the gunslinger

1 hour ago, onevision said:

Agree, the one thing that can't be aimed at him is laziness, he might look that way at times but it has more to do with his timing when picking his moment to nick the ball from an opponent which he does often.

last thing he is. 

19 minutes ago, compo said:

You might think I've finally flipped but i go for Lundstam if he can be consistent he can be a main man 

he was tremendous

What a game. Sensational stuff from start to finish and I loved it. 

2 hours ago, ranger_syntax said:

The real complaint is about his obvious laziness. Few understand this.

 

I think he has improved that lately.

 

Choice of metrics can be funny though. If we pay the fee and he racks up goals and assists without collecting any league winner medals then we will not be pleased.

 

Of course when we reach that stage we will see stuff like: lOoK aT tHe pOsT tHrOw iN xG bEtWeEn 30 aNd 38 mInUtEs!

Lazieness lol. 

utter nonsense proven to be so by the facts.

sensational stuff last night and a lot of our very maligned players were excellent. Barasic, Tav and Kamara particularly. 

Davies superb as were lundstrum sakala and kent. 

Between Barasic and Kamara for me but Kamara was ridiculously good. 

good line up. 

It's things like this that will increase our turnover and will help with financial fair play. Great offering for the fans as well. 

really looking forward to seeing raskin. probably not tonight unfortunately

kamara fairly comfortably

3 minutes ago, stewarty said:

The issue with Raskin it seems to me is that Standard Liege seem intent on getting rid of him this window... so if we want him, its a case of doing the deal now, or not at all.   

 

We also get two benefits. we gat him now and bed him in and we don't get a player in the summer who hasn't played competitively in a year. 

14 minutes ago, Sutton_blows_goats said:

Yes due to board support during covid. This has passed and we should be fine moving forward.

Especially as we have sold 45 millions worth of players and managers since then.

 

Happy to be corrected if that’s wrong.

depends what we spend but yes. 

it also limits more money going in. 

we are on a financial fair play watch list. 

worth remembering that.

15 minutes ago, buster. said:

Thanks GS

So a clause of the original contract had an add-on that if extended had us due Brighton 1M pounds and effectively, by letting contract run down, we paid the money to the player instead of his former club.

 

Where did info come from?

 

The usual leaks at the time to explain things that went on. 

seemed true enough but who knows. 

we do know that both Morelos and Kent have sell on clauses and pretty steep ones. 

I am just pointing out that we may be playing the long game here to our benefit. We may still be making a total arse of it of course. 

My guess is Kent will do this and Morelos will be away next week. 

2 minutes ago, buster. said:

 

Am I understanding the above properly ?

 

We paid CG a large sum of money that comes from splitting monies that don't currently exist and it is questionable if they ever will.

 

Hopefully you can correct me.

 

 

we had 2 choices once he was staying. Extend his contract and pay a million to Brighton. Let it expire and re sign him. 

we did that and he got a pay rise and we were no worse off. 

great fun loved it. 

17 hours ago, craig said:

Yeah, I thought that might be what you were getting at mate.  That being the case it is actually really sensible (IMO) to do it this way - the players can, in essence, get an extra 10k per week if they let their contract run out, save the club 2 mill in sell on fees, and sign a 4 yr deal.

 

Makes sense to me.  The obvious issue is that there are no guarantees they will sign on

It's what we did with Goldson. 

we had to pay a million quid if we extended his contract. Essentially we split it with him and retained the player. 

2 minutes ago, buster. said:

What makes you think Morelos is worth a new deal ?

 

How many times does he need to show what he is for it to register that we would be better rid of him ?

 

We need players we can depend on

I said he was the problem not the solution for me but it's not up to me. 

1 hour ago, craig said:

The sell on fees would be negligible anyway would they not ?  We wouldnt get much for them in January anyway given Bosman status.

 

Or are you saying that if we extend their contract then we are STILL bound by the original sell-on clause ?  

I am saying if we let their contract expire then resign them there is no sell on fee. If we extend current contract then it remains. 

gives you the scope perhaps to give them a better deal. 

Have seen it pointed out that if we run down Morelos and Kent contracts we can remove the sell on fees. 

I still say Morelos is part of the problem not the solution but we did this with Goldson so may be what we are doing here. 

37 minutes ago, Blue Moon said:

Not buying Tillman isn't on the agenda for me.  

Would be gutting

17 hours ago, Bill said:

😄 Candeias wasn't even in the same league 

yeah SPL started in the 90s IIRC

the best winger is Candeias. though tommy was my dads favourite. 

16 minutes ago, craig said:

With that personnel I prefer a 4-2-3-1

 

Keeper

 

Tavernier - Goldson - Davies - Borna

 

Raskin - Lundstram/Jack

 

Cantwell - Tillman - Kent

 

Morelos

 

Or even more of a Xmas tree formation with Tillman being slightly further ahead of Cantwell and Kent, just in behind Morelos

 

One thing though.... we at least are starting to look like we have options, both in terms of formation and personnel 

 

Beale likes 4 2 2 2 in fairness