The argument/complete nonsense thread...
- Thread starter Cityzen
- Start date
-
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
-
So why are you making a big song and dance about my posts then?
cause you're getting personal and acting like a child. Which is ironic given your profession.
It's all good, I'm not cross-eyed, but even if I was I wouldn't mind showing him up for the lovely fella he clearly isn't.
Firstly, loans cost the club money; they don't come foc.
Secondly, we can't have infinite loans, because of the costs involved and because of the limit of players allowed to be named in a first team squad, so yes you can 'waste' loan spots (not that I actually said anything about "waste").
Thirdly, if you read the article, it spells out what these loan spots should be bringing to the squad (the strategy).
As I posted, "arguably a bit of bad luck to a degree I guess ....but...".
Rushworth. Hasn't played even 1 minute for us.
Puerta. No complaints (other than Walter failed to get anything like the best out of him). Came with an option to buy. If he continues like he did v Swansea then could be a cracking permanent for us.
Bedia. Hardly matches the now stated strategy for loans
Burns. Might develop into a decent player, but what was the point. Wasted money.
Zambrano. A gamble that hasn't paid off this season ... but might well do longer term.
It's the massive gap between the stated sensible strategy for our loans v's the reality of this summer's loans. The club must do far better in January.
Syd, seriously, why the sarcasm and why arguing back with just about everything I post?
I replied in good faith to your reply where you said "not sure what you mean"(even though deep down I was thinking 'oh here we go again, Syd looking for an argument on the latest thing I've posted'). I went to the effort of explaining more fully what I was meaning.
PLEASE give it a break now eh. Thanks.
Because we've seen time and again that the official announcement and photo shoot etc comes several days after the event.
You said the loans were a waste. Since I would assume almost anyone involved in a discussion about transfers would be aware that players cost money, the discussion was clearly about the loan slots in the squad. It seemed safe to make that assumption.
Days not weeks. You think he was involved in identifying and carrying out multiple signings in the days before he was announced?
Get the gloves out...It's Boxing Day.
Just ease off mate eh
ok another way
Do you think he’d have an idea of the players we were interested in?
Ease off? Not sure how much milder I could ask that question Chazz.
I have no idea what knowledge he had prior to joining City. That's why it's an assumption from GFAW.
I know it's pantomine season, but, oh no I didn't!You said the loans were a waste. Since I would assume almost anyone involved in a discussion about transfers would be aware that players cost money, the discussion was clearly about the loan slots in the squad. It seemed safe to make that assumption.
It was you that introduced the word 'waste'.
The only close reference I made was in the case of Burns .... "Burns. Might develop into a decent player, but what was the point. Wasted money". Surely hard to argue against that statement.
My OP was simply sharing the HDM article and my reaction to it, and my point is simple i.e. 'we' have to do better with January loans.
Ah that's right, 'piss poor use' but not waste. A distinction without a difference.
Hang on. That's not where this "waste" stuff came from.
It came from you saying "Not sure what you mean, you can have as many loans as you want. You can't "waste" a loan spot"
I then give a reply to explain how imo you can "waste" a loan spot and how loan spots are not infinite.
Again, please just drop the being argumentative for the sake of it and let's try discussing with constructive comment. Otherwise let's take it to PM's if you insist on continuing (or else put me on ignore please - something I don't do but I believe you do).
What are you on about? Do you understand the whole point of "A distinction without a difference"? You fixate on the word 'waste' at the exclusion of actually discussing the topic, then suggest I'm the one being argumentative and not offering a constructive comment?
You said, and I quote "Arguably a bit of bad luck to a degree I guess but also very much simply piss poor use of what should be important loan slots " I then paraphrased that using the word 'waste' to refer to the bolded turn of phrase. Yes we wasted money with loanees. We also wasted money with permanents. As you were focussed on the loanees, it seemed apparent you were referring to loan slots (again, a term within the bolded words). You could literally have infinite loans if you had the finances, but you would only be able to register 25 in the squad and only have 5 in the matchday squad at any one time. You can't misuse loan slots in that manner, and loan slots themselves are not 'important'. If you'd just said 'it's simply a piss poor use of important transfer budget' then I'd completely agree.
Last edited: