Jordan Rhodes, on loan

[oldishowl]

I am not anti Rhodes from a player perspective, think he would do a good job for us. There is always the concern of course that he does an "Abdi" , who knows whether he would "integrate into the team" On past evidence of recent signings there is probably a less than 50% chance.

 

But we cannot compete with a club who have parachute payments and a rich , spend as much as you want , Chairman.

 

The article says Villa would buy him , we can't compete with that.

Edited December 11, 2016 by oldishowl

[WhiteOwl91]

1 hour ago, bigthinrob said:

 

Why does it always have to be a straight argument between the merits of the two.

I said in another post it doesn't have to be an 'either or' situation.

Ambitious clubs always look to strengthen, regardless of who the current incumbent is in any position.

Man City had a perfectly good player in the position they bought De Bruyne for.

Arsenal had a perfectly good player in the position they bought Sanchez for.

Newcastle & Villa had numerous options already in every position but still strengthened, as did Brighton with Glenn Murray.

If we sign Rhodes, which in my opinion we desperately need to do, regardless of who plays where & when, it would undoubtedly strengthen the squad.

If people want to argue the merits of their particular 'favourite' at the expense of improving the squad then fine.

If Rhodes is the better player it will quickly become apparent and in a two horse race he will prevail.

If Hooper is and always has been the 'answer' and he puts Rhodes in the shade, then again, in a two horse race he will prevail.  

Either way, it is more competition for places which can only be beneficial, regardless of the hysterical bleatings on here that every new signing has to automatically be selected (a la Abdi & others). Was Abdi a bad signing, or did signing Abdi make the present incumbent of the position, Kieron Lee just go that extra mile to ensure he retained the position. Either way, it is a win win situation. As it is with signing Rhodes. 

Bring it on.

 

 

  

So most of those sides are in the Prem with no issues on FFP or have parachute payments

 

Brighton only had baldock and Hemed,  they lost James Wilson from last season so got Murray to replace him

 

We already have FF Hooper and Fletch (and Joao and Nuhiu/Hirst) And Murray is far cheaper than Rhodes!

[KernowOwl]

As much as I would love to see JR at SWFC but the man hasn't played any real football for some time. I'll be worried about match fitness. 

[bigthinrob]

6 minutes ago, WhiteOwl91 said:

So most of those sides are in the Prem with no issues on FFP or have parachute payments

 

Brighton only had baldock and Hemed,  they lost James Wilson from last season so got Murray to replace him

 

We already have FF Hooper and Fletch (and Joao and Nuhiu/Hirst) And Murray is far cheaper than Rhodes!

Maybe let people who have expertise to deal with the question of FFP actually address the issue. DC has referred to it on numerous occasions, so one would assume if we are still after Rhodes he has taken FFP into account. (or maybe he has made his fortune blundering blindly from one shambles to another). 

I'm sure though, he is extremely grateful for the combined input of all the proven financial messiahs on here, giving him the benefit of their undoubted acumen.

 

I also find it quite telling that you mention FF as one of our strikers to prove your point but pointedly ignore Knockeart as one of Brighton's.

 

I'm not totally sure what point you are making. I assume that you are saying we don't need to strengthen in the striking department. I would argue that results and goal difference don't bear this out. 

No doubt the old red herring of 'chances created' will be used. 

This has also been rubbished by yesterdays stats. 18 shots 3 on target and the very interesting stats uncovered by an earlier poster where all the teams 'chances to goals' stats are laid bare and ours are among the worst.

[WC1Owl]

13 hours ago, owlZfan84 said:

 

Spin it any way you want - any half decent finisher would have buried that.

 

 

 

All ive seen at this point is a little loop that I didn't think looked like a sitter (edge of the box,  defender and keeper to beat), but we may not be talking about the same chance. 

[WhiteOwl91]

1 minute ago, bigthinrob said:

Maybe let people who have expertise to deal with the question of FFP actually address the issue. DC has referred to it on numerous occasions, so one would assume if we are still after Rhodes he has taken FFP into account. (or maybe he has made his fortune blundering blindly from one shambles to another). 

I'm sure though, he is extremely grateful for the combined input of all the proven financial messiahs on here, giving him the benefit of their undoubted acumen.

 

I also find it quite telling that you mention FF as one of our strikers to prove your point but pointedly ignore Knockeart as one of Brighton's.

 

I'm not totally sure what point you are making. I assume that you are saying we don't need to strengthen in the striking department. I would argue that results and goal difference don't bear this out. 

No doubt the old red herring of 'chances created' will be used. 

This has also been rubbished by yesterdays stats. 18 shots 3 on target and the very interesting stats uncovered by an earlier poster where all the teams 'chances to goals' stats are laid bare and ours are among the worst.

I'm not doubting our owners financial acumen. That's a complete distortion of what I've said. What is known is that we're close enough to the limit to have to be clever in what we do. I'm merely stating having two of JR FF GH SF on the bench isn't best use of large wages. 

 

Weve missed far far too many chances, I'm not arguing that point. My point is I back the players who did the business last year to come good (plus Fletcher). They need to sort it out. 

 

FF is frequently played as a striker. Knockaert doesnt. Baldock and Murray are Brighton's strikers. Knockaert is a winger. I thought that was obvious? 

 

 

[modboy]

6 minutes ago, WC1Owl said:

 

All ive seen at this point is a little loop that I didn't think looked like a sitter (edge of the box,  defender and keeper to beat), but we may not be talking about the same chance. 

 

 

No excuses for not hitting the target 

[WC1Owl]

Just now, modboy said:

 

 

No excuses for not hitting the target 

 

That's a platitude, not a judgment. 

[BBob]

People with a lot lot more responsibility than us get to make the decision who plays. Whether that be Rhodes OR Hooper, both or mine at all.

 

I'm happy for us to have those options and let the manager earn his money and use his experience.

 

Give me a headache like that at work any day of the week.

[ChinaOwl]

4 minutes ago, WhiteOwl91 said:

I'm not doubting our owners financial acumen. That's a complete distortion of what I've said. What is known is that we're close enough to the limit to have to be clever in what we do. I'm merely stating having two of JR FF GH SF on the bench isn't best use of large wages. 

 

Weve missed far far too many chances, I'm not arguing that point. My point is I back the players who did the business last year to come good (plus Fletcher). They need to sort it out. 

 

FF is frequently played as a striker. Knockaert doesnt. Baldock and Murray are Brighton's strikers. Knockaert is a winger. I thought that was obvious? 

 

 

 

How do we know that?

 

It is just a clever line spun by the main financial bod at the club that changes according to the prevailing circumstances. When he first arrived, the line was ffp was not a worry. When justifying price hikes, suddenly we are on the edge. Truth is we haven't got a clue as supporters.

[bigthinrob]

3 minutes ago, WhiteOwl91 said:

I'm not doubting our owners financial acumen. That's a complete distortion of what I've said. What is known is that we're close enough to the limit to have to be clever in what we do. I'm merely stating having two of JR FF GH SF on the bench isn't best use of large wages. 

 

Weve missed far far too many chances, I'm not arguing that point. My point is I back the players who did the business last year to come good (plus Fletcher). They need to sort it out. 

 

FF is frequently played as a striker. Knockaert doesnt. Baldock and Murray are Brighton's strikers. Knockaert is a winger. I thought that was obvious? 

 

 

 

If a better striking option becomes available, we should go for him. That is how ambitious clubs work.

Our strikers last year weren't good enough and they're still not good enough and there still isn't enough strength in depth, hence yesterday.

As for nit picking about relative positions re FF & Knockeart. They are frequently compared as like for like on here so classing Knockeart as purely a winger and FF as a striker is a bit fatuous to be fair and again to be fair, not especially obvious in the context of this 'debate'.

 

[WhiteOwl91]

21 minutes ago, bigthinrob said:

 

If a better striking option becomes available, we should go for him. That is how ambitious clubs work.

Our strikers last year weren't good enough and they're still not good enough and there still isn't enough strength in depth, hence yesterday.

As for nit picking about relative positions re FF & Knockeart. They are frequently compared as like for like on here so classing Knockeart as purely a winger and FF as a striker is a bit fatuous to be fair and again to be fair, not especially obvious in the context of this 'debate'.

 

I quite frankly couldn't care what anyone else describes FF as. The fact that other members of owlstalk compare them together means nothing in relation to my view. The fact is he plays frequently as a striker and Knockaert doesn't. This is why Forestieri (in my opinion) should be rightly judged on goal contributions than Knockaert. 

 

If if you're point is Rhodes is better than Forestieri, Hooper and Fletcher, then fine. I disagree for a variety of reasons, but you're entitled to that point of view. 

[WhiteOwl91]

40 minutes ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

How do we know that?

 

It is just a clever line spun by the main financial bod at the club that changes according to the prevailing circumstances. When he first arrived, the line was ffp was not a worry. When justifying price hikes, suddenly we are on the edge. Truth is we haven't got a clue as supporters.

The fact we were making a loss as a club year on year anyway, then spent an awful lot more money on transfers and wages, tells you we're losing more money than before. The fact we couldn't compete with clubs for a few targets who went elsewhere also tells you this. 

 

Of course we don't know the full details, but we were making £4/5m annual losses when employing players like Rhys McCabe, now we have the likes of Fletcher on 5-10x that amount. Then the statements on why chansiri has his name on the seats to raise additional revenue. I'm not saying believe everything that comes out of the club, but this has foundation.

[SiJ]

Fair to say Rhodes would have tucked away that Joao chance yesterday. 

[IstillhateSteveBould]

5 minutes ago, SiJ said:

Fair to say Rhodes would have tucked away that Joao chance yesterday. 

 

And Hooper's at Fulham. Big chances at key moments.

[ChinaOwl]

6 minutes ago, WhiteOwl91 said:

The fact we were making a loss as a club year on year anyway, then spent an awful lot more money on transfers and wages, tells you we're losing more money than before. The fact we couldn't compete with clubs for a few targets who went elsewhere also tells you this. 

 

Of course we don't know the full details, but we were making £4/5m annual losses when employing players like Rhys McCabe, now we have the likes of Fletcher on 5-10x that amount. Then the statements on why chansiri has his name on the seats to raise additional revenue. I'm not saying believe everything that comes out of the club, but this has foundation.

 

The only thing I know about ffp is that it can be spun any which way suits an argument, has very flexible boundaries and can be interpreted in many different ways. I have long stopped putting much credence in it and just play things as they go. I doubt it would stop Chansiri paying another 30K, 40K or 50K per week for a player if it meant him realising a return on his investment.

[bigthinrob]

3 minutes ago, WhiteOwl91 said:

I quite frankly couldn't care what anyone else describes FF as. The fact that other members of owlstalk compare them together means nothing in relation to my view. The fact is he plays frequently as a striker and Knockaert doesn't. This is why Forestieri (in my opinion) should be rightly judged on goal contributions than Knockaert. 

 

If if you're point is Rhodes is better than Forestieri, Hooper and Fletcher, then fine. I disagree for a variety of reasons, but you're entitled to that point of view. 

Wow. Sorry Sir!!

I bow to your superior interpretation of his role.

As for Rhodes being better than the ones you refer to. I never said that and never intended to. I said that as an entity, our strike force was not good enough and still isn't and that Rhodes would be a welcome addition and massively strengthen our options which we drastically need.  

I made the point earlier that Rhodes shouldn't be seen as an 'either or' option in relation to other strikers, but as an 'addition' to.

This is how other clubs operate (not all of them with parachute payments by the way) and if we want to compete then we have to operate in the same way. 

It always baffles me, that having suffered through years of inactivity and mediocrity and non investment, people are advocating the very same approach.

Let the financial people at the club worry about the   errr   financial matters and let the butchers, bakers & candle stick makers on here worry about all the other important things like the catering and coming up with a new song for whichever player hasn't got a good ditty about him.

I just love the breathtaking arrogance that anyone on here (possibly with the odd exception) has the necessary information or knowledge to form an opinion or offer 'advice' on something as complex and 'smoke and mirrors' as FFP.

 

[WhiteOwl91]

3 minutes ago, bigthinrob said:

Wow. Sorry Sir!!

I bow to your superior interpretation of his role.

As for Rhodes being better than the ones you refer to. I never said that and never intended to. I said that as an entity, our strike force was not good enough and still isn't and that Rhodes would be a welcome addition and massively strengthen our options which we drastically need.  

I made the point earlier that Rhodes shouldn't be seen as an 'either or' option in relation to other strikers, but as an 'addition' to.

This is how other clubs operate (not all of them with parachute payments by the way) and if we want to compete then we have to operate in the same way. 

It always baffles me, that having suffered through years of inactivity and mediocrity and non investment, people are advocating the very same approach.

Let the financial people at the club worry about the   errr   financial matters and let the butchers, bakers & candle stick makers on here worry about all the other important things like the catering and coming up with a new song for whichever player hasn't got a good ditty about him.

I just love the breathtaking arrogance that anyone on here (possibly with the odd exception) has the necessary information or knowledge to form an opinion or offer 'advice' on something as complex and 'smoke and mirrors' as FFP.

 

It's  nothing to do with superior knowledge. You're giving your opinion, I'm giving mine. 

 

You say leave any discussion of things like FFP to the experts, yet in the same post indicate how you think the clubs transfer recruitment strategy should operate and who we should sign. 

 

Both finances and recruitment require much more qualified people than you or I to make the decisions, but that doesn't mean people can't use what little information is available to them and formulate their own opinions. 

 

[sonofbert2]

Jordan Rhodes will get us up.

[bigthinrob]

3 minutes ago, sonofbert2 said:

Jordan Rhodes will get us up.

Would certainly have the Viagra effect on me!