Dr Gloom 20087 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 (edited) i didn't think even fat fred could be this clueless. the bold bits are astonishing tbh. i wonder what leazesmag makes of it all. January's transfer window closed with Glenn Roeder failing in his twin objectives of borrowing a striker and discarding Albert Luque. The latter part of the bargain had seemed sorted, with both player and PSV Eindhoven apparently in agreement over a loan deal taking to Spaniard to the Netherlands for the rest of the season. However, our failure to acquire suitable striking cover then saw Newcastle pull the plug on the Luque deal. With St.Etienne forward Frédéric Piquionne preferring to join Monaco on loan and United dismissing various other offers of strikers from agents, we inexplicably opted to hang on to Luque. Interestingly though, the Dutch released a statement expressing their disappointment with the move falling through but chose to pinpoint the blame of on our "obstructive" chairman. That'll be the same chairman who never, ever, ever interferes with transfers. PS - informed speculation has it that former Magpie Andy Cole was one of those players offered to us and rejected. Edited February 1, 2007 by Fancy Dan lecturer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Cole would have been better than what we have. And if Martins gets injured it's Dyer and Sibierski upfront. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 35322 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Probably Roeder that turned down Cole tbh. He's probably the "wrong side of 30" to provide adequate risk-free back-up for 4 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 informed speculation From nufc.com? Lies tbh. Hasn't Roeder made it pretty clear that Luque's (inexplicably) going fuck all anywhere unless we have other options up front? Before we go pinning this one on Shepherd... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invicta_Toon 0 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 wasn't there widespread opinion a while back that no wanted Cole? Roeder's been slagged fol loan signings already, why would this be any different? People would only be outraged that we loaned Luque oput for no long term replacement. And surely Luque didn't move because we weren't going to pay 2/3 of his wages while at PSV. Is that really being obstructive? At least this way we can use him if we want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18010 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 (edited) Another website deleted from LeazeMag's favourites. Edited February 1, 2007 by Renton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 35322 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 wasn't there widespread opinion a while back that no wanted Cole? Roeder's been slagged fol loan signings already, why would this be any different? People would only be outraged that we loaned Luque oput for no long term replacement. And surely Luque didn't move because we weren't going to pay 2/3 of his wages while at PSV. Is that really being obstructive? At least this way we can use him if we want to. Captain Contrary.......to the rescue! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 He's just a troll, then? What's the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufc4ever 0 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 wasn't there widespread opinion a while back that no wanted Cole? Roeder's been slagged fol loan signings already, why would this be any different? People would only be outraged that we loaned Luque oput for no long term replacement. And surely Luque didn't move because we weren't going to pay 2/3 of his wages while at PSV. Is that really being obstructive? At least this way we can use him if we want to. Captain Contrary.......to the rescue! See what I mean? WUM tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 20087 Posted February 1, 2007 Author Share Posted February 1, 2007 i reckon cole would have been an ideal stopgap signing, and a perfect foil for martins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 20087 Posted February 1, 2007 Author Share Posted February 1, 2007 wasn't there widespread opinion a while back that no wanted Cole? Roeder's been slagged fol loan signings already, why would this be any different? People would only be outraged that we loaned Luque oput for no long term replacement. And surely Luque didn't move because we weren't going to pay 2/3 of his wages while at PSV. Is that really being obstructive? At least this way we can use him if we want to. Captain Contrary.......to the rescue! every board needs a troll. this one esepcially since we seem to have lost leazesmag. i've got to say though that leazesmag's rants were slightly more entertaining, if slightly scary at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM4 0 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Trolls are meant to be kind of funny though, this one is just a pretentious know it all tosser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invicta_Toon 0 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 wasn't there widespread opinion a while back that no wanted Cole? Roeder's been slagged fol loan signings already, why would this be any different? People would only be outraged that we loaned Luque oput for no long term replacement. And surely Luque didn't move because we weren't going to pay 2/3 of his wages while at PSV. Is that really being obstructive? At least this way we can use him if we want to. Captain Contrary.......to the rescue! See what I mean? WUM tbh. I stand by the post. Why can't I have that opinion FFS? Am I supposed to agree with the post just because it came from NUFC.com? Was there support for a Cole transfer? Has Roeder been slagged for loans? Were Luques wages the sticking point? all valid points all relevant to the post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 35322 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 .....to the Contrary Cave! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 8927 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 And surely Luque didn't move because we weren't going to pay 2/3 of his wages while at PSV. Is that really being obstructive? At least this way we can use him if we want to. Except that we don't want to, he is even behind the likes of Troisi, Carroll and LuaLua in the pecking order... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandman02uk 0 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Was there support for a Cole transfer? Who knows? Has Roeder been slagged for loans? From someone that matters? or mongs like us on a forum Were Luques wages the sticking point? Initially but as PSV have indicated, it was agreed, so no the answer was, they wern't all valid points all relevant to the post no, but thanks for playing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM4 0 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 And surely Luque didn't move because we weren't going to pay 2/3 of his wages while at PSV. Is that really being obstructive? At least this way we can use him if we want to. Except that we don't want to, he is even behind the likes of Troisi, Carroll and LuaLua in the pecking order... Exactly, I still think Luque should be given a chance ideally, but that is NEVER going to happen now ... quite clearly! We should be looking to offload him asap. Not messing around with him even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 And surely Luque didn't move because we weren't going to pay 2/3 of his wages while at PSV. Is that really being obstructive? At least this way we can use him if we want to. Except that we don't want to, he is even behind the likes of Troisi, Carroll and LuaLua in the pecking order... Aye, the bench v. Brum confirmed his place (rightly or wrongly) in the pecking order. I don't even class Luque as cover any more. Because neither does Roeder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sima 0 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 (edited) Andy Cole, Andy Cole, Andy Andy Cole When he gets the ball, he scores a goal Andy Andy Cole I'd have fucking loved to have sang that again tbh, although it might not have been relevant so much now Edited February 1, 2007 by Sima Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 8927 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 And surely Luque didn't move because we weren't going to pay 2/3 of his wages while at PSV. Is that really being obstructive? At least this way we can use him if we want to. Except that we don't want to, he is even behind the likes of Troisi, Carroll and LuaLua in the pecking order... Aye, the bench v. Brum confirmed his place (rightly or wrongly) in the pecking order. I don't even class Luque as cover any more. Because neither does Roeder. Well, he said that he is going to use him in Europe. This shows two things: A) that Roeder doesn't think Luque is capable of doing things in English football, our focus in the UEFA-Cup, our last chance to win something this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 20087 Posted February 1, 2007 Author Share Posted February 1, 2007 Andy Cole, Andy Cole, Andy Andy Cole When he gets the ball, he scores a goal Andy Andy Cole I'd have fucking loved to have sang that again tbh, although it might not have been relevant so much now if we had got him, i would have put money on him bagging more goals than sib, dyer and shola Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinofbeans 87 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 (edited) what was the reason apart from getting £7m for him, for him leaving last time. i heard he was booted out of arsenal and fulham for being a thief. but can't substantiate. Edited February 1, 2007 by canofbeans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus 0 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Signing cole would be a huge mistake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 20087 Posted February 1, 2007 Author Share Posted February 1, 2007 Signing cole would be a huge mistake i don't agree. sticking with martins, dyer and sibierski as our only fit "recognised" strikers and not signing a stopgap like cole for six months is a mistake. lord have mercy if martins picks up a serious injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufc4ever 0 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 (edited) Cole has still got that instinct to score goals IMO, however depressing his signing would be. Edited February 1, 2007 by nufc4ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now