Joao, FF and Rhodes Bruce wants rid

[tarn owl]

I mean to be fair to HITC, who are normally rubbish, they are just reporting on a sun article so maybe it is...................a complete guess.

[prowl]

1 hour ago, pazowl55 said:

Next would have been Westwood.

 

We could sign another keeper and he could be as good as Westwood.  There are probably 8-10 decent keepers in the league at this level. So although I am glad he has stayed I would have been confident Bruce would have replaced him.

 

Bannan is the one that makes us tick so its important we keep him and Reach is our most valuable asset. Only player I believe we got who could realistically be worth upwards of 20m in the next few years. so you dont want to be selling him unless you have to.

I agree bannan is the one that makes us tick but if he doesn't turn up or is marked out of the game we don't have a plan B. If he's on the pitch everything goes through him, not his fault obviously but we become one dimensional.

 

I've been surprised how well we played on the occasions when he wasn't playing, others took responsibility and we seemed to be more fluid.

 

I'd sacrifice him if it meant we had a midfield that was balanced and we had more players who can control a game. I don't think that will happen as it looks to me like Bruce is going to build the team around the little guy.

 

I've nothing against BB, on his day he makes us unstoppable, my arguement is that it is possible to shut him down and we don't know what to do when that happens

[adelphi1867]

14 hours ago, SiJ said:

Not sure I'd go quite that far. 

 

Rhodes has been an unmitigated disaster. 

 

The other two have had more than their fair share of moments, albeit they often frustrate in equal measure. 

None of them have been value for the money we paid for them.

FF has had one good season, albeit due to injury, Joao is a one game in six player and Rhodes just did not fit in.

[gurujuan]

2 minutes ago, adelphi1867 said:

None of them have been value for the money we paid for them.

FF has had one good season, albeit due to injury, Joao is a one game in six player and Rhodes just did not fit in.

So for example, if Forestieri wasn’t good value for the £3m we paid for him, what is his value now? What should we ask for him?

[pazowl55]

27 minutes ago, prowl said:

I agree bannan is the one that makes us tick but if he doesn't turn up or is marked out of the game we don't have a plan B. If he's on the pitch everything goes through him, not his fault obviously but we become one dimensional.

 

I've been surprised how well we played on the occasions when he wasn't playing, others took responsibility and we seemed to be more fluid.

 

I'd sacrifice him if it meant we had a midfield that was balanced and we had more players who can control a game. I don't think that will happen as it looks to me like Bruce is going to build the team around the little guy.

 

I've nothing against BB, on his day he makes us unstoppable, my arguement is that it is possible to shut him down and we don't know what to do when that happens

It's all about getting him further up the pitch and giving him decent options to pass to. I swear sometimes some of our players think he is messi and he is going to dance round players and put it in the bottom corner. They need to make the runs for him.

[pazowl55]

8 minutes ago, adelphi1867 said:

None of them have been value for the money we paid for them.

FF has had one good season, albeit due to injury, Joao is a one game in six player and Rhodes just did not fit in.

 

3 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

So for example, if Forestieri wasn’t good value for the £3m we paid for him, what is his value now? What should we ask for him?

3m for Forestieri always has been and still is a bargain.

[Spookone]

1 hour ago, prowl said:

I agree bannan is the one that makes us tick but if he doesn't turn up or is marked out of the game we don't have a plan B. If he's on the pitch everything goes through him, not his fault obviously but we become one dimensional.

 

I've been surprised how well we played on the occasions when he wasn't playing, others took responsibility and we seemed to be more fluid.

 

I'd sacrifice him if it meant we had a midfield that was balanced and we had more players who can control a game. I don't think that will happen as it looks to me like Bruce is going to build the team around the little guy.

 

I've nothing against BB, on his day he makes us unstoppable, my arguement is that it is possible to shut him down and we don't know what to do when that happens

 

Or develop a plan B? Personally I think we would regret losing BB.

[oldishowl]

Joao and FF have had 4 years to make themselves irreplaceable in our team and they haven’t. We still talk about them in terms of if’s and buts when they at an age where they should be consistent, regular top players. How long is the manager expected to wait for the consistent performances?

 

We rely on Bannan because we play through him. Same as other teams rely on their central midfielders to make them tick.

At the same time because of his weaknesses we argue about his best position and whether he can play in a 2. 

 

Nobody is irreplaceable.

[Ever the pessimist]

Bruce is a big Bannan fan and would be loathe to lose him. 

 

If we can get anything for Rhodes then we should cut our losses and sell - controversially I would probably prefer to keep Joao than FF. 

[vulture_squadron]

To be fair to HITC, not all their stuff is guff, Pete O'Rourke writes for them regularly and has a good record on transfers. 

[RichieB]

2 hours ago, fudge27 said:

Seen reports that Bruce wants to play Joao in goal? 

 

[Ante's Bubbly]

5 hours ago, tarn owl said:

I mean to be fair to HITC, who are normally rubbish, they are just reporting on a sun article so maybe it is...................a complete guess.

Yes the same Sun newspaper that the self proclaimed god of football news works for!

 

Somebody ask wonder Nixon whether SWFC are trying to sell these three for reduced prices, because if Bruce has asked the hierarchy to lower their price demands for these three players, I am pretty sure that Bruce would have kept it quiet and so would the SWFC hierarchy. This is just more fluff to fill space, as Mycroft stated earlier in this thread.

 

Also, if Rhodes really was wanted by Norwich, Bruce would have known, the hierarchy would have known and a very short conversation would have determined whether Norwich got their man or not. 

"Steve, will JR fit into our new team's style of play next season or should we sell him to Norwich?"

 "Yes, he will fit in fine, let's keep him", is one possible answer.

"No, he will not fit in with our new style of play, let Norwich have him", would be another possible reply, but whichever way SB replied, JR would not be on a list of players being knocked down by the hierarchy in the summer sales.

 

Plus, if we want to get try and get as much of the original transfer money back as possible, on a player we spent over the odds for (when he was not scoring and was on massive wages), Then why are we wanting more than we spent for Nando who has been less than amazing the last two seasons, if we want to sell him?

 

I can imagine Bruce saying he is not too bothered about Joao and/or JR, but FF seemed to be a player that Steve Bruce rates very highly and I thought that Nando was showing a few signs under Bruce of getting back to being something like the player he was when he first came.

 

Let's see, because personally I would not be too upset if we got rid of all our strikers for two or three quality players and by quality I do not mean famous well known players, I mean players with the ability to score 20 goals a season, preferably unknown or not yet at their full potential.

 

UTO!™ 

[cookeh]

At the moment i'm believing nothing that's in the press.
They're talking about us buying a 15m left back and spending 10m on hugill.. if that's the level of reality that surrounds the story about bruce wanting rid of these three players, then i dont see any point even discussing the story.

[adelphi1867]

9 hours ago, gurujuan said:

So for example, if Forestieri wasn’t good value for the £3m we paid for him, what is his value now? What should we ask for him?

£3m.

[Yellowbelly]

8 hours ago, oldishowl said:

Joao and FF have had 4 years to make themselves irreplaceable in our team and they haven’t. We still talk about them in terms of if’s and buts when they at an age where they should be consistent, regular top players. How long is the manager expected to wait for the consistent performances?

 

You would have to question how they’ve been managed & coached though. I think it’s now pretty well known that fitness training wasn’t really a thing under CC, causing FFs potted injury record.In addition you also get the feeling that there was very little actual coaching & improving players under either of our last two managers - they seemed very tactics orientated. I’m hoping we could see a different João under Bruce’s back room team.

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

1 hour ago, 2roland2 said:

Sorry mood hoover, it was a tongue in cheek comment....... geez here comes fun

 

Erm, I think he was joking.

 

Unless you're joking too, in which case, I'm clearly joking.

[oldishowl]

28 minutes ago, Yellowbelly said:

You would have to question how they’ve been managed & coached though. I think it’s now pretty well known that fitness training wasn’t really a thing under CC, causing FFs potted injury record.In addition you also get the feeling that there was very little actual coaching & improving players under either of our last two managers - they seemed very tactics orientated. I’m hoping we could see a different João under Bruce’s back room team.

 

you might be right,

but if the rumour is true then Bruce and team have seen enough since January to decide they would rather get rid

[bobness]

4 hours ago, 2roland2 said:

 

Sorry mood hoover, it was a tongue in cheek comment....... geez here comes fun

 

I was actually just stating the rules...

[gurujuan]

2 hours ago, oldishowl said:

 

you might be right,

but if the rumour is true then Bruce and team have seen enough since January to decide they would rather get rid

Is it any better now though, it didn’t take long for 2 out of the 3 Bruce signings, to end up on the treatment table They had nothing to do with the previous regimes

[Sham67]

9 hours ago, gurujuan said:

Is it any better now though, it didn’t take long for 2 out of the 3 Bruce signings, to end up on the treatment table They had nothing to do with the previous regimes

 

Signed in a rush due to the timing of Bruce starting and window closing?  Can't imagine there would have been much to chose from.