|
Post by malisastokie on Aug 3, 2015 1:44:04 GMT
For the sake of seven million , I would of kept him and let him go for free at the end of this season as we had no succession plan in place.
Bego was a totally different story we had a ready made replacement or at least 90% of the finished article.
By keeping N'Zonzi we had a season to scout and find an upgrade rather than an unknown who is part of bego moving as his replacement.
i know I am stating the obvious but he going to be a big loss because Hughes had turned his attitude around and he is only going to get better.
i know seven million is a lot of money but in the overall scope of our side I think it was chicken feed and we should have kept him.
|
|
|
N'Zonzi
Aug 3, 2015 1:56:00 GMT
via mobile
Post by CalgaryPotter on Aug 3, 2015 1:56:00 GMT
I said exactly the same before we sold him,
He'd have been worth 7m in the side for a season. People said he'd have sulked but why would he do that when he's looking for a big pay day?
|
|
|
Post by Sparkiee on Aug 3, 2015 2:03:05 GMT
How would he be worth 7m in the side? If we lost 7m for the sake of a season we wouldn't have the money to reinvest elsewhere in the club
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Aug 3, 2015 2:06:52 GMT
I said exactly the same before we sold him, He'd have been worth 7m in the side for a season. People said he'd have sulked but why would he do that when he's looking for a big pay day? I did too. Really should have made him play out his contract. He would have had to play well or interest him would have plummeted.
|
|
|
N'Zonzi
Aug 3, 2015 2:12:05 GMT
via mobile
Post by CalgaryPotter on Aug 3, 2015 2:12:05 GMT
If it was my money then I might agree with you but I don't think receiving 7m for nzonzi has any bearing on what we invest in the team.
We've done well in the transfer window and spent 5m. We're talking about 15m being spent on a winger, do you think we would have only offered 8m if we hadn't sold nzonzi?
|
|
|
Post by malisastokie on Aug 3, 2015 2:20:09 GMT
I know it's a lot money and it could be re- invested, I appreciate your comments.
his value would have been, we have a third consecutive season in the top 10 and players we are trying to recruit see we are a long term option.
we would have had 12 months to scout the right replacement.
the Dutchman may be a great replacement but surely for our best defensive midfielder who showed he wanted to go several times , you would have thought we would have had our replacement firmly in our sights and sounded out as to whether he would come, not just rely a quick decision to take some cash and a loan player who may or may not be an upgrade.
if we have ambition then 7 million was money well spent or wasted , what ever way you look at it.
|
|
|
N'Zonzi
Aug 3, 2015 2:28:15 GMT
via mobile
Post by kustokie on Aug 3, 2015 2:28:15 GMT
If it was my money then I might agree with you but I don't think receiving 7m for nzonzi has any bearing on what we invest in the team. We've done well in the transfer window and spent 5m. We're talking about 15m being spent on a winger, do you think we would have only offered 8m if we hadn't sold nzonzi? No. Should have kept N'zonzi and spent big bucks on a winger. No reason not to hold on to him until the end of the window - look at Yarmo. Kiev is holding out until the bitter end we should have done the same with N'zonzi. Win-win situation we either had him for another season or sold him once a replacement was identified. Now it's potentially lose-lose - lost N'zonzi and no permanent replacement unless we pull out a rabbit in the next two. Bad management IMO.
|
|
|
N'Zonzi
Aug 3, 2015 3:05:01 GMT
via mobile
Post by CalgaryPotter on Aug 3, 2015 3:05:01 GMT
I don't want to go as far as bad management because what Hughes has done since taking over is remarkable.
Maybe we are about to see Van Ginkel take the league by storm, he has the pedigree.
To be honest, Nzonzi didn't walk on water for me but having him in the team playing for a big contract would have been nice.
|
|
|
Post by Sparkiee on Aug 3, 2015 3:08:36 GMT
If it was my money then I might agree with you but I don't think receiving 7m for nzonzi has any bearing on what we invest in the team. We've done well in the transfer window and spent 5m. We're talking about 15m being spent on a winger, do you think we would have only offered 8m if we hadn't sold nzonzi? I don't think we would have only offered 8m, but I think in the coffers is better than nothing, be it invested anywhere in the club
|
|
|
Post by StokieNath on Aug 3, 2015 5:50:50 GMT
How would he be worth 7m in the side? If we lost 7m for the sake of a season we wouldn't have the money to reinvest elsewhere in the club what money to invest in new players... Your joking
|
|
|
Post by Menorca Stokie on Aug 3, 2015 6:20:55 GMT
It wasn't an option was it? In today's game if a decent player want to move he will. Nzonzi has pushed for a move for the past couple of years and Hughes has managed to keep hold of him and I'm certain he did all he could to do the same this year. Sadly he wanted to go and keeping him wasn't an option.
I understand what you are saying but sadly it's not a realistic request. Trying to find another quality midfielder isn't as easy as you make it sound. The club have attempted to sign quality players in the past few months but sadly our club isn't fashionable. Sad but true.
|
|
|
Post by geoffscott on Aug 3, 2015 8:27:05 GMT
I find it incredible you would describe Marco Van Ginkel as an unknown.
With Van Ginkel in, I'm sure those 'in the know' such as the people running the football club, don't share your concerns about N'Zonzi's departure.
|
|
|
Post by agingerstokie on Aug 3, 2015 8:39:31 GMT
You're all talking as if keeping a player against his wish would not impact his performances, granted he probably wouldn't slump to a real shit level if he wanted to find a decent club on a free but would he have the same drive and commitment to the cause if we had turned around and said nah you're seeing out your contract whether you like it or not, he's already described as a moody bastard it could have caused dressing room issues who knows
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Aug 3, 2015 8:42:35 GMT
I find it incredible you would describe Marco Van Ginkel as an unknown. With Van Ginkel in, I'm sure those 'in the know' such as the people running the football club, don't share your concerns about N'Zonzi's departure. I bet they do. They just weren't able to prevent it.
|
|
|
Post by geoffscott on Aug 3, 2015 8:49:01 GMT
I find it incredible you would describe Marco Van Ginkel as an unknown. With Van Ginkel in, I'm sure those 'in the know' such as the people running the football club, don't share your concerns about N'Zonzi's departure. I bet they do. They just weren't able to prevent it. You don't think there will be real excitement and optimism about the place, that Marco Van Ginkel could quickly prove to be an upgrade on N'Zonzi?
|
|
|
Post by robwahlmann on Aug 3, 2015 8:50:41 GMT
I hope more people than me remember our first game against Villa last season? We were just as shite as we were yesterday against much inferior opposition! N'Zonzi was part of that midfield if I remember it correctly and didn't have much of a positive impact. In fact he hardly impressed before we turned Christmas time! If he had played as he did for the last quarter of the season the whole season we would have fought it out with Southampton for the last European spot! We need to give MVG and Sidders the same amount of time too before saying they can't do the job for us!
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Aug 3, 2015 8:51:59 GMT
Im not saying we should have kept him but we did let him go very quickly. It seems all other clubs try and hold onto star players UNTIL they get replacements lined up.
We should have kept Seville waiting until we needed the money to confirm the Yarmolenko signing.
Now we have a big lump of cash in our pockets and no way of spending it.
You just know Daniel Levy would have sold a player of Nzonzi's quality for 25m
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 3, 2015 9:03:40 GMT
IMO the club were wise to let him go. He clearly was ambitious and wants to play for France and CL.
It is not question of £7m, although I think money is important. It is a question of him being forced to spend another year of his career at Stoke where he and his father don't want to be. His attitude would clearly have risked disrupting the dressing room.
At the risk of upsetting some people, N'Zonzi was definitely our player of the season, not just ever present, but he made the side "tick" and is an excellent player. However he is not top draw and I think there are some now exaggerating his ability. If he was so good, we would have had top European clubs queuing up/competing/enquiring for his services. As it was Stoke got one offer from Leicester.
I wish we could have kept him, and persuaded him to throw in his lot with Stoke for another 3 years, but it was not to be and we need to move on. It is doubtful we could buy a straight replacement, so we need to develop someone.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Aug 3, 2015 9:20:30 GMT
I bet they do. They just weren't able to prevent it. You don't think there will be real excitement and optimism about the place, that Marco Van Ginkel could quickly prove to be an upgrade on N'Zonzi? Yes of course. but he is not our player and if he does prove to be an N'Zonzi upgrade when he matures and has a few matches under his belt then it mostly won't be for us.
|
|
|
Post by reggio27 on Aug 3, 2015 9:23:41 GMT
The thing with Van Ginkel is he's not our player. He could have a stormer this season. That will just mean he gets pulled back to Chelsea even quicker and we're left with an even bigger task of plugging the gap next summer.
|
|
|
Post by robwahlmann on Aug 3, 2015 9:24:14 GMT
You don't think there will be real excitement and optimism about the place, that Marco Van Ginkel could quickly prove to be an upgrade on N'Zonzi? Yes of course. but he is not our player and if he does prove to be an N'Zonzi upgrade when he matures and has a few matches under his belt then it mostly won't be for us. That's why I always feel we should just make loans with an option to buy and the fee set before we sign the loan agreement.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Aug 3, 2015 9:24:18 GMT
We couldn't keep N'Zonzi, he wanted away.
In MVG we potentially have a good a player - hopefully he will stay fit and perform to his considerable ability.
|
|
|
Post by geoffscott on Aug 3, 2015 9:57:02 GMT
So all things taken into account, I'd say.... Steven N'zonzi leaving when he did and for the fee we got, was good business for Stoke City. Replacing N'Zonzi with Van Ginkel, is a very good move by Stoke City. The problem Stoke City now has, is how to replace Marko Van Ginkel, the club has 12 months to do this. All is good
|
|
|
N'Zonzi
Aug 3, 2015 10:11:37 GMT
via mobile
Post by StokieAsh13 on Aug 3, 2015 10:11:37 GMT
Yes let's keep him and let him go next season for nothing...
Van Ginkel will fill that role and I think a few will be surprised at just how good this kid is.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Aug 3, 2015 10:19:30 GMT
It wasn't an option was it? In today's game if a decent player want to move he will. Nzonzi has pushed for a move for the past couple of years and Hughes has managed to keep hold of him and I'm certain he did all he could to do the same this year. Sadly he wanted to go and keeping him wasn't an option. I understand what you are saying but sadly it's not a realistic request. Trying to find another quality midfielder isn't as easy as you make it sound. The club have attempted to sign quality players in the past few months but sadly our club isn't fashionable. Sad but true. He was still under contract so it was an option he was our player, why let him go without a replacement lined up with known pedigree, poor decision smacks of a lack of ambition, £7 million in this league is not a massive amount of money, to replace our best player with a loan carrot is a massive gamble, we have had a shit transfer window when you consider we have lost the spine of our team.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Aug 3, 2015 10:22:46 GMT
So all things taken into account, I'd say.... Steven N'zonzi leaving when he did and for the fee we got, was good business for Stoke City. Replacing N'Zonzi with Van Ginkel, is a very good move by Stoke City. The problem Stoke City now has, is how to replace Marko Van Ginkel, the club has 12 months to do this. All is good The same as we had with Mosses 12 months breathing space which we managed to do fuck all in to fill that position, I understand your sentiments but it will not work that way as we have seen in the last two seasons, we are still scratching around to find a suitable winger one week until kick off.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2015 10:35:03 GMT
The thing with Van Ginkel is he's not our player. He could have a stormer this season. That will just mean he gets pulled back to Chelsea even quicker and we're left with an even bigger task of plugging the gap next summer. On the flip-side it's another opportunity for both our club and the player to demonstrate that Stoke City is a place where potentially top-class talent can come and further their careers. At this moment in time that is one of our most realistic means of attracting a higher calibre of player whilst sustainably improving.
|
|