Transfer Rumours 2016/17 City Transfer 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!
Cityswall said:
Sorry but I believe you are wrong. The deal was signed mid route.
Click to expand...


We where given an extension to sign him ...


After his initial three moves, Bruce sprung a late surprise by making a move for the playmaker Ben Arfa, marginalised at Newcastle.

He was pictured high-fiving fans as he arrived at the club and, having secured an extension beyond the intitial 11pm deadline, Hull finalised the move..

“Thankfully everything has come together, but the one that has come in the last few hours was Ben Arfa,” Bruce told BBC Radio Five Live.

“Whatever’s happened at Newcastle has happened. He wants to come here and play and get his career kickstarted again.

“Hopefully I can bring the best out of him and we can reignite him.”
 
SydneyTiger14 said:
I said it doesn't change the value of the club when the parties that have agreed the value are part of the valuation of the players because of accounting reasons. I initially didn't include that qualification as I thought everyone was aware the Dais were involved in the process, but pointed it out when Canada appeared to be in the dark.
Click to expand...

YAY here we go. another 10 pages .... Sorry <whistle>
 
  • Like
Reactions: petersaxton
Qatartiger Cambridgetiger said:
We where given an extension to sign him ...


After his initial three moves, Bruce sprung a late surprise by making a move for the playmaker Ben Arfa, marginalised at Newcastle.

He was pictured high-fiving fans as he arrived at the club and, having secured an extension beyond the intitial 11pm deadline, Hull finalised the move..

“Thankfully everything has come together, but the one that has come in the last few hours was Ben Arfa,” Bruce told BBC Radio Five Live.

“Whatever’s happened at Newcastle has happened. He wants to come here and play and get his career kickstarted again.

“Hopefully I can bring the best out of him and we can reignite him.”
Click to expand...

You're both right. Ben Arfa pulled over on route to the club to sign a pre-agreement, which was what granted us the extension to complete the medical and agree terms.
 
SydneyTiger14 said:
Why would I say that?

The only reason Canada and I ended up in an argument was because he was being deliberately contrary and spouting rubbish like "buying the corporate veil". You came in and agreed if the Chinese and Allams were setting transfer fees together there was no valuation issue and that was the end of it.
Click to expand...
You're a ****ing stupid bastard. Try to understand.
1) Bringing a red herring (corporate veil) into a discussion is your naiive attempt to deflect from the point. You do it all the time.
2) Suggesting the valuation of the signing of a player has no impact on the money owed to the current owners. or the profit they expect to get out of the change of ownership is rubbish just beggars belief.
3) You have so little sense of perspective, that me using the "corporate veil" reference several times in a response to you was ****ing taking the piss. Trying to use it against my points shows a lack of understanding of my point.
4) You're never wrong - hence the last word syndrome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SW3 Chelsea Tiger, petersaxton and Chazz Rheinhold
SydneyTiger14 said:
I said it doesn't change the value of the club when the parties that have agreed the value are part of the valuation of the players because of accounting reasons. I initially didn't include that qualification as I thought everyone was aware the Dais were involved in the process, but pointed it out when Canada appeared to be in the dark.
Click to expand...
Not in the dark chum. Try to understand the argument.
 
Bum_Chinned_Crab said:
Peter's right on this one, Snodgrasa has never played as part of a front 3 for us. You're falling for the PL hype of teams claiming they're playing 4-3-3 when its 4-5-2 or 4-3-2-1.
Click to expand...

I never said he had played as part of a front 3. I proposed that we play a front 3 of Rodriguez-Hernandez-Snodgrass. For someone that gets irked by people not reading posts properly that was poor on your part. Rodriguez would replace Diomande, and it would allow us to play with a proper front 3.
 
SydneyTiger14 said:
I never said he had played as part of a front 3. I proposed that we play a front 3 of Rodriguez-Hernandez-Snodgrass. For someone that gets irked by people not reading posts properly that was poor on your part. Rodriguez would replace Diomande, and it would allow us to play with a proper front 3.
Click to expand...

Ah right ok, fair enough. I've just woken up. So you are advocating playing him in a position he's never played for us and that the manager changes formation from one that has worked very well for us?

I personally wouldn't call any front 3 featuring Snodgrass a 'proper front 3'.
 
Bum_Chinned_Crab said:
Ah right ok, fair enough. I've just woken up. So you are advocating playing him in a position he's never played for us?

I personally wouldn't call any front 3 featuring Snodgrass a 'proper front 3'.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think his ability with the ball and his attacking flair would be well suited to being part of a front 3. I think the reason he hasn't played there is a lack of balance on the left hand side, which Diomande doesn't fill. Rodriguez would balance out the formation.
 
SydneyTiger14 said:
Yes, I think his ability with the ball and his attacking flair would be well suited to being part of a front 3. I think the reason he hasn't played there is a lack of balance on the left hand side, which Diomande doesn't fill. Rodriguez would balance out the formation.
Click to expand...

I think the reason he hasn't played there is he isn't a forward and we don't play 4-3-3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: petersaxton
SydneyTiger14 said:
He is a winger though and would suit a wide-forward role. I suppose you could even throw Maloney on the left wing if we were really desperate to play it.
Click to expand...

Hang on - are you saying wingers are part of the front 3 so it's 3 right across the top of the pitch or are we talking about 3 strikers made up of a central 1 and 2 either side of him?
 
Bum_Chinned_Crab said:
Hang on - are you saying wingers are part of the front 3 so it's 3 right across the top of the pitch or are we talking about 3 strikers made up of a central 1 and 2 either side of him?
Click to expand...

I'm saying he's a winger, so can play in midfield, but he's also suited to a wide forward role due to his ability with the ball and whipping in crosses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back