Knudsen on his way out?

When we have so many incompetent or wishy washy players don't you think we want to start with replacing those first? I think it's important to retain him and not give ourselves another gap to fill, position to weaken or fork out money for.

 

I said I thought he was at best competent but in reality he is towards the towards the incompetent/wishy washy end of the spectrum!

 

So if Knudsen is not up to it, then apart from loanees who would you rate as not needing a replacement signing?

 

My opinion, is that we could do with replacing every single one of them (not all at once, obviously), but no one player, or position is nailed down. They are all average at best.

 

Who do you think would command any sort of fee from the present squad(excepting the potential fees for the likes of youngsters like Andre,Lankester,Wolfie etc)?
I think Lambert is in the situation where,on the whole,he’s got to try and work with what he’s got.But with the release of wages from Knudsen (who must be amongst our highest earners and possibly a fee if we cash in in January)I would trust him to bring in a replacement at least as good or who would be able to work to his system better.

 

I think we're putting too much hope in the transfer market come January. If we're still in the bottom three, then which decent player in their right mind would want to come to us, unless we're giving extortionate wages (which won't be happening). I can see us getting a couple of journeymen in on short term contracts, but unfortunately that will probably be it (unless we go on a mind bending run of winning 5 or 6 games to propel us up the table)

 

Forget January, we need to look further forward than that now.

The only way I can see for us to build a squad is to keep the round pegs in the round holes that we already have and address real problem areas:

Right back, centre back, attacking midfield, forwards

with some real quality either from the youth ranks or transfer market. Forget journeymen and loans that approach is why we are where we are.

 

I'm putting Andre and established first teamers in there despite their youth:

Bart* / Gerken / Knudsen* / Skuse / Edwards* / Roberts / Bishop / Dozzell* / Rowe / Downes*

* = million pound plus players

Harrison / Huws / Jackson / Nsiala / Donacien / Nolan could yet turn it on this season and be worth some money by May. If Harrison or Jackson get into double figures they will be worth upwards of a million and if they get 15-20 next year that fee would sky rocket.

 

Knudsen as an individual player I wouldn't be overly disappointed to lose. But in the context of where we are, we would want to be prioritising keeping an established player with international experience and encouraging squad unity. It seems we're forshadowing more disruption and to a certain extent creating a self fulfilling prophecy of doom

 

Well this was what I was on about with the relegation odds and I got pelters for it.

 

Reliability or not. The term 'Servant' when discussing footballers is absolute poppycock and I hate it when commentators, pundits, fans etc. trot out the "loyal servant to the club" when describing a player. That may have been relevant in years gone by, but not in the modern footballing world we find ourselves in today.

A player can be loyal, but I don't think Servant should ever be used to describe someone getting paid hundreds of thousands, often millions a year to do a job that we'd all give our left nut to do... And in most cases would be willing to leave at the drop of a hat if something better came along. In fact I cannot think of anyone in the EFL that would be deserving of the term anymore.

 

The prime minister serves and is paid a small fortune (plus indirect income) to do so. Members of the Royal Family undertake military service as do the rest of our Armed Forces.

The word servant doesn't necessarily mean that someone is sweeping the floor.

In football terms I think the definition 3c from Mirriam-Webster applies: to be worthy of reliance or trust. It has nothing to do with earnings.


1a: to be a servant

b: to do military or naval service

2: to assist a celebrant as server at mass

3a: to be of usein a day when few people could write, seals servedas signatures— Elizabeth W. King

b: to be favorable, opportune, or convenient

c: to be worthy of reliance or trustif memory serves

d: to hold an office : discharge a duty or functionserve on a jury

4: to prove adequate or satisfactory : SUFFICEit will serve for this task

5: to help persons to food: such as

a: to wait at table

b: to set out portions of food or drink

6: to wait on customers

7: to put the ball or shuttlecock in play in various games (such as tennis, volleyball, or badminton)

 

Two Danish sides said to be sniffing round him (according to TWTD).
Bye bye and take your tea towels with you!

 

1a: to be a servant

b: to do military or naval service

2: to assist a celebrant as server at mass

3a: to be of usein a day when few people could write, seals servedas signatures— Elizabeth W. King

b: to be favorable, opportune, or convenient

c: to be worthy of reliance or trustif memory serves

d: to hold an office : discharge a duty or functionserve on a jury

4: to prove adequate or satisfactory : SUFFICEit will serve for this task

5: to help persons to food: such as

a: to wait at table

b: to set out portions of food or drink

6: to wait on customers

7: to put the ball or shuttlecock in play in various games (such as tennis, volleyball, or badminton)[/QUOTE]

My days

 

The squad further diminished and another player leaving. In a decent side like Copenhagen he’ll look a player.

 

And he will feel much more at home, in stead of the rump of a once famous Club that we were.