nevthelodgemoorowl Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 OK then Rob so tell your wife Boro have bought Rhodes and you have mortgaged the house to tune of £70K and you stand to gain a return of £280K in May, see how much sympathy she has for your 'Banker Bet'. All I'm saying is there are gambles and gambles. I mean Rhodes got Rovers in the Prem no problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athelwulf Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 In my view, if we don't go up it won't be because we're not scoring enough, it will be because of our defensive record. Let's not forget that Boro's biggest asset is their defence. I'd sign a top defensive midfielder, a latterday David Batty, and a top centre half to partner Lees. We have Hutch, true, but we can't rely on his fitness, so he's a luxury. At times we look in trouble when we don't have the ball, and we need someone who can sit in front of the back four and win the ball. Batty was the best of his generation at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelcityowlsfan Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 I don't think Rhodes was ever a realistic target for us but it does pain me to see him go to Middle of nowhere Borough. They don't even get parachute payments. Massive gamble but one I think will pay off for them. Pay being the operative word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelcityowlsfan Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Proschwitz, Hyam, McGeady, bunch o crap, I trust Carlos that we're not interested in any of those As for Rhodes, as others have said, we have Hooper, and anyway, we can't compete with the likes of Boro or Derby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shandypants Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 (edited) Not glad we haven't signed him Just glad we haven't spent that amount of money on one player ... That's how I feel about it. Also, when we got Hooper fit and he started to score (because he was used to how we play) then I wanted Hooper before Rhodes - not because of price or perceived ability but purely the fact that we absolutely knew that he wasn't a gamble as he could score the goals. All I ever wanted was a goalscorer and Rhodes fitted the bill but we have a goalscorer now and I'm bloody ecstatic about it. Edited January 30, 2016 by shandypants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelcityowlsfan Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 anyway, we can't compete with the likes of Boro or Derby I know we fell on hard times for way too long and mercifully we seem to be on the way back but still lines like this make my s**t itch. flipping Boro and Dorby. Hope we smash them in the play offs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Adam Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 At the end of the day as long as whoever we sign can play as a part of a team and has an element of skill, it doesn't matter how much he costs. Sure Rhodes can do a job, but so can Hooper, Forestieri and those we've extended the contracts of. As long as we play as a team and keep the ethic, effort and atmosphere as it has been, we can progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athelwulf Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 I think that there was a time when we were interested in Rhodes, but Blackburn's asking price scared us off. We struggled to meet the wage demands of Hooper, a £3.5 million striker, without breaking our wage structure. So how on earth could we have paid the wages of a striker of Rhodes' value? I've no doubt that Chansiri could afford to buy Rhodes and pay his wages, and 10 like him, but that's not the issue. We'd be breaking FFP and our wage structure to boot. Rhodes would have been earning far, far more than anyone else at the club, and that causes dissent unless you're going to give the whole squad a pay rise. Breaking the wage structure and flouting FFP is exactly what bonny Boro are doing, and it remains to be seen whether it works or not. We won't sign anyone costing more than £4 million, tops. If it's anyone valued at more than that then forget it, because the wages of a player costing more than that would break our wage structure. So we can rule out Judge and McCormack too. The good news is that in the areas where we need to strengthen, namely the defence and defensive midfield areas, players are much cheaper. Buy a top-class defensive midfielder and a top-class centre half to partner Lees and we're in business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAL Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 One player FFS can never be guaranteed to make a difference. One tackle, Studs catch in turf, season over. In Boro s case that equates to the revenue of 22 games on one player. Financial planning of the lowest order ! It's even worse really because that doesn't include his wages. Go tell them that down at the dark side Nev. They got Millions because of one player . I put something like that for my first ever post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camffiti Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 at the people pretending to themselves that they're glad we didn't sign Jordan Rhodes Many a jilted bride on OT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevtheowl Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 To be fair I always thought we would get Rhodes, but as soon as we signed Hooper it was never going to happen. I think Hooper is the better player anyway. UTO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morepork Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 (edited) anyway, we can't compete with the likes of Boro or Derby I know we fell on hard times for way too long and mercifully we seem to be on the way back but still lines like this make my s**t itch. flipping Boro and Dorby. Hope we smash them in the play offs. Don't feel bad steelcityowlsfan!! I prefer to think of it more like this - I'm pretty sure we could compete with those clubs financially, it's just that we aren't prepared to. I much prefer our sensible model, when I look at the quality of some of our signings vs. the reported fee's it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside!! That said, I do think, if we absolutely, desperately, really, really wanted a specific player we'd go and get him, in the meantime I'm just really happy with our sharp and shrewd approach. Edited January 30, 2016 by Jason Howe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morepork Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 To be fair I always thought we would get Rhodes, but as soon as we signed Hooper it was never going to happen. I think Hooper is the better player anyway. UTO I agree, certainly better for us. Once we'd established that Hooper was a good fit for us and he signed, any potential Rhodes deal other than a bargain one was out of the question. If the Hooper loan had failed and we were still looking at this point, who knows what could have been..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Night-Owl Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 (edited) I still maintain if we go all out on one player it should be Judge. Because of what he would bring to the team. Our midfield would be full of goals and creativity. He'd fit in here with what we've got and add more assists and goals to the team and give us more options in terms of formation. I don't see it happening but I would love it if we did get him. That said I still would like us to bring in a defensive midfielder and maybe a centre back too. I would expect a couple of new faces on transfer deadline day. They could be new loanees. We've been shrewd so far and brought in plenty of bargains if that continues then there'll be no complaints from me because our squad looks like it could hold onto a play-off place. Keeping what we've got and getting players back from injury is as good as bringing in a few signings in a way and in some ways is more key for our chances. Edited January 30, 2016 by MilansMissingMarbles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 (edited) IMO we were never in the market for Rhodes or McCormack at this point. We've had to spend a fair amount of money over the past 12 months to get to where we are now and in all fairness I think we've spent it well. I'd like us to bring in another winger but I'd doubt we'd go for Judge at the prices quoted. If we were a further year into the project then I think we may have had a go but any more significant spending this year and I think we'd be very close to or over FFP limits? Edited January 30, 2016 by Great Big Galaa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scram Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Many a jilted bride on OT The Owlstalk Shift... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djorkaeff Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 I like the business we've done. We're in the mix. I suspect once you get to boros position you can take a gamble as effectively their spending prem money. But we play exciting football. We're moving forward, it's positive and we will finish at the top end. We fear no one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigger Guns Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Lee and Bannan need to play every game but with Bannan in his left-sided midfiled position IMO (although I acknowledge the argument that they'll get tired). Playing Lee in his normal position takes us 15 yards further up the pitch. Playing Bannan left-side midfield frees him to dictate play everywhere on the pitch as he effectively has a free role when we are in possession, and let's face it, he has the energy and anticipation to get back into a left-sided defensive position when we are defending. I don't understand some fan's fascination with playing Bannan as the midfield anchor because playing that role limits his game - if he's stays in the anchor position he can only affect the play in that part of the pitch and if he advances forward out of that position the he leaves the defence exposed. Hutch is the much better midfield anchor as he has greater positional discipline for that role and is more defensive and physical than Bannan - Hutch is the natural choice. So if I was the manager, every match day team would definitely have Westwood goalie, Pudil left-back, Lees at right-side centre-half, Hutch as the midfield anchor, Lee in central midfield, Bannan left-side midfield, Forestieri in the midfield/attack "hole" and Hooper up front. I would then pick the left-sided centre-half, right-back and right-sided midfield from the rest of the squad. P.S. I hope you appreciate the use of the term "goalie". I haven't heard it used for ages. I have to disagree with your comments about Bannan. He was good on the left putting MOM performances in every week but when he moved central I thought he was on another level. It's cents only a dilemma because then you struggle to for both hutch and lee in without tinkering with the shape Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigger Guns Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 We might think that, but we are probably overachieving, and everything we do, seems to be about next season Change the record we are where we are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurujuan Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Ince likely to join Fulham on loan for the rest of the season 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