He hasn't lived up to his price tag now either - £60m for what he's done up to now would be an astronomical amount. Fortunately, no one except you is questioning whether he's lived up to his price tag, because it's a bizarre and ludicrous thing to analyse 6 months into a player signing, when he has been good, despite a lengthy injury absence.
Then we agree he hasn't lived up to his price tag yet. No-one on here however as we've seen there's articles saying the same thing so you're wrong it's not only me is it.
No we don't agree cos, my entire point was any argument regarding living up to his price tag right now is ridiculous and stupid. Also we haven't seen articles saying the same thing, as those articles you screenshotted were contradictory and incorrect bollocks. Shall we apply this logic to Botman then? He's been outstanding mostly and looked worth every penny of the fee....then a horrific mistake in the last game cost us a goal, is he only worth half what we paid now?
**** knows. Apparently the bird protection society are eating the birds and then spitting the feathers.
You just said only I was saying it but I've shown you two articles I never wrote so you were incorrect. I understand you didn't like the view that he hadn't lived up to his tag so far you don't have to keep telling me. Botman has so far been an excellent signing and be involved in maybe every game ? Not far off. Isak is now on his way.
Essentially myself the telegraph and the sheilds gazette are wrong to suggest isak is now living up to his price tag at last
As everything in this thread is batshit mental now, I will try to be succinct: - those articles were not saying what you were saying about him being a waste of money at all. - the articles contracted themselves and were factually incorrect so as a form of evidence, they are useless. - it's not that I "didn't like" the view, it's that I found the principle of making such a judgement ridiculous. - Isak apparently is now on his way to be an "excellent signing" like Botman, despite being a "complete waste of money" 8 days ago?!?! - on the last page he was "starting to prove his worth", but since then, ie in the last hour, he's on his way to be an excellent signing (see above) - I don't know why the bird protection society entered this discussion, but considering the all out insanity that's going on, I guess anything can happen in this thread now.
They say he's now finally living up to his price, so that very sentence indicates the opinion he wasn't previously. Ultimately you didn't like my opinion that he'd 'so far' been a complete waste of money. I'm saying he's starting to prove himself and it's great ,so what's the problem now?
The Shields gazette article doesn't say anything about him justifying his price tag or being a waste of money, it just incorrectly asserts that Isak's proving Howe wrong because he played 90 minutes, whereas what Howe actually said was they need to get his fitness levels up so he can regularly play 90 minutes. I can't read the whole of the Telegraph article cos it's subscription only and I'm not paying to subscribe to that right wing horseshit...and unless you can screenshot me the whole article, then it's worthless in terms of back up for you. It's not that I "don't like" your option, it's actually that, like everyone else, I think the whole notion of assessing a players value at this stage is ridiculous, and it's impossible to quantify what he is worth right now vs his transfer fee. There's no problem saying he's great, the problem is any batshit analysis of his performance after 10 league games vs the transfer fee. But anyway, let's not get let sanity get into the discussion, what about the birds protection league?
"Prove his worth" means pull his weight. No mention whatsoever in that article of him being a waste of money, justifying or not justifying his price tag, and no talk about what his value is or isn't. The entire article is a misguided reaction to when Howe said he didn't think Isak could yet play 90 minutes continuously, and the ****ing moron who wrote this article then says he "proves Howe wrong" by playing 90 minutes, which was not what Howe said at all. No can we agree the article is bollocks and just get back to some all out insanity about the birds protection society?
And now the Daily Fail for back up - he hasn't "struggled with injuries" he's had ONE lengthy injury, this happens to players. - at that point he had scored "just four goals" in 9 league games, basically one every other game and a perfectly decent return. - his display against Wolves didn't "reassure" the club at all, as the fans had already seen he was good and the club would have known he was quality cos they see him every day in training. - he wasn't "starting to feel more miss than hit", cos everyone knew he'd only played 9 league games, and with a decent scoring record, anyone who draws conclusions that that is "miss" is ******ed.
