|
|
Post by Penners on Jan 3, 2009 19:25:38 GMT
In selling Parkin! Although his fitness was dubious to say the least, he did know where the back of the net was. We sold him without really increasing our squad enough with effective players, leaving only the likes of Pericard to fill in when in times of need.
Pulis really has a problem at the moment as his usual line of quality not quantity falls down, as right now, we need both. I have no idea who is in the sights, who will be attracted to our club, but what I do know is that we should have transfer activity early in this window. The staff at the club should have all targets identified, offers ready and contracts and lawyers on standby.
I'll stand by Pulis and his tactics, as he is the one who has delivered to me something I never thought I would as a Stoke fan, top flight football.
Come on Stoke, prove we are now a Premier League club and do the business!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2009 19:28:11 GMT
Don't agree about Parkin Penners, the guy clearly has ability but was a total wastrel who never took his opportunity when he had it and made no attempt to improve his fitness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Penners on Jan 3, 2009 19:32:31 GMT
As opposed to Pericard, who has no ability, average fitness and no will to play for Stoke City.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2009 19:34:07 GMT
We had an offer for Parkin though didn't we? We can't sell Pericard because nobody wants him!
|
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Jan 3, 2009 19:37:12 GMT
In hindsight I'd have much rather kept hold of Parkin ahead of Pericard. You have to wonder what exactly it was that Pulis liked about him so much that he made him his first signing on returning, and to think he's let the likes of Patterson go (or offered him a contract that was so shit he turned it down and went to scunthorpe), a product of our own academy and local lad, and kept this guy on  . |
|
|
|
Post by chuffed on Jan 3, 2009 19:37:15 GMT
You must think things are very bad if your saying we should've kept Parkin. I was a big Parkin fan (at first) but the guy didnt lose any weight, didn't get fit and in the end didn't perform.
|
|
|
|
Post by Penners on Jan 3, 2009 19:37:54 GMT
Yes, but honestly, given the option, would you have rather have had Pericard or Parkin on the field today. It was good business getting £500,000 for Parkin, but just a couple of goals from him during this injury/suspension crisis would be worth far more than that! I beleive his fitness could and should have been sorted by our management team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2009 19:40:10 GMT
You can't help someone who won't help themselves though, and Parkin wouldn't do that.
If we hadn't sold Parkin we'd have just had two useless parasites draining a wage instead of one.
|
|
|
|
Post by swampySCFC on Jan 3, 2009 19:43:34 GMT
FFS Parkin was getting nearly as much abuse on here as Pericard.
Good luck to the lad in his fresh start but dont start lamenting the fact that hes gone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Penners on Jan 3, 2009 19:43:46 GMT
I get what you are saying, but I think you are missing my point a little. We sold a striker without really filling the space he left with a replacement, even if it was just another half decent squad player. Today we ended up playing Rory up front, thats how short of attacking options we really are. God only help us against Liverpool etc if someone doesn't come in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2009 19:45:17 GMT
I get what you are saying, but I think you are missing my point a little. We sold a striker without really filling the space he left with a replacement, even if it was just another half decent squad player. Today we ended up playing Rory up front, thats how short of attacking options we really are. God only help us against Liverpool etc if someone doesn't come in. Wasn't Kitson the replacement? |
|
|
|
Post by Penners on Jan 3, 2009 19:49:04 GMT
No, surely Kitson should have been an addition, increasing our numbers, not keeping to our original quota.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2009 19:52:37 GMT
No, surely Kitson should have been an addition, increasing our numbers, not keeping to our original quota. It would have been hard to keep five senior strikers at the club and been expected to keep them happy, and especially difficult to tell one whom we'd received an offer for that instead of leaving for first team football he had to be stuck on the bench as 4th choice striker. |
|
.
