The point is being missed here.
Livermore's signing has improved the side because he didn't play for us. He'd gone and was no longer a City player. Signing him means we have a better midfield than if we'd not signed him.
Halle-****ing-lujah
The point is being missed here.
Livermore's signing has improved the side because he didn't play for us. He'd gone and was no longer a City player. Signing him means we have a better midfield than if we'd not signed him.
The point is being missed here.
Livermore's signing has improved the side because he didn't play for us. He'd gone and was no longer a City player. Signing him means we have a better midfield than if we'd not signed him.
I didn't say it wasn't an improvement on wondering whether he'll sign. I said, quite correctly, that the team hasn't improved because he's signed. He's the same player in the same team he was in last year.
Well, for a start I didn't at any point describe him as 'class.' I said he was a vast improvement on the players we've played out wide last year. Mostly Elmo, Boyd and quinn with Rosey and Figg as wing backs. I think he is a vast improvement on those players due to his creativity and also a vit of a goal threat and a dead ball specialist.
Brady may well be better, but he hasn't shown it last year due to injury and the year before we were in the Championship. Brady has it to prove, not Snodgrass.
I really think you need to start claiming the signings haven't improved "last season's team", in order to be crystal-clear. That team did include Livermore; "the team" (ie whatever we could field if there were a match today) did not include him from the Cup final until he signed up. So signing him did improve "the team".
The point is being missed here.
Livermore's signing has improved the side because he didn't play for us. He'd gone and was no longer a City player. Signing him means we have a better midfield than if we'd not signed him.
Apologies for the "class" mixed you up with Jenks Shuffle.
He had two assists last season & averaged 2-4 crosses / game. Where's the evidence of his creativity?
Livermore was in the last team we fielded, he'll be in the next we'll field. The team has not improved.
We haven't fielded a team since the cup final.
Livermore was in the last team we fielded, he'll be in the next we'll field. The team has not improved.
If you really want to be pedantic and keep saying the team hasn't improved - then feel free.
But two things have happened:
Livermore was never ours, so purchasing him has stopped the decline that happened when he returned to Tottenham at the end of the season.
It's free up a second loan spot - so now we can loan in a player to take the spot that was Livermore's.
So, yes technically the team is the same as it was last season, but that would be a really pesimistic view to take.
So our squad hasn't been weakened yet by Koren's departure? That's good to know.
Apologies for the "class" mixed you up with Jenks Shuffle.
He had two assists last season & averaged 2-4 crosses / game. Where's the evidence of his creativity?
Livermore was in the last team we fielded, he'll be in the next we'll field. The team has not improved.
So I'm right, thank you.
Although I'm not being pedantic or pessimistic & I've always been free to say anything I feel. I definitely don't need the permission of a red arsed monkey to do so.
But why on Earth would you look at the last team we fielded as a comparison. Surely it's now that matters? If you're going to do that you might as well say we shouldn't sign X forward because he's no improvement on Wagstaff; it's irrelevant.
What if someone had signed Davies after the cup final. Would signing Dawson be no improvement since Davies played in our last match?
You are right only in the most basic of ways, in that Livermore was there last season and will be next season. What kind of point is that? The point you are missing is that Livermore now will be a different player to the one we signed a year ago, because of his experience. Him being our player also frees up a loan spot, giving us further room to improve.
So I'm right, thank you.
Although I'm not being pedantic or pessimistic & I've always been free to say anything I feel. I definitely don't need the permission of a red arsed monkey to do so.
The point I initially made has been lost in the waffle of others.
I merely pointed out that we'd spent, in the case of Livermore, £8m & the team hasn't improved because of it.
Comparing buying a player now to Waggy would be silly. But that's not what was said or being discussed. It's a simple point, we've maintained the standard of the team from last year at a cost of £8m.
Hurrah! Somebody else who gets it!
Are you saying that in the context of it being a bad thing? If so then the only thing to blame is our previous reliance on the loan system, I don't see anything wrong with signing him now just because he was here last year without paying for him. Obviously it isn't an option now.