|
|
Post by knowingeye on Mar 15, 2008 3:19:05 GMT
Great keeper and nice lad. Positive character to have in a team and one that, subject to lack of injuries, has years to offer the game.
Barnsley can't seem to get it together (smacks of no money) and West Brom want him moved on. Deal to be done here, if someone can move quick enough. He's far better than Nash and good replacement for Simmo, in time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Premiership Titanic Captain on Mar 15, 2008 3:48:47 GMT
I'd rather Marton Fulop.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2008 8:00:05 GMT
I would of actually thought that Fulop would be the option for the younger keeper too?
|
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Mar 15, 2008 10:39:14 GMT
I think the observation that Luke is a "great" goalkeeper needs some attention, KE. Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe him as a keeper who had a great game? The only other noteable facts I am aware of is that he is the one thing that keepers cannot be. He is somewhat accident prone. For further evidence of this have a look at the match report from the reserves game against Stoke at The Maracarana Hawthornes earlier this season. Note also the soft goal he conceded live on TV in his last West Brazil appearance versus Charlton. If he is indeed great, then I wonder what West Brazil are playing at in loaning him out. The pro keeper situation, as you know, is a bit thin on the ground in Rio Smethwick.  It consists of on last legs Keily who has never been better than Simmo and certainly isn't at this point in his career, some no mark Czech who has played less than a seasons worth of games for an Eastern European pub side and a kid out on loan to Motherwell. It isn't much in the way of riches that allows a "great" keeper to be loaned out to Barnsley in my book.  |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 15, 2008 10:49:51 GMT
I think we should sign Fulop.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 15, 2008 10:50:59 GMT
Nash was good against Norwich, why sign a keeper just for the sake of it.
Fulop would cost 3 million.
|
|
|
|
Post by nonameface on Mar 15, 2008 10:54:31 GMT
Fulop or Nash would better the squad/team so wil be interesting to see what happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 15, 2008 10:55:34 GMT
3 million well spent as well! I reckon though we could get him for 2 million as nobody wanted him for 3 million. He is young and has the best years ahead of him yet and he is a bloody good keeper.
|
|
|
|
Post by potters 22 on Mar 15, 2008 13:02:54 GMT
Wheres your proof that he's far better than nash? ???
Some folk just never happy!
|
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Mar 16, 2008 23:52:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by CashBack on Mar 16, 2008 23:57:15 GMT
Fulop would be better for the prem imo
Fulop in goal and Nash n02 with a perm deal for getting us promoted. then if we don't get fulop or he gets injured, snapped up etc we have nash
Simmo IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH for the premiershit, end of
|
|
|
|
Post by mark71 on Mar 17, 2008 0:03:16 GMT
£2-3M for a premiership standard keeper is nothing and would well be worth it.
A good keeper will save you somewhere between 30-40 goals a season. How much would a centre forward cost who can score 30-40 goals?
|
|
|
|
Post by Danstoke82 on Mar 17, 2008 8:10:06 GMT
keeping the faith with Simmo, but back-up to Nash. Nash has been great so far. Steele just had a great game against Liverpool and Chelsea. You probably would'nt get that for an entire season. Fair play to him for his performances, but I think our current two are a lot better on their day
|
|
|
|
Post by knowles on Mar 17, 2008 9:09:26 GMT
Mark- quite right on the reserves Here is my report from the reserve match at the Hawthorns www.clubfanzine.com/stoke_city/showNews.php?id=3710He was very poor that night- I would like someone who is a bit more tested if we were to get someone in for the top flight. Nash seems a good signing to me. A decent match against Norwich, and a great game on Saturday- keep him in my opinion! |
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 17, 2008 9:25:09 GMT
He also has the advantage of being a Manure reject and we all know that KE's first love is those shit red bastards from Manchester.
Luke Steele hasn't done a thing apart from have an exceptional debut v Liverpool.
I have seen him a few times, and on the basis that Nash is on a par with Simmo (no better no worse in my opinion), Luke Steele is nowhere near as good as either of them.
He has been farmed out on loan to several clubs, hasn't been a regular at any of them, and would no doubt be rotting in Brazil's reserves but for an injury to the reportedly outstanding Barnsley goalkeeper.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 17, 2008 9:35:08 GMT
Good points Johnno. I couldn't quite get the point of ke's original post. If Barnsley are happy with the long term form of their injured keeper why would they want to spend decent money on a replacement? It doesn't smack of no money to me it smacks of prudence.
|
|
|
|
Post by y_oh_y_delilah on Mar 17, 2008 9:53:38 GMT
When he was chancellor, Gordon Brown used to say 'prudence' a lot!
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by knowles on Mar 17, 2008 13:41:12 GMT
The poor fella has been recalled so misses the semi final
|
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 17, 2008 13:45:07 GMT
The poor fella has been recalled so misses the semi final Why has he been recalled? |
|
|
|
Post by knowles on Mar 17, 2008 13:46:59 GMT
"The Baggies have been subsidising Steele's wages and the stumbling block is believed to be that West Brazil now want Barnsley to pay the majority of his wages. "
His loan has expired but it doesn't look like he will return
Also... "Albion have offered Steele to Barnsley on loan for the rest of the season and on a free transfer in the summer, despite the former Manchester United trainee having a year left on his contract. "
|
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 17, 2008 13:48:09 GMT
Oh right-Barnsley can't stump up the cash. It's a shame for him not be playing Wembley.
|
|
