Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

Dolman_Stand

Han-Noah Massengo - SIGNED - 4 Year Deal

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Xiled said:

There are various angles here and we won't know what we're dealing with until Massengo has had time to settle and we know his impact at Championship level.

Looking at the whole situation objectively, if you are a talented 18 year old then this could be a calculated gamble to get the higher prize (Premier League, Ligue 1, Champions League or international football)

The traditional path is to sign for a big club, play in their U21s or U23s and wait for a loan. Then impress at the loan club (for a season) and hope that the parent club feels you've done enough to take you into their first team squad. Typically this doesn't happen so a second and third loan are a possibility.

In our scenario, if Massengo stands out then he can expect that big club to take him into the first team squad from next summer with a £20M+ transfer. We now have a proven track record with Webster and Kelly although Brighton and Bournemouth might not be this 18 year old's dream move.

The other positive from the player's situation is that he knows exactly where he will be playing and has complete control over the club he joins. Loan players do not have this luxury.

If I was advising Massengo, this path makes a lot more sense if he has the talent to back up his price tag. From a parent's point of view, I would rather my 18 year old son was part of a club and its setup than a transient loanee. I hope we can repay that faith by supporting this lad's development.

He was with a big club (ok crap gates I know but)

I think he has his future mapped out and that big club you refer to is already identified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

I stated similar seasons ago. 

One of my observations is also defensive. I like yourself think defending is collective and starts from the front. City also have changed their game defensively to accommodate a player with little pressing ability. On Sunday we could see a payer ambling around showing a lack of desire to get compact.

Far far better players than Famara are more selfless for the team. He limits the potential of the team tactically. There has been a better, more energetic, technical Bristol City waiting to happen for seasons without him. 

He really is holding us back...totally agree.

We see for eyes what's happening, so why does LJ play him?

Are stats showing something we don't see?

Famara made one shot off target all game on Sunday and made two touches in the box all game according to Wyscout stats.

The game breaks down pretty much every time the ball goes near him. If he wins a header it more often than not goes anywhere.

If a ball comes to him...he grapples with the defender. Holding on. He either goes to ground or the ball pings around off him, never fully in control, and eventually loses possession.

The negatives far outway the positives.

It's like watching an Octopus trying to fight it's way out of a paper bag when he's trying to win a ball.

And this has nothing to do with him being isolated.

Look at Bamford playing a similar role...totally different. He had Kalas all over him...did he play like Famara...no.

Famara makes it look like he's being manhandled more than any other player, and it simply isn't so.

Instead of backing into a player, he could learn a lot from Taylor. Who wins space easily so often.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Loon plage said:

He was with a big club (ok crap gates I know but)

I think he has his future mapped out and that big club you refer to is already identified.

Monaco are certainly bigger than us. But I'm sure I've read that's he is out of favour and not getting picked. He needs that shop window and the prize of a Premier League transfer is more likely than being bit part player for a team that finished near the bottom of Ligue 1 last season. As already said, I think it's a calculated gamble for greater visibility - no doubt Chelsea will be watching as I'm sure every Prem and Championship club will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Xiled said:

Monaco are certainly bigger than us. But I'm sure I've read that's he is out of favour and not getting picked. He needs that shop window and the prize of a Premier League transfer is more likely than being bit part player for a team that finished near the bottom of Ligue 1 last season. As already said, I think it's a calculated gamble for greater visibility - no doubt Chelsea will be watching as I'm sure every Prem and Championship club will be.

Hope we get the best out of him and he plays as soon as possible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, spudski said:

He really is holding us back...totally agree.

We see for eyes what's happening, so why does LJ play him?

Are stats showing something we don't see?

Famara made one shot off target all game on Sunday and made two touches in the box all game according to Wyscout stats.

The game breaks down pretty much every time the ball goes near him. If he wins a header it more often than not goes anywhere.

If a ball comes to him...he grapples with the defender. Holding on. He either goes to ground or the ball pings around off him, never fully in control, and eventually loses possession.

The negatives far outway the positives.

It's like watching an Octopus trying to fight it's way out of a paper bag when he's trying to win a ball.

And this has nothing to do with him being isolated.

Look at Bamford playing a similar role...totally different. He had Kalas all over him...did he play like Famara...no.

Famara makes it look like he's being manhandled more than any other player, and it simply isn't so.

Instead of backing into a player, he could learn a lot from Taylor. Who wins space easily so often.

It’s hard to get shots on target or touches in the box if you have the ball lumped up to you about 18ft in the air or you get no service whatsoever

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

It’s hard to get shots on target or touches in the box if you have the ball lumped up to you about 18ft in the air or you get no service whatsoever

Yet Taylor and Weimann could when Famara and Palmer went off.

  • Like 1
  • Aubergine 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, spudski said:

Yet Taylor and Weimann could when Famara and Palmer went off.

I think the support for Fam comes from a genuine will for him to succeed because he is a well liked trier (I agree with this). The harsh truth is that he is ponderous, only very occasionally has a good first touch, rarely offers by making a good run, such stasis leaving little option but to hit him where he presently resides. When he does go a roamin' it is so often desperately ill-judged to the extent that he is often out of the box when we need him in the box. We have an abundance of tools for 4-3-3 and that is really what we should work with for now - if we want to get goals - plural.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, spudski said:

Yet Taylor and Weimann could when Famara and Palmer went off.

Because we changed formation to two up front, which in turn meant our front man/men were no longer isolated, Jesus spud it’s not like you not to notice this

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Roger Red Hat said:

We stopped lumping it.

Because Taylor lost his man, made space and came for the ball.

On more than one occasion Moore gesteculated at Famara to come.

He had to go back to the goalkeeper and sideways.

Moore then went on two marauding runs forward when Famara didn't move. And was left with no option to pass to anyone else.

The reason players end up lumping it to Famara, is because other passes get blocked off to other players. Instead of losing possession in our own half or in a dangerous position, the lump the ball to him, in a hope he wins it, or if he doesn't it's in a less dangerous position.

Famaras movement to receive is poor. He sits high on the shoulder of the last player. Rarely moves off that player. Hence always being grappled.

Watch Weimann and Taylor's movement...Famara should be doing that as well.

He's one dimensional... doesn't fit our style and will hold us back.

If we play him and Palmer in the same set up, we'll do worse than last season imo.

He's stopping our progress big time.

Unfortunately it seems LJ and our coaching staff feel the need to play him.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Monkeh said:

Because we changed formation to two up front, which in turn meant our front man/men were no longer isolated, Jesus spud it’s not like you not to notice this

He isolates himself...read my above post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, spudski said:

Because Taylor lost his man, made space and came for the ball.

On more than one occasion Moore gesteculated at Famara to come.

He had to go back to the goalkeeper and sideways.

Moore then went on two marauding runs forward when Famara didn't move. And was left with no option to pass to anyone else.

The reason players end up lumping it to Famara, is because other passes get blocked off to other players. Instead of losing possession in our own half or in a dangerous position, the lump the ball to him, in a hope he wins it, or if he doesn't it's in a less dangerous position.

Famaras movement to receive is poor. He sits high on the shoulder of the last player. Rarely moves off that player. Hence always being grappled.

Watch Weimann and Taylor's movement...Famara should be doing that as well.

He's one dimensional... doesn't fit our style and will hold us back.

If we play him and Palmer in the same set up, we'll do worse than last season imo.

He's stopping our progress big time.

Unfortunately it seems LJ and our coaching staff feel the need to play him.

The need to play him is becaus ehe’s Been out top scorer for two seasons despite missing large parts of both those seasons 

Just now, spudski said:

He isolates himself...read my above post.

So he kicks the ball 60 yards too himself? ******* hell

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Monkeh said:

The need to play him is becaus ehe’s Been out top scorer for two seasons despite missing large parts of both those seasons 

So he kicks the ball 60 yards too himself? ******* hell

If he moved better we wouldn't need to lump it to him.

It's his lack of movement, that allows the opposition to block pathways to other players, hence being only left with an option to go backwards.

Even LJ has said of the amount of opportunities we create that aren't converted. Stats prove it...as do his movement, lack of and loss of possession.

We play him because LJ feels we lack a physicality without him.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, spudski said:

If he moved better we wouldn't need to lump it to him.

It's his lack of movement, that allows the opposition to block pathways to other players, hence being only left with an option to go backwards.

Even LJ has said of the amount of opportunities we create that aren't converted. Stats prove it...as do his movement, lack of and loss of possession.

We play him because LJ feels we lack a physicality without him.

We play him because he’s been our top scorer for 2 years and have lack of depth upfront,

also we lump 60 yard balls not due to lack of movement (watch him he makes plenty of runs)

we lump 60 yard balls to bypass the centre of midfield because that’s where we are weakest,

look at the assists coming out of our centre players between pack and brownhill we struggle to get into double figures 

Edited by Monkeh
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

We play him because he’s been our top scorer for 2 years and have lack of depth upfront

 

He was our top scorer last year  13 goals, 18th top scorer in the league. The previous year though it was Bobby Reid with 19 goals, 4th highest in the league.

 

 

edit also Famara has only 2 assists in each of those seasons - Bobby Reid got 7

Edited by Fiale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

We play him because he’s been our top scorer for 2 years and have lack of depth upfront,

also we lump 60 yard balls not due to lack of movement (watch him he makes plenty of runs)

we lump 60 yard balls to bypass the centre of midfield because that’s where we are weakest,

look at the assists coming out of our centre players between pack and brownhill we struggle to get into double figures 

We can agree to disagree.

I'm sure our back 4 think ' I know I won't pass to our Midfield because they are weak' 😂

I watch Famara...he runs into dead ends. Away from the ball...into a space occupied by the CBs or where the Keeper can recover the ball.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not saying Taylor is the answer but the sad thing is we will most likely see Taylor leave before Diedhiou.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, spudski said:

We can agree to disagree.

I'm sure our back 4 think ' I know I won't pass to our Midfield because they are weak' 😂

I watch Famara...he runs into dead ends. Away from the ball...into a space occupied by the CBs or where the Keeper can recover the ball.

 

Half his goals and assists were away from home last year. I simply would not start him at home, as I've said many, many times. To whip the crowd up at home we need to have plenty of movement and options up front (across the line) from the start. This is (in my opinion) why the atmosphere can be so utterly flat after the usual, initial 10 mins of huff and puff. Bring the big man on for the final 15/20.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spudski said:

He really is holding us back...totally agree.

We see for eyes what's happening, so why does LJ play him?

Are stats showing something we don't see?

Famara made one shot off target all game on Sunday and made two touches in the box all game according to Wyscout stats.

The game breaks down pretty much every time the ball goes near him. If he wins a header it more often than not goes anywhere.

If a ball comes to him...he grapples with the defender. Holding on. He either goes to ground or the ball pings around off him, never fully in control, and eventually loses possession.

The negatives far outway the positives.

It's like watching an Octopus trying to fight it's way out of a paper bag when he's trying to win a ball.

And this has nothing to do with him being isolated.

Look at Bamford playing a similar role...totally different. He had Kalas all over him...did he play like Famara...no.

Famara makes it look like he's being manhandled more than any other player, and it simply isn't so.

Instead of backing into a player, he could learn a lot from Taylor. Who wins space easily so often.

Yes Bamford .. Yes.

At this point in his career that learning is highly doubtful. 

Famaras goals to shots ratio was high. I made a case in 4 -1- 4 -1 last season when the transfer window was shut why playing him could lead to a progression in points. Then I wanted to see him moved on not because he is a bad player but because he does not fit BCFC, or what I think BCFC can be without him.

Not much of a defence of why does LJ play him in the long terms. I do not get it. 

 

 

 

Edited by Cowshed
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spudski said:

Because Taylor lost his man, made space and came for the ball.

On more than one occasion Moore gesteculated at Famara to come.

He had to go back to the goalkeeper and sideways.

Moore then went on two marauding runs forward when Famara didn't move. And was left with no option to pass to anyone else.

The reason players end up lumping it to Famara, is because other passes get blocked off to other players. Instead of losing possession in our own half or in a dangerous position, the lump the ball to him, in a hope he wins it, or if he doesn't it's in a less dangerous position.

Famaras movement to receive is poor. He sits high on the shoulder of the last player. Rarely moves off that player. Hence always being grappled.

Watch Weimann and Taylor's movement...Famara should be doing that as well.

He's one dimensional... doesn't fit our style and will hold us back.

If we play him and Palmer in the same set up, we'll do worse than last season imo.

He's stopping our progress big time.

Unfortunately it seems LJ and our coaching staff feel the need to play him.

I know exactly what you're saying, and if it was down to me I would happily play two smaller busy forwards. But I do think because so often Fam is isolated with little or no support, because of the way the team is set up, that players just end up lumping it. It's agricultural and thoroughly shite to watch. He and Bobby had a pretty good thing going I seem to remember.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Roger Red Hat said:

I know exactly what you're saying, and if it was down to me I would happily play two smaller busy forwards. But I do think because so often Fam is isolated with little or no support, because of the way the team is set up, that players just end up lumping it. It's agricultural and thoroughly shite to watch. He and Bobby had a pretty good thing going I seem to remember.

Weimann and Palmer - why not?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, spudski said:

That's just my preference mate...I don't rate Palmer's all round game. He obviously has talent offensively but his defensive attributes are poor and lazy imo.

Play him with Famara in the side, and you'll get the first half of the Leeds game more often than not.

For me...Palmer needs a whole season of learning how to defend and help the team. Saturday reminded me of when we played with Tomlin. Players sitting deep not trusting some of the defensive duties of others.

At the moment Palmer is an impact sub when looking to open a game imo.

My fear if we play Palmer and Famara in the same starting 11 is that we will struggle.

Good post

11 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'd drop Diedhiou and work out a front 3 from there.

Don't think Pack-Brownhill axis will work either, not vs a lot of good sides who play a bona fide 3. IF this Nketiah deal comes in.

Top of head time but buzzing around as a front 3 could be something like Nketiah-Weimann-Palmer- or maybe even Nketiah central, with Weimann and Eliasson as wide forwards- a lot of choice!

One thing I definitely agree on personally speaking is Palmer-Diedhiou doesn't work. Thought so with Paterson-Diedhiou last season- they're just too different types of player, they do not compliment each other well. Palmer-Weimann or Palmer-Nketiah however- or even Palmer-Weimann and Nketiah 4-3-1-2, I dunno but Diedhiou as the lone striker with one feeding him or in a 4-2-3-1 is lacking something to me- certainly as a starter.

And another

10 hours ago, spudski said:

For the life of me, I really can't work out how Famara fits into our system of Play.

We knock it around, play out from the back, trying to create openings, keeping possession, drawing players...this can go on for long periods of a game...only for it to eventually be pinged wide, and a hopeful ball crossed in for Famara to try and get something on it.

What's the point of all the build up play? May as well play like Warnock if we resort to that.

We play far better without a Famara type. Three offensive players buzzing around the 18 yard box feeding off our build up play. You only had to see the difference as an example on Saturday when Taylor, Weimann and Eliasson did just that.

Moving...working hard, pressing and coming for the ball.

At the moment, imo, we have a defence and midfield playing one game and the frontline playing another.

It really is easy to see. 

Worst thing we ever did was bring Famara in and change our game plan offensively so drastically imo.

And another

9 hours ago, spudski said:

He really is holding us back...totally agree.

We see for eyes what's happening, so why does LJ play him?

Are stats showing something we don't see?

Famara made one shot off target all game on Sunday and made two touches in the box all game according to Wyscout stats.

The game breaks down pretty much every time the ball goes near him. If he wins a header it more often than not goes anywhere.

If a ball comes to him...he grapples with the defender. Holding on. He either goes to ground or the ball pings around off him, never fully in control, and eventually loses possession.

The negatives far outway the positives.

It's like watching an Octopus trying to fight it's way out of a paper bag when he's trying to win a ball.

And this has nothing to do with him being isolated.

Look at Bamford playing a similar role...totally different. He had Kalas all over him...did he play like Famara...no.

Famara makes it look like he's being manhandled more than any other player, and it simply isn't so.

Instead of backing into a player, he could learn a lot from Taylor. Who wins space easily so often.

Good post, apart from Bamford attached himself to Moore as much as possible and bullied him, yet Bamford is soft as shite.  Harsh on Moore, for as nice as he was on the ball at times, he failed the audition (imho) as a defender.

1 hour ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

Weimann and Palmer - why not?!

As a fan of Palmer, he shouldn’t have started Sunday, nor should O’Dowda have.  Moore - might not have had much choice.  Palmer should have been eased into the side, and over time I could see a partnership with Weimann.  We’ve played a lot of pre-season minutes with Szmodics and Eliasson.  I’m not usually one to pick holes in a team pre-match, as anything can happen and we are not party to what goes on, but it screamed at me as a team that wasn’t picked on merit.

Fam maybe better suited away from home, but at home Weimann is much more suited to the way we ought to be playing.  I was hugely disappointed with our “team style” on Sunday.

  • Like 4
  • Hmmm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Davefevs said:

.  I was hugely disappointed with our “team style” on Sunday.

Me too, and putting aside the fact it was Leeds ( although that shouldn’t matter as teams will beat them, they are not invincible) we played very poorly with almost the same team as we had for much of last season. And the two newcomers weren’t particularly the problem, Moore especially made a positive contribution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, spudski said:

Because Taylor lost his man, made space and came for the ball.

On more than one occasion Moore gesteculated at Famara to come.

He had to go back to the goalkeeper and sideways.

Moore then went on two marauding runs forward when Famara didn't move. And was left with no option to pass to anyone else.

The reason players end up lumping it to Famara, is because other passes get blocked off to other players. Instead of losing possession in our own half or in a dangerous position, the lump the ball to him, in a hope he wins it, or if he doesn't it's in a less dangerous position.

Famaras movement to receive is poor. He sits high on the shoulder of the last player. Rarely moves off that player. Hence always being grappled.

Watch Weimann and Taylor's movement...Famara should be doing that as well.

He's one dimensional... doesn't fit our style and will hold us back.

If we play him and Palmer in the same set up, we'll do worse than last season imo.

He's stopping our progress big time.

Unfortunately it seems LJ and our coaching staff feel the need to play him.

He was clearly gesticulating at his midfield. Brownhill hid whilst we had possession all game. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, J-mat said:

He was clearly gesticulating at his midfield. Brownhill hid whilst we had possession all game. 

You are wrong. He wasn't...I was watching intently. Aimed solely at Famara. My eye was drawn to their interaction most of the game.

He did it again to Taylor when he came on too...as Taylor was too slow to react.

Next time Moore had the ball, Taylor dropped off his man immediately and received the ball promptly from Moore.

Hunt also had a similar problem with Weimann early doors.

Weimann looking for a pass off the shoulder and forward, which was simply impossible to make as the pass was blocked by a defender.

Hunt got Weimann to make better angles inside and he got a better service eventually.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Good post

And another

And another

Good post, apart from Bamford attached himself to Moore as much as possible and bullied him, yet Bamford is soft as shite.  Harsh on Moore, for as nice as he was on the ball at times, he failed the audition (imho) as a defender.

As a fan of Palmer, he shouldn’t have started Sunday, nor should O’Dowda have.  Moore - might not have had much choice.  Palmer should have been eased into the side, and over time I could see a partnership with Weimann.  We’ve played a lot of pre-season minutes with Szmodics and Eliasson.  I’m not usually one to pick holes in a team pre-match, as anything can happen and we are not party to what goes on, but it screamed at me as a team that wasn’t picked on merit.

Fam maybe better suited away from home, but at home Weimann is much more suited to the way we ought to be playing.  I was hugely disappointed with our “team style” on Sunday.

Agree about Palmer Dave. Thought Moore did ok tbh. Bamford although light weight, caused more problems than Famara both physically and with movement. And scored a well taken goal.

Kalas was massively at fault for the first goal. Which then sent the tone of our defence... timid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Fiale said:

I know technical ability and reading the game can add a lot to a player but he is so slight. I don't know how physical the game is in France, but he is going to need to build some strength if he is going to stand a chance in the Championship.

French football is all about technique and playing the ball out from defence.

He will definitely need to adjust to the bullies in the Championship but I imagine that as a talented player all his life he would have had other players trying to nullify him.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, spudski said:

You are wrong. He wasn't...I was watching intently. Aimed solely at Famara. My eye was drawn to their interaction most of the game.

He did it again to Taylor when he came on too...as Taylor was too slow to react.

Next time Moore had the ball, Taylor dropped off his man immediately and received the ball promptly from Moore.

Hunt also had a similar problem with Weimann early doors.

Weimann looking for a pass off the shoulder and forward, which was simply impossible to make as the pass was blocked by a defender.

Hunt got Weimann to make better angles inside and he got a better service eventually.

 

....which is a good example of Weimann mixing up his runs, drag your marker long, so that next time you can come short.  Last season (early Autumn) it was that type of running that when he came short in the inside right channel, that sucked the LB in and allowed Hunt to overlap.  Not all runs are made to receive the ball, as you know!

2 hours ago, spudski said:

Agree about Palmer Dave. Thought Moore did ok tbh. Bamford although light weight, caused more problems than Famara both physically and with movement. And scored a well taken goal.

Kalas was massively at fault for the first goal. Which then sent the tone of our defence... timid.

I still see the 1st goal as a combination of poor comms between Dasilva and Moore, and then Kalas who was slow to react....I just can’t lay the whole blame at his feet.  A poor goal from a defensive unit point of view, and showing the immediate impact of not having Webster.  Watch it again Spud and look who’s marking Hernandez initially, and where he then runs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

....which is a good example of Weimann mixing up his runs, drag your marker long, so that next time you can come short.  Last season (early Autumn) it was that type of running that when he came short in the inside right channel, that sucked the LB in and allowed Hunt to overlap.  Not all runs are made to receive the ball, as you know!

I still see the 1st goal as a combination of poor comms between Dasilva and Moore, and then Kalas who was slow to react....I just can’t lay the whole blame at his feet.  A poor goal from a defensive unit point of view, and showing the immediate impact of not having Webster.  Watch it again Spud and look who’s marking Hernandez initially, and where he then runs.

For sure Dave, however in these instances on Sunday Weimann made the wrong decisions. Hunt was left with no option but to go backwards as all other passing options were blocked. Weimann was creating straight lines instead of angles at the time.

As for the lead up to the goal...I can see where you are coming from, however Kalas was very slow to react.

Again the hesitancy maybe down to playing alongside Moore and not Webster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, spudski said:

For sure Dave, however in these instances on Sunday Weimann made the wrong decisions. Hunt was left with no option but to go backwards as all other passing options were blocked. Weimann was creating straight lines instead of angles at the time.

fair enough, tv doesn’t always give the full picture

As for the lead up to the goal...I can see where you are coming from, however Kalas was very slow to react.

he was, but when a player comes from your blindside having not been “passed on” then you can see why.

Again the hesitancy maybe down to playing alongside Moore and not Webster.

yep, we didn’t look a defensive unit at all on Sunday.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Crackers Corner said:

 

He is scoring two or three,

For us, city,

Massengo

Hopefully a few more than that over his 4 year contract, but not many perhaps - we are told he has many qualities but not sure making the net bulge regularly is one of them!

Edited by Nogbad the Bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, reddogkev said:

Is Massengo City's potential best ever transfer signing?  Still can't believe City have signed such a talented, exciting player.

I was thinking back to the glory days of John Palmer and the rather more promising Paul Williams - who I seem to recall came from Bristol Manor Farm...

...I can't think of a time when we were signing such exciting players. It's great. 

Edited by Red Exile
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Fee has been confirmed by Gregor McGregorface via Dean Holden (I assume) as £2.7m.

Assuming it's true that Pack went for a deal worth up to £4m then that puts a slightly different perspective on things.

How the **** did we manage that? Bit of a difference to £8m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Fee has been confirmed by Gregor McGregorface via Dean Holden (I assume) as £2.7m.

Assuming it's true that Pack went for a deal worth up to £4m then that puts a slightly different perspective on things.

Incredible. Absolutely outstanding if correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TBW said:

How the **** did we manage that? Bit of a difference to £8m.

I have a feeling that there’s a bit confusion somewhere. It’s probably £2.7m plus add-ons which can take it up to €8m. It is quite a bit different though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Fee has been confirmed by Gregor McGregorface via Dean Holden (I assume) as £2.7m.

Assuming it's true that Pack went for a deal worth up to £4m then that puts a slightly different perspective on things.

Wow!!! 

I assume this is £2.7m upfront going to £8m with potential addons? Much like Pack being £750k rising to £4m?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Because Mark Ashton is an absolute shagger?

He should resign posters told us yesterday.......mind you they have gone missing since

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Because Mark Ashton is an absolute shagger?

I met, by chance, someone in the business of football negotiation a month or so ago...spoke very highly of Ashton's ability to get a good deal...seems like he got one!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relieved we have only paid £2.7 million for Massengo because of LJ's worrying habit of signing players and then not playing them; Watkins (1 million), Engvall (1.6 million), Walsh (1 million). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Harry said:

Wow!!! 

I assume this is £2.7m upfront going to £8m with potential addons? Much like Pack being £750k rising to £4m?

Sorry, playing catch-up.  So possibly €3m initial fee (€8.0m total if he achieves all add-ons).  Is that about right?

Re Marlon - BBC saying £4m....is that £750k rising to £4m (e.g. promotion clause), or £750k up-front, rest in instalments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Sorry, playing catch-up.  So possibly €3m initial fee (€8.0m total if he achieves all add-ons).  Is that about right?

Re Marlon - BBC saying £4m....is that £750k rising to £4m (e.g. promotion clause), or £750k up-front, rest in instalments?

Cardiff quoted as saying paying in instalments rather than add ons.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, spudski said:

Cardiff quoted as saying paying in instalments rather than add ons.

Perfect....£750k seemed too cheap.  Ta Spud 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Boston Red said:

Relieved we have only paid £2.7 million for Massengo because of LJ's worrying habit of signing players and then not playing them; Watkins (1 million), Engvall (1.6 million), Walsh (1 million). 

As they arnt good enough 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...