Summer Transfer Rumour Thread.

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
AdamBanana20 said:
It's not really,you're essentially buying bench warmers then,what's the point in that?You're not improving the current squad you're just making it bigger.

Yes,I agree with you when you say that young players who aren't ready for first team football yet but will be in the future.

I can't see this Buttner guy being a squad player...
Click to expand...

I would rather we signed a RB who is weaker than Richardson, but better than Butterfield, than sign no RB at all and have Butterfield on the bench or having to fill in for when Richardson is injured.

I would rather we signed a LB who is weaker than Fox, but better than Harding, than sign no LB at all and have Harding on the bench or having to fill in for when Fox is injured.

I would rather we signed a GK who is weaker than Davis, but better than Forecast, than sign no GK at all and have Forecast on the bench or having to fill in for when Davis is injured.

Etc, Etc, Etc.

That might not be improving the starting XI, but it is absolutely improving the squad.
 
st_brendy said:
I would rather we signed a RB who is weaker than Richardson, but better than Butterfield, than sign no RB at all and have Butterfield on the bench or having to fill in for when Richardson is injured.

I would rather we signed a LB who is weaker than Fox, but better than Harding, than sign no LB at all and have Harding on the bench or having to fill in for when Fox is injured.

I would rather we signed a GK who is weaker than Davis, but better than Forecast, than sign no GK at all and have Forecast on the bench or having to fill in for when Davis is injured.

Etc, Etc, Etc.

That might not be improving the starting XI, but it is absolutely improving the squad.
Click to expand...

Very well put.
 
st_brendy said:
I would rather we signed a RB who is weaker than Richardson, but better than Butterfield, than sign no RB at all and have Butterfield on the bench or having to fill in for when Richardson is injured.

I would rather we signed a LB who is weaker than Fox, but better than Harding, than sign no LB at all and have Harding on the bench or having to fill in for when Fox is injured.

I would rather we signed a GK who is weaker than Davis, but better than Forecast, than sign no GK at all and have Forecast on the bench or having to fill in for when Davis is injured.

Etc, Etc, Etc.

That might not be improving the starting XI, but it is absolutely improving the squad.
Click to expand...


Having no keeper is better then forecast
 
I don't think Nigel will be buying players that might scrape a place on the bench. Yes, we do want depth. But surely by getting a new player better than the original player in his position makes the quality in depth better? Nigel has said before we're not looking at getting back-up players.
 
mightysouthampton said:
I don't think Nigel will be buying players that might scrape a place on the bench. Yes, we do want depth. But surely by getting a new player better than the original player in his position makes the quality in depth better? Nigel has said before we're not looking at getting back-up players.
Click to expand...

Except GK. If we can't get one to fit in with our plan, I would hope we sign (even if short term) an experienced keeper.
 
mightysouthampton said:
I don't think Nigel will be buying players that might scrape a place on the bench. Yes, we do want depth. But surely by getting a new player better than the original player in his position makes the quality in depth better? Nigel has said before we're not looking at getting back-up players.
Click to expand...

That's entirely true, but St Brendy was just explaining that there is more than 1 way to improve squad depth. As Adam couldn't quite get his head round it.
 
mightysouthampton said:
I don't think Nigel will be buying players that might scrape a place on the bench. Yes, we do want depth. But surely by getting a new player better than the original player in his position makes the quality in depth better? Nigel has said before we're not looking at getting back-up players.
Click to expand...

I agree obviously. Take J-Rod for example, he's not just better than Barnard (ie one of last season's back-up's) but also good enough to play in the starting XI. That is clearly the ideal situation.

But as I've already said, we haven't got limitless funds to spend. And personally, I think a new CB and a pacey winger are both absolutely essential. So were to get spend on those two areas, I wouldn't expect us to also have money left over to buy a new RB and a new LB and a new CM etc. And besides, even if we did, who exactly wants us to sign a whole new first XI? I certainly don't. People like Davis, Richardson, Fox, Cork, I'm happy with. I really am. I'm just not happy with what we've got to fill in for them - and as Nigel always says, it's about the squad, not the first XI.

I'm also not saying that I think we should go out and buy a whole new bench. I'm just expecting one or two players to be signed (or loaned) that might make you think "well, I don't see him really taking X's place in the starting XI" - but then after that initial thought, you do realise that tthe squad as a whole has been improved with that signing..
 
In my mind if you are going to sign a player then he should be cryer than what you already have other wise there's no point. What's the point in wasting, sometimes, millions of pounds on a player that doesn't IMPROVE the quality of the team. Having said that though I can kind of see what you're saying.
 
Falque would be an example of my point. We clearly didn't loan him in to play in the first XI! But had we not added him to the squad, and Lallana had subsequently got injured, then um...well...er...good luck Lee Holmes I guess. <yikes>
 
For all any of us know about Dutch football, Buttner could be a lot better than Fox. Cover, rotation, replacement, competition or whatever spin you put on new signings, the PL more so than the championship or L1 is a squad game. It's more or less certain that we'll need at least 2 adequate, senior players to cover each position over the course of the season. Our transfer policy needs to reflect that and opportunities are unlikely to arise in order of priority. Adkins knows what he's doing and won't be signing players we don't need.
 
Joe Steinberg said:
We might be short in depth in both of those positions, but Davis, Fonte and Hooiveld would be good enough in a starting XI. We currently don't have a right-mid at all, bar Puncheon who will never be first team.
Click to expand...

Fonte would worry me tho, then we only have Seaborne.
 
Schad said:
I don't really understand this line of thinking; what makes Scott Dann a good signing but Buttner dross?
Click to expand...

Scott Dann was a reasonable defender in a poor Blackburn side.
Buttner is being touted on here as a great signing based on second rate dutch football and a youtube clip. Deridder anyone??
Buttner may turn out to be awesome but i wait with baited breath................
I just hope we have better irons in the fire. The one rumour with a bit of weight doesnt excite me as much as it does others on here thats all.
 
9043graham said:
Scott Dann was a reasonable defender in a poor Blackburn side.
Buttner is being touted on here as a great signing based on second rate dutch football and a youtube clip. Deridder anyone??
Buttner may turn out to be awesome but i wait with baited breath................
I just hope we have better irons in the fire. The one rumour with a bit of weight doesnt excite me as much as it does others on here thats all.
Click to expand...

De Ridder was in the league below tho?.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back