Signing someone because its a better option than we currently have isn't always the wisest move. For example, if we'd have signed Cissokho after having Konchesky, would it have been a good signing? That view should only be taken when the existing option is a already a good option.
Read the rest. If the existing option isn't good enough that your approach isn't the standard to use. Is setting the bar too low in the first place! Johnson isn't good enough. Signing Sagna (mildly better when fit) for less is an improvement but a small one. We should be aiming for a bigger improvement. Edit: would you like Chelsea to sign Giroud from Arsenal? Afterall he's a better option than Eto, Torres and Ba. Forget signing someone like Falcao. (this is the logic you're applying to Johnson vs Sagna)
Sagna is wayyyy better than Johnson, so you examples are irrelevant. Who can you get who is better than Sagna and as much value for money?
Sagna is probably on about £70k a week? When he moves he'll obviously want a pay rise or he'd sign a new contract at Arsenal. Means we'd be wanting at least £80k you'd think.. for that kind of money on someone that is 31 and spends a lot of time out injured it's a huge risk. He's only be better than what we currently have if he is playing... no good to anyone on the sidelines.
No idea but I'm not a scout nor will you ever hear me backing the signing of a injury prone player. My point was that "he's better than Johnson" should not be the gauge as Glen is ****!
1. johnson has every chance if offered a deal 2. rodgers said he likes the f'r 3. kelly is done if he doesn't come back in preseason. 4. sagna is as bad as johnson!!!
Best rb in the league is Coleman. Even if they'd sell him it'd be a bidding war and City and Chelsea would be ahead of us.
After 18 months we all can finally agree unanimously that he's garbage - except for the media and England management, that is, who still see him as the best RB in the league. I get why Rodgers likes him, he's very attack minded and gives us great width and overlapping runs, but that means nothing if you give the ball away every time. There has to be better options than him we can go for and Rodgers surely has to agree. Worst comes to the worst and we don't buy another RB, would we be happy with Flanno at RB and a new LB instead? I'd be fine with that. Give young Jon some game time, pit him against the top European wide men and see if he continues to grow. Yeah he lacks experience, but you're not going to get that anywhere else. Throw him in the deep end again and you can bet that he'll at least give it his all. Ideally he'd be competing with someone else though who can pass the ball to a fellow team mate...
We need to sign a FB or two but if we can get Enrique fit then him and Flanno are a very good pairing IMO
If we stick with Flanno, I can already see the threads on this board 'we should have signed someone'. I get peoples concern with Sagna, but I think on a free he'd be a good signing.
In no way am I saying put all our eggs in one basket, we need to sign a FB that can play both sides or sign a RB AND LB.
There are three RBs at this club who I would rather we played instead of Johnson. All three are younger and players who will keep on developing; Flanno, Wisdom and McLaughlin. I don't care if we fail to sign a RB, I would gladly play any of those and despite any mistakes they make, stick with them and let them learn. We need to buy a LB though because we only have Enrique and even he might be crocked now.
