chilledbear 16 Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Alex: Like I say, perhaps we didn't 'need' to sell Thomson but made the decision to do so because of the other players we have for his position, while needing money to strengthen other areas of the team. 1 year left on his contract, players just need to sit out their last year and leave for nothing. Probably dictates the low price as well. Always thought Eagles had fell out with Coyle, and now it seems Laws, perhaps a disruptive player to bring in to the squad, Lafferty must have played with him at Burnley. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Is it though? I don't disagree mate but some people will see �£2million for an injury prone, inconsistent player entering the last year of his contract as reasonable business. Celtic couldn't achieve as much as that for Boruc which tells you all you need to know about our market. One thing is for certain the club need to be more transparent with the supporters as, I'm extremely worried about our investment in terms of planning and strategy. Planning and Strategy!!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,146 Posted July 13, 2010 Author Share Posted July 13, 2010 It certainly seems as if the 7-10 day long term planning is plainly evident... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexscottislegend 2,057 Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Is it though? I don't disagree mate but some people will see �£2million for an injury prone, inconsistent player entering the last year of his contract as reasonable business. Celtic couldn't achieve as much as that for Boruc which tells you all you need to know about our market. One thing is for certain the club need to be more transparent with the supporters as, I'm extremely worried about our investment in terms of planning and strategy. Thought he was going for �£3m but I take your point. Our biggest asset is now Davis. I hope he doesn't have a great start to the season or we'll be reading stories like: "Martin O'Neill is tracking Rangers mideifelder Steve Davis..." Could maybe put up with all these outgoings if it included Lafferty. I have a horrible feeling he will never fulfil his potential. Eagles may give us what we're looking for on the right, but on the left it looks like it will be Fleck, Naismith or somebody else played out of position. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Perhaps selling Thomson, allows us to keep Davis. Who else has 1 year left? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ascender 352 Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Perhaps selling Thomson, allows us to keep Davis. Who else has 1 year left? Not sure why that would be the case, unless we have been told a lot of shite by all involved tbh. I thought that we had money to spend and there was no pressure to sell anyone, from a wages or fee point of view. We should be well under with the wage budget as well. Someone's telling us porkies, but I think we all suspected that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
26th of foot 5,827 Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 I am bereft. We are two months from our first CL match and we are selling Thomson on the cheap! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 I think with the size of the squad, we have an overload in central areas, Davis, Edu, McCulloch, youngsters who have to get a chance, Ness and Shinnie, perhaps Stirling. I don't know where Naismith and Fleck are going to play. I liked Thomson, but he wasn't available for selection often enough, injuries, suspensions, perhaps with 1 year remaining it is for the best. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wabashcannonball 0 Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Not sure why that would be the case, unless we have been told a lot of shite by all involved tbh. I thought that we had money to spend and there was no pressure to sell anyone, from a wages or fee point of view. We should be well under with the wage budget as well. Someone's telling us porkies, but I think we all suspected that. If someone is being economical with the actality, is it, AJ, Bain or Wattie.....or all three. Smith must have known what his "new" contract entailed and provided, if not why take it, and where does that leave Ally and the other backroom staff, in the dark ? But there again perhaps Wattie wanted to get rid of Thomson, not exactly the most injury free player, and we have enough of them on the books. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,146 Posted July 13, 2010 Author Share Posted July 13, 2010 It is clear to me Smith is happy enough with Thomson being allowed to move on. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.