Incoming? Lee Gregory

[Ricky]

Reasonable and constructive, yes. Your Brooks and Gregory comparison wasn't reasonable

My reasoning there is that Gregory would be the only attacking player we spend any fee on after selling Brooks. That wouldn't be acceptable by any stretch.

 

[Ron_Justice]

Not ITK but I've been told that Millwall had/have offered him a shite updated deal - He's got a little-un now so he's thinking about life for the family after football. Basically, he wants more than Millwall are offering. Not sure how this places us, but he's certainly not 100% happy with things at Millwall.

 

[S5Blade]

My reasoning there is that Gregory would be the only attacking player we spend any fee on after selling Brooks. That wouldn't be acceptable by any stretch.

Yes, because woodburn is free isnt he? So is McGoldrick, forgot about that........ Obsessions with transfer fees make no sense. We are paying to have Woodburn here, I would rather we paid to have him on loan than pay a couple of million quid on a permanent who isnt as good / older / looking for a pay day.

 

[Ricky]

Yes, because woodburn is free isnt he? So is McGoldrick, forgot about that........ Obsessions with transfer fees make no sense. We are paying to have Woodburn here, I would rather we paid to have him on loan than pay a couple of million quid on a permanent who isnt as good / older / looking for a pay day.

I assume you feel Woodburn and McGoldrick represent acceptable reinvestment then?!

 

[Silent Blade]

I assume you feel Woodburn and McGoldrick represent acceptable reinvestment then?!

Wait and see. Will Brooks be the same player as he was before he had Glandular Fever? If not, then Liverpool were right to drop their interest in him and we were right to accept the £12M fee

 

[Blade56]

Yes, because woodburn is free isnt he? So is McGoldrick, forgot about that........ Obsessions with transfer fees make no sense. We are paying to have Woodburn here, I would rather we paid to have him on loan than pay a couple of million quid on a permanent who isnt as good / older / looking for a pay day.

Woodburn looked class last night when he came on, shame is was so late

 

[CoatesyBlade]

I assume you feel Woodburn and McGoldrick represent acceptable reinvestment then?!

Let’s not forget Brooks wanted to leave first and foremost. McGoldrick did enough on trail so we signed him - fair enough. And Woodburn is the most exciting player we’ve got, a lot of teams would of loved to take him on loan... only time will tell of course just how good he can be and what he can do for this club.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Wait and see. Will Brooks be the same player as he was before he had Glandular Fever? If not, then Liverpool were right to drop their interest in him and we were right to accept the £12M fee

You're fucking joking aren't you?

A loan player and a freebie do not represent acceptable reinvestment. If you think so you're an imbecile.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Brooks is the most talented player we've had since Harry.

Bournemouth is a stepping stone.

 

[Ricky]

Brooks will be in Bournemouth's team before the end of the season.

When he develops more power he's going to be an awesome player.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Brooks will be in Bournemouth's team before the end of the season.

When he develops more power he's going to be an awesome player.

Twins.

 

[Blade56]

You're fucking joking aren't you?

A loan player and a freebie do not represent acceptable reinvestment. If you think so you're an imbecile.

Silent Blade has a point that Woodburn will not have come cheap

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

Brooks would not have been in Wilder's first choice XI this season, so when you're offered 12m for a sub, why keep?

 

[Smirth]

Brooks would not have been in Wilder's first choice XI this season, so when you're offered 12m for a sub, why keep?

Yes, yes he would have been.

He would have been in the first team last season if it wasn’t for his illness over the winter which lost all momentum for him.

 

[S5Blade]

I assume you feel Woodburn and McGoldrick represent acceptable reinvestment then?!

Please point me in the direction of where I said that? Your comment was that gregory would be the only attacking player we spent a fee on. Try and twist your quotes any which way you like. Woodburn is rated very highly at liverpool, they are known to impose a lot of financial clauses into their loans (and fees for them in the first place) - We will be paying quite a decent chunk of change for his services this season. We sold Brooks and replaced him with the guy keeping him out of the international team but its still a massive negative? Why not start a thread about how we should have signed him when he was 8, 10 years ago for 20k..... but... you know.... wages..... or the board.......

It's impressive that you manage to keep up the rhetoric for so long, I would have got bored long before now.

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

Yes, yes he would have been.

He would have been in the first team last season if it wasn’t for his illness over the winter which lost all momentum for him.

He wasn't first choice before his illness.

 

[S5Blade]

Brooks would not have been in Wilder's first choice XI this season, so when you're offered 12m for a sub, why keep?

Or course he would have been, we sold him, so that instantly makes him better than a bastard love child of Messi and Ronaldo, thats how it works around here........

 

[Smirth]

He wasn't first choice before his illness.

Well yeah, as last season was his break through season.

 

[Smirth]

Or course he would have been, we sold him, so that instantly makes him better than a bastard love child of Messi and Ronaldo, thats how it works around here........

Ask your self why an established Premier League club have seen fit to spend 12m on him.

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

Well yeah, as last season was his break through season.

So if he wasn't first choice before his illness, why would he have been first choice after?

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

Ask your self why an established Premier League club have seen fit to spend 12m on him.

The same established Premier league club that spent 8 figures on Afobe and rarely played him. They have squadrillions of cash, they need big squads.

Additionally they turned down (allegedly) 25m for Lewis Cook.

So it kinda shows you what they think of 12m.

 

[Smirth]

So if he wasn't first choice before his illness, why would he have been first choice after?

Because he was showing flashes of how good he was. He would have been given more and more game time and established himself, it’s generally what happens with young players as talented as him. His illness stopped him in his tracks.

 

[Ricky]

Please point me in the direction of where I said that? Your comment was that gregory would be the only attacking player we spent a fee on. Try and twist your quotes any which way you like. Woodburn is rated very highly at liverpool, they are known to impose a lot of financial clauses into their loans (and fees for them in the first place) - We will be paying quite a decent chunk of change for his services this season. We sold Brooks and replaced him with the guy keeping him out of the international team but its still a massive negative? Why not start a thread about how we should have signed him when he was 8, 10 years ago for 20k..... but... you know.... wages..... or the board.......

It's impressive that you manage to keep up the rhetoric for so long, I would have got bored long before now.

You know full well I was referring to transfer fees. It's you who's twisting things. Whatever we've spent in total on Woodburn and McGoldrick is peanuts compared to what we got for Brooks.

Got to pounce on any opportunity to make excuses for the club though. I would've got bored of doing that long ago. In fact, I used to to a large extent... but eventually you wake up.

 

[Smirth]

The same established Premier league club that spent 8 figures on Afobe and rarely played him. They have squadrillions of cash, they need big squads.

Additionally they turned down (allegedly) 25m for Lewis Cook.

So it kinda shows you what they think of 12m.

Okay, so Brooks is now shit because he left Sheffield United to go to the Premier League?

 

[Eric Cartman]

Silent Blade has a point that Woodburn will not have come cheap

He's on loan. We will have to replace him next season.

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

Okay, so Brooks is now shit because he left Sheffield United to go to the Premier League?

So to counter argument, you're making stories up? Where have I said he was shit?

 

[Smirth]

So to counter argument, you're making stories up? Where have I said he was shit?

My error, I see it wasn’t you that said about players getting better when they leave us. Apologies.

 

[Blade56]

He's on loan. We will have to replace him next season.

Totally agree with that but I would hazard he's costing as much for one year as an average player on a 2\3 year contract.
On the plus side loans give you the option to try before you buy (not that there's a cat in hells chance we would have the chance to buy). That would have helped in acquisitions like Holmes, lundstum, Evans et al

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

My error, I see it wasn’t you that said about players getting better when they leave us. Apologies.

I've no doubt he will get better, I said he has oodles of potential. That's what Bournemouth are paying for.
My point has always been (prior to selling him), because he's still a bit part player, we can't afford to turn down big money that could be used to improve the first XI.

Unfortunately we:

a) Haven't used the money
b) Haven't improved the first XI

 

[Lets bring back....]

Sorry to interrupt the Brooks chat... So are we signing Gregory or not?