Cohen And Davies To Florist

[Barrs Court Red]

Well they certainly mean business this year. I always thought we might come in for Davies.

Oh well

FOREST MAKE £1M RAID ON THE GLOVERS

Be the first reader to comment on this story

EXCLUSIVE

BY JAMES MCNAMARA J.MCNAMARA@BEPP.CO.UK

08:00 - 06 July 2007

Yeovil Town duo Arron Davies and Chris Cohen are set to join Nottingham Forest today for a combined fee of £1 million.The pair held talks after Forest saw off competition from Championship club Leicester City.

The Daily Press understands Cohen and Davies also held discussions with Foxes boss Martin Allen this week before the League One side tabled a late bid and the offer of better personal terms.

Both are believed to be due in Nottingham today for routine medicals.

Forest boss Colin Calderwood is a big admirer of the pair and was linked with a double swoop earlier in the summer.

While the deal will provide a massive financial windfall for the Glovers, both players are thought to have significant sell-on clauses in their existing contracts.

[Cardy]

WTF ? Why the hell haven't we gone in for atleast one of those ?

I am getting really concerned about the lack of anyone signing. We are going to be left with the bottom of the barrel at this rate.

[Barrs Court Red]

I must admit I was suprised they went to Florist, however I'm not so sure why we'd have been more attractive than Leicester.

[Andy082005]

I must admit I was suprised they went to Florist, however I'm not so sure why we'd have been more attractive than Leicester.

Better money and more security I guess. Fair play to them and fair play to Forest, they could have a decent shout next season.

Us on the other hand, I really hope we know what were doing. Its all well and good saying "theres 7 weeks to the transfer window closes" but we need players in now! People need time to not only gel with their team mates (both on and off the pitch), but they also need time to settle in to an area. Its no good bringing someone in once the season has started as it may take them a month or so to settle.....

....we need players now! come on City, pull your fingers out, were sat down whilst everyone else seems to be passing us by

[Redhyde]

Forest are going a bit mental in a last ditch promotion push. I really hope they implode.

Gary's not one to overpay for players, even ones like Davies he clearly likes. But then we've just got Sproule who plays in the same position but IMO is better than Davies so a bit fat meh to this news.

[bh_red]

not bothered about Aaron Davies in the slightest really, as already said, we have Sproule now,

Chris Cohen is a decent player, however he's quite similar to Noble and Johnson, who I'd have over Cohen,

good signings for forest,

[Barrs Court Red]

Forest are going a bit mental in a last ditch promotion push. I really hope they implode.

Why would you want them to implode?

I'd far prefere to be playing them, than say Barnsly or Colchester.

[Redhyde]

Why would you want them to implode?

I'd far prefere to be playing them, than say Barnsly or Colchester.

Colin Calderwood, that's why!

And tbh it's a bit of jealousy, if Forest were in our league it would yet another club to compete with, long term Barnsley and Colchester don't have a hope of anything so i would for now (while we're trying to establish ourselves) play Barnsley and S****horpe et al.

[Barrs Court Red]

Colin Calderwood, that's why!

And tbh it's a bit of jealousy, if Forest were in our league it would yet another club to compete with, long term Barnsley and Colchester don't have a hope of anything so i would for now (while we're trying to establish ourselves) play Barnsley and S****horpe et al.

Yes, but getting one over on Calderwood added just that little bit extra to promotion.

Here's an interesting thought mind you (and may be wrong, and is slightly off topic)). Didn't Barnsley play Premiership football more recently than Forest?

[Redhyde]

Yes, but getting one over on Calderwood added just that little bit extra to promotion.

Here's an interesting thought mind you (and may be wrong, and is slightly off topic)). Didn't Barnsley play Premiership football more recently than Forest?

Yeah they did, but they couldn't sustain it. I think Forest could.

That's the problem with Rovers too, i'm caught between wanting them to utterly fail and wanting to thrash them two or more times a season. I think if Forest had a nice manager i wouldn't mind them.

[yeovilmac]

[giles_23_bcfc]

Yeah they did, but they couldn't sustain it. I think Forest could.

That's the problem with Rovers too, i'm caught between wanting them to utterly fail and wanting to thrash them two or more times a season. I think if Forest had a nice manager i wouldn't mind them.

I hate Forest for 2 reasons. There manager (i use that term loosely!), and their big headed, arrogant fans. Still undecided on whether or not i want Rovers to do Forest or Forest to do Rovers. Suppose its gotta be Forest to do Rovers simply because its Rovers hasnt it?

[ForestForever]

Still undecided on whether or not i want Rovers to do Forest or Forest to do Rovers.

Oh dear!

You have posted some tosh on this forum and Forest ones Giles me old son, but this little pearler tops the lot

[MATTBCFC]

Oh dear!

You have posted some tosh on this forum and Forest ones Giles me old son, but this little pearler tops the lot

don't know how you can face coming on the forum of a small little west country team that beat you to promotion last year.....!!!

Must be such a huge slice full of humble pie that you lot are left munching on......now go away little boy and celebrate the fact you are about to let your insufficient mouthy little manager spend another million pounds plus of YOUR hard earned cash....

[tin]

Forest are going a bit mental in a last ditch promotion push. I really hope they implode.

Gary's not one to overpay for players, even ones like Davies he clearly likes. But then we've just got Sproule who plays in the same position but IMO is better than Davies so a bit fat meh to this news.

The proof is in the pudding I suppose. If GJ pays a significant six-figure fee for a fat, inexperienced in the Championship, 31 year-old in the form of Trundle then that blows your theory out of the water IMO.

[bcfc seattle]

I have to say that I was really hoping we'd sign Davies.

[RedM]

It's always harsh when players leave your club if they have been important and vital members of the team, so I feel for Yeovil now, as they have gone to a rival which makes it 100 times worse. Sometimes you can just about stomach it if you believe the players are going into a higher division, maybe these will eventually? Yes Yeovil have the money but think they would rather have the players.

I don't know how Yeovil will do next season after losing these 2 plus Best. That's the price of failure I'm afraid but I'd like them to do well and Forest falter, heart says 'yes' but head says 'no' sadly. But then again we spent in the past and got us nowhare really, don't give up Yeovil!!!

[Redhyde]

The proof is in the pudding I suppose. If GJ pays a significant six-figure fee for a fat, inexperienced in the Championship, 31 year-old in the form of Trundle then that blows your theory out of the water IMO.

How significant is an undisclosed fee? It makes things quote interesting now we can't think what a waste of money since the transfer fees never come out.

Trundle is a late developer, certainly in terms of attitude, and there's certainly room for improvement in his game. Alex Russell is an untried 35 year old in the championship, i'm not unhappy that he's here. If Trundle signs it won't be on the wages people baulk at, it'll be in line with everyone else. And if Trundle signs GJ (i hope and believe) will have made sure Trundle wants it. And Trundle isn't fat anymore btw, people just remember he was.

If Trundle came on Brooker's salary on a two year deal would you be that unhappy? Isn't a player who scored 85 goals in 183 games exactly what everyone has been crying out for? He scored more last season than Varney for example despite a disruptive injury. And he won't cost £2million, and it makes sense in terms of what we need and what he would want.

[havanatopia]

How significant is an undisclosed fee? It makes things quote interesting now we can't think what a waste of money since the transfer fees never come out.

Trundle is a late developer, certainly in terms of attitude, and there's certainly room for improvement in his game. Alex Russell is an untried 35 year old in the championship, i'm not unhappy that he's here. If Trundle signs it won't be on the wages people baulk at, it'll be in line with everyone else. And if Trundle signs GJ (i hope and believe) will have made sure Trundle wants it. And Trundle isn't fat anymore btw, people just remember he was.

If Trundle came on Brooker's salary on a two year deal would you be that unhappy? Isn't a player who scored 85 goals in 183 games exactly what everyone has been crying out for? He scored more last season than Varney for example despite a disruptive injury. And he won't cost £2million, and it makes sense in terms of what we need and what he would want.

Thanks for the stats RedHyde...does put it into a bit of perspective.. if we pay relatively little for him he will be worth a punt and if that means lower expectations he might turn out to be a sensation. GJ may have him and another up his sleave; remember he was talking about one striker. With Brooks out Trundle maybe the late add on.

[greenun]

Yes, but getting one over on Calderwood added just that little bit extra to promotion.

Didn't Barnsley play Premiership football more recently than Forest?

Actually, no. I've only just had the opportunity to verify these statistics on Soccerbase, but Forest were relegated the season after Barnsley's one and only Premiership campaign.

Forest 1998-99

Barnsley 1997-98

[tin]

How significant is an undisclosed fee? It makes things quote interesting now we can't think what a waste of money since the transfer fees never come out.

Swansea won't let Trundle go for less than £750k I don't think, especially bearing in mind they turned down an undisclosed seven-figure fee from Everton in the January sales.

Trundle is a late developer, certainly in terms of attitude, and there's certainly room for improvement in his game. Alex Russell is an untried 35 year old in the championship, i'm not unhappy that he's here.

I'm not unhappy Russell's here because he was a free transfer and has done very well for us in two years at the club. I wouldn't be happy if we were looking at paying what we're paying for Trundle given his age now though.

If Trundle signs it won't be on the wages people baulk at, it'll be in line with everyone else. And if Trundle signs GJ (i hope and believe) will have made sure Trundle wants it. And Trundle isn't fat anymore btw, people just remember he was.

If Trundle came on Brooker's salary on a two year deal would you be that unhappy?

Yes, because Brooker is a more consistent player than Trundle and, despite his injuries, I think Brooker's given, and will give, more to this club than Trundle ever will so why waste the money? Who's to say he would be brought in on the equivalent to Brooker's wage? If he was a bosman then I'd have no concerns but I'd put money on him being the highest earner at the club should he sign.

Isn't a player who scored 85 goals in 183 games exactly what everyone has been crying out for?

Indeed, but he's scored those goals at a lower level than we're playing now so who's to say he'll reproduce that sort of form should he join us?

He scored more last season than Varney for example despite a disruptive injury. And he won't cost £2million, and it makes sense in terms of what we need and what he would want.

Varney would've made much more sense, both economically and in football terms. He is what I would class a pigeon hole GJ player. Trundle will cost the best part half of what Varney went for and there is no chance we will recoup that in any way, shape or form in the future. Charlton paid the money for Varney because they saw genuine potential in him, much like we do with Naismith I suppose, and any expenditure on him will at least be recouped, if not enhanced, in a few years time.

The bottom line is if GJ signs Trundle then I will be very surprised. I firmly believe in his ethos in bringing in young, hungry, workman-like players that he can mould into a team, something I even notcied Lennie Lawrence quote in yesterday's EP. Trundle is, and always has been, an individual and at his age GJ wouldn't be able to mould him into anything more than he already is, hence why Swansea may be looking to move him on. To risk vast sums of money on his transfer fee and wages for only two-years with no chance of recouping any of that would be worse business than anything that we did last time we were at this level IMHO.

[Andy Horsman]

The bottom line is if GJ signs Trundle then I will be very surprised. I firmly believe in his ethos in bringing in young, hungry, workman-like players that he can mould into a team, something I even notcied Lennie Lawrence quote in yesterday's EP. Trundle is, and always has been, an individual and at his age GJ wouldn't be able to mould him into anything more than he already is, hence why Swansea may be looking to move him on. To risk vast sums of money on his transfer fee and wages for only two-years with no chance of recouping any of that would be worse business than anything that we did last time we were at this level IMHO.

hasn't he signed a new contract at Swansea?

[Redhyde]

Swansea won't let Trundle go for less than £750k I don't think, especially bearing in mind they turned down an undisclosed seven-figure fee from Everton in the January sales.

But you don't know that at all. And 750k for Trundle is a fair price.

I'm not unhappy Russell's here because he was a free transfer and has done very well for us in two years at the club. I wouldn't be happy if we were looking at paying what we're paying for Trundle given his age now though.

What are we going to be paying him? Again you don't have a clue! He should be on top money for his record.

Yes, because Brooker is a more consistent player than Trundle and, despite his injuries, I think Brooker's given, and will give, more to this club than Trundle ever will so why waste the money? Who's to say he would be brought in on the equivalent to Brooker's wage? If he was a bosman then I'd have no concerns but I'd put money on him being the highest earner at the club should he sign.

You're confused i think. I think if you look at the amount of goals and the amount of games you'll find Trundle is certainly more consistent. Since Trundle has been at Swansea (4 years) he has scored 85 goals in 183 games. In the same period Brooker has played 142 games and scored 48 goals. So Trundle is consistently fitter and scores much more goals per game. Why shouldn't Trundle be the higher earner with that record?

Indeed, but he's scored those goals at a lower level than we're playing now so who's to say he'll reproduce that sort of form should he join us?

Who says Brooker will? At least there's been interest and concrete offers for Trundle from higher clubs, rather than forum rumours and speculation for Brooker! I think we know who's valued higher!

Varney would've made much more sense, both economically and in football terms. He is what I would class a pigeon hole GJ player. Trundle will cost the best part half of what Varney went for and there is no chance we will recoup that in any way, shape or form in the future. Charlton paid the money for Varney because they saw genuine potential in him, much like we do with Naismith I suppose, and any expenditure on him will at least be recouped, if not enhanced, in a few years time.

But you've just said there's no guarantees.... But Varney is is he? I'd rather stay up with a player who's (more) proven than have potential and go down. Trundle makes more sense for us in the next 2 years. We need to consolidate, we need urgently to stay up. Even Charlton have signed other strikers, they won't be relying on Varney one bit! We would have to, and i'd place my immediate faith in Trundle much more than Varney.

On all counts in your post you either don't know, or you're just plain wrong.

Typical Brooker Blinkers

[tin]

But you've just said there's no guarantees.... But Varney is is he? I'd rather stay up with a player who's (more) proven than have potential and go down. Trundle makes more sense for us in the next 2 years. We need to consolidate, we need urgently to stay up. Even Charlton have signed other strikers, they won't be relying on Varney one bit! We would have to, and i'd place my immediate faith in Trundle much more than Varney.

On all counts in your post you either don't know, or you're just plain wrong.

Typical Brooker Blinkers

You really are one arrogant tw*t aren't you?! Football's all about opinions, or hadn't you heard?

Yeah, I'm a Brooker fan but I'm not comparing his goal record with Trundle's, I'm taking off my 'blinkers' and looking at the bigger picture and what he consistently contributes to the team. Everyone knows his main problem is with injuries but nobody can deny that a fully fit and firing Brooker is a class act, and would still be at Championship level.

Varney's got nothing to do with this btw. I was merely mentioning him generally and comparing similarites with the club's thinking behind going for someone like Naismith ahead of Trundle. I think it's called a long-term investment.

With specific reference to being 'confused' or 'not having a clue' then I wonder why you're the one advocating a quick fix signing (shown by the underlined statement) when it's something GJ/SL, and most of the sensible fans, have worked hard to avoid.

I'd only be in favour of signing someone like Trundle if he was available on bosman or nominal fee otherwise there's simply no point, but then again that's just my opinion and what do I know...

[Redhyde]

You really are one arrogant tw*t aren't you?! Football's all about opinions, or hadn't you heard?

Yes, and i have mine too. And there's no star in twit... I don't get why you're entitled to yours but I'm not to mine?

Yeah, I'm a Brooker fan but I'm not comparing his goal record with Trundle's, I'm taking off my 'blinkers' and looking at the bigger picture and what he consistently contributes to the team. Everyone knows his main problem is with injuries but nobody can deny that a fully fit and firing Brooker is a class act, and would still be at Championship level.

I think goals and appearances are big contributors from a player. Hey if you disagree with that, you're welcome to! What's this fully fit Brooker thing you speak of? And yes, by your logic you can deny it! If you deny Trundle could be too seeming as he has a better record!

Varney's got nothing to do with this btw. I was merely mentioning him generally and comparing similarites with the club's thinking behind going for someone like Naismith ahead of Trundle. I think it's called a long-term investment.

You brought up Varney... I simply compared what he'd bring to us and what i think Trundle would. I think Trundle is a player with value for 2+ years. Long term investment could include spending to keep us up! That will help long term. I don't think Trundle would be that expensive

With specific reference to being 'confused' or 'not having a clue' then I wonder why you're the one advocating a quick fix signing (shown by the underlined statement) when it's something GJ/SL, and most of the sensible fans, have worked hard to avoid.

Lee Trundle isn't a "quick fix" I genuinely believe he can play at this level for 2-3 seasons. It's like saying Lee Trundle would help to stabilise us in a much better way than Varney would because at this moment in time i think he's a better player than Varney and will be for some time. I don't think 2-3 seasons is a quick fix. You do for some reason...

I'd only be in favour of signing someone like Trundle if he was available on bosman or nominal fee otherwise there's simply no point, but then again that's just my opinion and what do I know...

It's your opinion, you're entitled to it. I think Trundle would be a good signing and is a better player than Brooker, you don't.

Don't start calling names when someone has the almighty cheek to disagree with your views. It's pathetic. How can you call someone else arrogant when you hurl insults at anyone who contends your points? It's an odd statement to make!

[tin]

It's your opinion, you're entitled to it. I think Trundle would be a good signing and is a better player than Brooker, you don't.

Don't start calling names when someone has the almighty cheek to disagree with your views. It's pathetic. How can you call someone else arrogant when you hurl insults at anyone who contends your points? It's an odd statement to make!

Well, we both know that's a false statement. If calling you arrogant in direct response to you calling me clueless is, as you put it, pathetic then that makes two of us I suppose. You think Trundle will be a good, cheap(ish) signing, I think he'll be a white elephant. Time will tell. We both want the best for the team so leave it at that. Time for the pub...

[Redhyde]

Well, we both know that's a false statement. If calling you arrogant in direct response to you calling me clueless is, as you put it, pathetic then that makes two of us I suppose. You think Trundle will be a good, cheap(ish) signing, I think he'll be a white elephant. Time will tell. We both want the best for the team so leave it at that. Time for the pub...

Didn't call you clueless, i asked if you were confused about their records...

[tin]

Didn't call you clueless, i asked if you were confused about their records...

Post #23, the second paragraph in bold. Apologies for the arrogant slur but if you have a look it was in provocation...

[Dolman Block B]

Didn't call you clueless, i asked if you were confused about their records...

RH, sometimes you confuse me with your replys, espec when you have a dig at some die hard CITY fans on here.

Forums!

Well thats what they are for..........sometimes you make sense, othertimes............. :noexpression:

All of us are DESPERATE for City to well mate.

[Redhyde]

Post #23, the second paragraph in bold. Apologies for the arrogant slur but if you have a look it was in provocation...

Oh sorry, i put a full stop rather than a question mark. My mistake, changes the question into a statement of fact. I see why you were peeved now.

RH, sometimes you confuse me with your replys, espec when you have a dig at some die hard CITY fans on here.

Forums!

Well thats what they are for..........sometimes you make sense, othertimes............. noexpression.gif

All of us are DESPERATE for City to well mate.

It's not digging Arny, i just happen to have different views from seemingly quite alot of the regular posters on here. I never have a dig at them, it's their posts/views or them resorting to slinging insults i challenge. I set my stall out, feel free to disagree, that is as you said the point of a forum.

At the moment it's strange, because I feel alot of people are being hysterical, repetitive and overly negative at a time when there's clear progress at the club.

I want city to do well as much as anyone, I'm just confident and positive in the way it's going. For some reason you're not, and I don't get it. Especially when everything has been explained time and again. I've seen some of your posts where you've been calling for one or more the strikers I listed and speaking of your frustration about the lack of signings. Which strikers could we have got? I really don't see any.

Why, when you read what GJ has to say, and what he's done so far, do you (everyone who does) feel the need to point out every single day that we haven't signed a striker and think we won't?

I'm (to quote the main site) backing city because... I genuinely believe in the way the club is doing things since GJ took over.

If we don't have a striker who scores 13+ goals in the championship next season by the end of the transfer window people (and frankly i will) can tear up what i'm happy to say now.

I'll wait to see who we sign (because in my mind we will beyond doubt) before criticising, not before.