Adam Webster - Now signed

[stortfordred]

2 hours ago, Psychopomp said:

Webster is well known, has shown glimpses of great potential, but is injury prone, and is replacing a player who scored goals, pretty good at the defending , but also injury free. It is why he is joining us and no one else. 

LJ said last year, our biggest issue was caused by injuries.

Do we actually know what we are doing ?

 

Nearly all of Ipswich’s first  team were crocked at some time or other last season. 

[TheCulturalBomb]

We're doing something Bobby Reid and Flint for £17 million when one was free and the other 300k.

[Fiale]

18 minutes ago, Red Army 87 said:

I think the description he gives about being able to pass out from the back is what LJ tried to turn Flint into. Unfortunately his passing range wasn't great and neither is Baker's, so this signing makes perfect sense.

To flip things on its head, is Webster a replacement for Flint? Or is Flint making way for Webster?

 

We thought Flint was going last season, but it all fell through and he stayed with us. Last season would have been Baker / Wright CB pairing with Mags/Hegeler the back up. Flint stayed however and luckily Wright was here to step into the RB position to cover for Pisano. Flint was always going to leave this season, his contract have had release clauses in it, but we got another season out of a good Championship CB. We have been eyeing Webster to be our next CB (the club have said they have players in mind for each position) for the last year at least and I doubt this transfer will have been a surprise to many in and around the clubs.

So we have Baker - Webster - Wright as first team CB's with Hegeler - Kelly - Vyner as back up. Just hope Webster is not as injury prone as the video implied as having Baker and Webster going through the season missing games with injuries or powering on at 70% fitness would be a disaster (likely the problem with Bakers performances last season).

[Luxo Jr.]

44 minutes ago, supercidered said:

Headline on BCFC Website: WEBSTER ENTICED BY CITY's AMBITION

F@ckin ROFL

You do realise that us signing him is the sign of ambition? That letting go an ageing centre back for a lot of money to sign a younger, experienced centre back from a Championship club is a sign of ambition?

 

[JamesBCFC]

1 minute ago, Luxo Jr. said:

You do realise that us signing him is the sign of ambition? That letting go an ageing centre back for a lot of money to sign a younger, experienced centre back from a Championship club is a sign of ambition?

 

Shh, stop using your head.

It's an unfair advantage to use your brain before posting.

[supercidered]

1 minute ago, JamesBCFC said:

Shh, stop using your head.

It's an unfair advantage to use your brain before posting.

ark at eee

[Son of Fred]

On 26/06/2018 at 21:33, Notbarrymanc said:

An improvement on flint. Should cost more as well (he won’t because of stuff)

Initial cost of 3.5 million...

Also very capable right back cover if required.. good passer & would be good in a 'three.

[JamesBCFC]

1 minute ago, supercidered said:

ark at eee

Well you are making brainless comments

[miketh2nd]

50 minutes ago, supercidered said:

Headline on BCFC Website: WEBSTER ENTICED BY CITY's AMBITION

F@ckin ROFL

yes how dare we sell players who don't want to be here or only have a year left on their contract... 

 Back on topic I think we have signed a good CB here... seems like a lot of money however... I suppose this is the going rate for a decent CB at this standard ..

[ZiderEyed]

26 minutes ago, TheCulturalBomb said:

We're doing something Bobby Reid and Flint for £17 million when one was free and the other 300k.

Wasn't really free though, the club will have calculated the relative cost of his development and wages over the years. Same with Flint.

Finding it hard to be peppy about it mind.

[supercidered]

50 minutes ago, supercidered said:

Headline on BCFC Website: WEBSTER ENTICED BY CITY's AMBITION

F@ckin ROFL

 

5 minutes ago, Luxo Jr. said:

You do realise that us signing him is the sign of ambition? That letting go an ageing centre back for a lot of money to sign a younger, experienced centre back from a Championship club is a sign of ambition?

 

 

4 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

Shh, stop using your head.

It's an unfair advantage to use your brain before posting.

Thanks Luxo but your reply hasn't made me 'realise' any sign of our ambition. Flint has shown ambition for jumping ship to a club with ambition. If you feel he was an ageing centre back and Webster is a better option then fair play but it doesn't show City as being ambitious.

 

Thanks James for being so condescending.

[Dan Robin]

I have a doubt: he's here to remain or we will sell him tomorrow? 

Joking apart...welcome to BCFC, Adam. 

On the one hand, the injury factor worries me, but on the other, Ipswich fans seemed to rate him positively, so..we'll see what he can bring to us.

 

Now for the CB role we have Baker, Wright, Hegeler and him: not a bad quartet, on the paper.

 

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

1 hour ago, Williams' Penalty said:

Good video about him here- interesting to hear the injury prone aspect to him, potentially worrying with the same quality in Baker. Overall though a really exciting signing, very good news.

 

I'll raise you...

 

[Luxo Jr.]

Just now, supercidered said:

 

 

Thanks Luxo but your reply hasn't made me 'realise' any sign of our ambition. Flint has shown ambition for jumping ship to a club with ambition. If you feel he was an ageing centre back and Webster is a better option then fair play but it doesn't show City as being ambitious.

 

Thanks James for being so condescending.

How is it not a sign of ambition if we think he's a better option? What's your definition of ambitious if signing a younger, experienced player for a lower sum than the big fee we sold our older, never-going-to-improve player who had already tried to leave before? If we'd brought in a Premier League has-been or a League 1 player then fair enough, but I don't get how you don't see it as ambition.

He jumped ship to a team that were already bigger because they were in the Premier League for flipping ages and have more money than us. We can't just "be" as big as Middlesbrough, we have to work towards it in stages.

[Monkeh]

6 minutes ago, supercidered said:

 

 

Thanks Luxo but your reply hasn't made me 'realise' any sign of our ambition. Flint has shown ambition for jumping ship to a club with ambition. If you feel he was an ageing centre back and Webster is a better option then fair play but it doesn't show City as being ambitious.

 

Thanks James for being so condescending.

Getting rid of a decent defender signing a young up and coming who will prob be twice the player Flint can dream of is showing ambition 

[JamesBCFC]

6 minutes ago, supercidered said:

 

 

Thanks Luxo but your reply hasn't made me 'realise' any sign of our ambition. Flint has shown ambition for jumping ship to a club with ambition. If you feel he was an ageing centre back and Webster is a better option then fair play but it doesn't show City as being ambitious.

 

Thanks James for being so condescending.

You're welcome.

 

See, now you've made a post actually worth a response, whereas the last one was literally a criticism for the sake of criticism and why should that get a proper response?

Now, to what you said above in response to Luxo, I'd ask what have Boro done this window to show they are ambitious?

As far as I am aware Flint was their first signing (but I may be wrong) so there is nothing.

What Boro do have though is £25m in parachute payments this season, and about 10000 more people through the gate each week, which (at an average price of £30 a ticket) is £7m more a season on ticket sales, plus whatever extra they sell in food, drink and merchandise.

Boro are able to operate at a different level to us financially, that doesn't mean we aren't ambitious but it does mean we cannot match their wages.

[supercidered]

1 minute ago, Luxo Jr. said:

How is it not a sign of ambition if we think he's a better option? What's your definition of ambitious if signing a younger, experienced player for a lower sum than the big fee we sold our older, never-going-to-improve player who had already tried to leave before? If we'd brought in a Premier League has-been or a League 1 player then fair enough, but I don't get how you don't see it as ambition.

He jumped ship to a team that were already bigger because they were in the Premier League for flipping ages and have more money than us. We can't just "be" as big as Middlesbrough, we have to work towards it in stages.

If you think City would have rather have Webster than Flint you are barking mad. We signed Webster not because we wanted to offload Flint but because Flint wanted to go. Why did he want to go? We couldn't keep Flint because we can't match Boro and their ambitions.

City as a club can say publicly that they have ambitions for this and for that but without being able to back it up. When an opportunity does present itself it isn't taken. I can publicly say that I'm ambitious and I want to fly a fighter jet for a living. I may be luck and it could happen but it won't.

[BRISTOL86]

Welcome Adam.

[Monkeh]

2 minutes ago, supercidered said:

If you think City would have rather have Webster than Flint you are barking mad. We signed Webster not because we wanted to offload Flint but because Flint wanted to go. Why did he want to go? We couldn't keep Flint because we can't match Boro and their ambitions.

City as a club can say publicly that they have ambitions for this and for that but without being able to back it up. When an opportunity does present itself it isn't taken. I can publicly say that I'm ambitious and I want to fly a fighter jet for a living. I may be luck and it could happen but it won't.

No we can’t match boro on the cash front it’s as simple as that

[EmersonsRed]

Welcome. Spoken to three people now who speak highly of him.

[Luxo Jr.]

Just now, supercidered said:

If you think City would have rather have Webster than Flint you are barking mad. We signed Webster not because we wanted to offload Flint but because Flint wanted to go. Why did he want to go? We couldn't keep Flint because we can't match Boro and their ambitions.

City as a club can say publicly that they have ambitions for this and for that but without being able to back it up. When an opportunity does present itself it isn't taken. I can publicly say that I'm ambitious and I want to fly a fighter jet for a living. I may be luck and it could happen but it won't.

I think City would rather sign up Webster than Flint for a big contract, yes. Having money and having ambition isn't the same thing. 

Also, it's Pulis. I guarantee he'll leave them in a worse position than when he arrived.

[Tinmans Love Child]

On 27/06/2018 at 07:37, ScottishRed said:

They will want £15m.......

Having only 12 months left on his contract makes NO difference..........

Check out the thread re Bobby for proof of that.......

£15m?  Oops

[supercidered]

4 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

You're welcome.

 

See, now you've made a post actually worth a response, whereas the last one was literally a criticism for the sake of criticism and why should that get a proper response?

Now, to what you said above in response to Luxo, I'd ask what have Boro done this window to show they are ambitious?

As far as I am aware Flint was their first signing (but I may be wrong) so there is nothing.

What Boro do have though is £25m in parachute payments this season, and about 10000 more people through the gate each week, which (at an average price of £30 a ticket) is £7m more a season on ticket sales, plus whatever extra they sell in food, drink and merchandise.

Boro are able to operate at a different level to us financially, that doesn't mean we aren't ambitious but it does mean we cannot match their wages.

If I'm not mistaken Boro spent more than anyone else last season in the Championship. It is a bit early yet but 7m is a good start for this window. They will be having a tilt at top two this year and with all the other aspects that you listed they will clearly be setting their stall out to go up. Of course we can't match wages but our ambition was last shown in January and has been shown many times before. Ambition versus blind ambition.

[Monkeh]

Just now, supercidered said:

If I'm not mistaken Boro spent more than anyone else last season in the Championship. It is a bit early yet but 7m is a good start for this window. They will be having a tilt at top two this year and with all the other aspects that you listed they will clearly be setting their stall out to go up. Of course we can't match wages but our ambition was last shown in January and has been shown many times before. Ambition versus blind ambition.

And if they fail they will be in the same position Villa now find themselves in,

[supercidered]

6 minutes ago, Luxo Jr. said:

I think City would rather sign up Webster than Flint for a big contract, yes. Having money and having ambition isn't the same thing. 

Also, it's Pulis. I guarantee he'll leave them in a worse position than when he arrived.

On the point about Pulis, I really hope you are right!

[Luxo Jr.]

Just now, supercidered said:

On the point about Pulis, I really hope you are right!

He never fails. Look at West Brom, Stoke, Palace. Leaves them unable to do anything other than his regressive style of play.

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

20 minutes ago, supercidered said:

 

 

Thanks Luxo but your reply hasn't made me 'realise' any sign of our ambition. Flint has shown ambition for jumping ship to a club with ambition. If you feel he was an ageing centre back and Webster is a better option then fair play but it doesn't show City as being ambitious.

 

Thanks James for being so condescending.

Showing signs of ambition is subjective. I would say the signing of a 23 year old ball playing centre back to replace a 28 going on 29 year old, old fashioned centre half is a sign of ambition. Boro’s signing of Paddy McNair may be an indication of their ambition, but is that so in signing Flint if they end up selling Ben Gibson?

[supercidered]

1 minute ago, Monkeh said:

And if they fail they will be in the same position Villa now find themselves in,

I think Boro are run a bit better than Villa but yea if this mis-manage parachute payments they will be sailing down a similar road to Sunderland.

[BobBobSuperBob]

Just now, supercidered said:

I think Boro are run a bit better than Villa but yea if this mis-manage parachute payments they will be sailing down a similar road to Sunderland.

Bet they won’t supercidered - not with Steve Gibson as an owner

[JamesBCFC]

Just now, supercidered said:

If I'm not mistaken Boro spent more than anyone else last season in the Championship. It is a bit early yet but 7m is a good start for this window. They will be having a tilt at top two this year and with all the other aspects that you listed they will clearly be setting their stall out to go up. Of course we can't match wages but our ambition was last shown in January and has been shown many times before. Ambition versus blind ambition.

Boro had something like £30-40 million in parachut payments last season. They were always going to be one of the top spenders.

Their owner talked about them "walking to the title" except that didn't quite happen. They have this season to go up or they will be in a Villa type situation though not quite as bad.

Personally I'd rather not risk the clubs future on promotion.

 

I also think the references to last January are a bit harsh, albeit with a semblence of a point.

Diony as a signing didnt work, but in bringing him in we had brought in a player whose transfer fee was almost double our transfer record.

We have also broken our own transfer record in consecutive seasons, and will again if we do sign Marriott. None of that is something a club with no ambition would do, and nor is the redevelopment, given the entire point of that was to help us compete.