You may think its poor planning in terms of the players quality, or that he's ended up being injured plenty.

But its hardly a lack of actual planning.

I'm not saying it was the greatest plan in the world, or that its worked.

 

[oldblade]

He was also injured or woefully short of match fitness pre season and we did nothing to cover that. I don't often agree with Len (although to my alarm I have been doing so more often of late!!), but he's called it right on this one. There was no planning.

 

[Foxy]

He was also injured or woefully short of match fitness pre season and we did nothing to cover that.

He may have been short of match fitness, but the idea was to use pre-season to work on that. He did then get injured though.

I don't often agree with Len (although to my alarm I have been doing so more often of late!!), but he's called it right on this one. There was no planning.

Did we just bring him in randomly then? picked out of a hat? rather than someone thinking that we needed more bodies who are central defenders and bringing him in to the club?

We should have had better cover in the position, we should have got someone who was more likely to maintain fitness... BUT, we clearly did plan (however fruitless it was), because we brought in Fortune pre-season.

 

[Micalijo]

By bringing Fortune in pre-season (albeit not giving him a contract till later) is hardly a lack of planning or a day to day reaction.

You may think its poor planning in terms of the players quality, or that he's ended up being injured plenty.

But its hardly a lack of actual planning.

I'm not saying it was the greatest plan in the world, or that its worked.

There are times when your attempts to defend Blackwell and the Club go beyond what is sensible and this is one of those in my opinion. No amount of word twisting about what a plan is and isn't can explain how a club of our relative strength can go into the season with an injured Fortune as cover at centre-half. It is totally indefensible and I think your post above suggests you know this.

Can't you just say that it was a shocking plan? That surely is your position on this? So what if Len said we didn't have a plan - everyone knows what he meant including your good self.

 

[oldblade]

As far as I can recall we sold Bromby before we actually signed Fortune. Fortune was here on trial, but I didn't think we signed him until September. Bromby was sold in August. So before Fortune had even signed a contract and at a time when we knew Fortune was either unfit or injured we sold our central defence cover. That does not fit with my definition of planning, unless you mean planning to fail!!

 

[Foxy]

There are times when your attempts to defend Blackwell and the Club go beyond what is sensible and this is one of those in my opinion. No amount of word twisting about what a plan is and isn't can explain how a club of our relative strength can go into the season with an injured Fortune as cover at centre-half. It is totally indefensible and I think your post above suggests you know this.

Can't you just say that it was a shocking plan? That surely is your position on this? So what if Len said we didn't have a plan - everyone knows what he meant including your good self.

If he meant that we should have brought in someone else, or that he disagreed with Fortune being the man we brought in, then why not say that?

Instead, it's made out that we didn't think about the centre half position at all.

All I'm saying is, we clearly did. We brought in Fortune and we trialled others in this position.

Personally, as I said before, IF Brombs would have been happy to stay without being guaranteed first team football, then I'd have kept him.

I also said before, that we should have had more cover and ideally more quality in this area.

I don't see why telling the truth, rather than suggesting something else entirely is seen as going out of my way to defend Blackwell and the club?

It is simply untrue to say we didn't plan to have cover in the position, the player this thread is about is solid evidence of that! whatever his failings/problems.

 

[oldblade]

I think the sale of Bromby at the time that it was done, and in the circumstances does show that we did not give the central defensive position any thought at all.

If we did give it thought that makes it a far worse managerial clanger in my opinion, because that would mean we sold a fit and adequate central defender when our only cover was an unfit and injured player. That isn't planning, it's negligence.

 

[oldblade]

And the unfit and injured player was also not yet signed on a contract!

 

[Come from away]

Seems to me at the time they did have another deal in progress but it fell through and they got caught short.

 

[super_pig]

there's a common thread here. we get some aging pro at 35 to sign for us 'up until xmas' .. they come straight in.. play one game.. reasonably.. and then get injured for the rest of their loan period.. is someone having a laugh?