CL qualification

[craig 5,199]

I've been on sites in the past where I've had a great time putting celtic fans in their place. I don't have a problem with it, if the site is open enough to allow it, although these days I'm not really into it.

 

However this is celtic fans pretending to be Rangers fans.

 

Re the former - agreed. I love it because they resort to name calling and you can sense their anger from behing the keyboard - and it is great amusement at the same time.

 

Re the latter - I didn't know that. Gersnet is all I need - thankfully Tims only appear fleetingly.

[Zappa 0]

Not necessarily Shroomz.... did we not have some folks on here who wanted Celtic to do well "for the co-efficient" ?

That's not exactly a good comparison Craig. There's a hell of a big difference between a few people talking about Scottish teams doing well for the coefficient & dozens of Rangers fans saying they'd be willing to sacrifice us getting all the CL TV money & in effect losing out on close to �£3m so that we can *possibly* have a slightly easier CL group draw. That's what I was talking about & it doesn't make any sense at all, especially when we need that money and don't want the tims to get it. Any Bear that's willing for us to lose that money to the other lot just for the possibility of getting an easier CL group must need their head examined.

[craig 5,199]

Dont get me wrong, I dont see the logic in wanting Celtic to make the group stages just so we get an easier draw.

 

I mean, just thinking about it logically renders the very thought stupid.

 

What if they did get in and we did get pot 2. There is 3 mill gone right there. What then if they finish 2nd out of pot 3 and we finish 3rd or 4th out of pot 2 ? Now we have the situation that Celtic will make more, possibly far more, money from their Euro exploits than us.

 

Any Gers fan thinking that way needs their mind read.

[Wija 0]

Dont get me wrong, I dont see the logic in wanting Celtic to make the group stages just so we get an easier draw.

 

I don't want to pop every fcukers balloons here, but it makes hee haw difference what pot we are in. It will be extremely hard to progress with the team we have.

 

We need a central defender and a midfielder.

[ian1964 10,761]

I don't want to pop every fcukers balloons here, but it makes hee haw difference what pot we are in. It will be extremely hard to progress with the team we have.

 

We need a central defender and a midfielder.

 

Agreed,it's all about the money

[Gers4Life 0]

Oh the irony.

 

So, you come on to our message board and pontificate to us how good your team is and we've just to roll over?

Jog on mate.

 

This is a Gunners forum for Arsenal fans. You want to come in and have a chat about our team fair dues, but I for one ain't interested in The Bhoys.

If I were I'd join a Celtic forum.

 

Yes we are entitled to our opinions that is what we come into this ARSENAL forum for.

You brought your club to the fore and we commented on it.

If you don't like it, tuff sh*t. You know where to go.

 

Blah blah blah Celtic this, Celtic that, blah blah blah. We're not interested mate. Our teams stronger, faster and more skilled and we're looking forward to going through comfortably.

 

So door let the door slam your arse on the way out.

Jesus, cheeky c**t.

 

 

Sorry chaps but it had to be said.

 

Found this on the arsenal forum?

[Zappa 0]

We need a central defender and a midfielder.

This is why while most people were saying Adam should take a hint & GTF, I really hoped we'd manage to hold on to him. With Fergie away, Thomson coming back from serious injury & Edu still out I knew we could have done with keeping Adam for backup. Our problem now with the midfield is that replacing a good squad player like Adam with one who's even just marginally better than Adam was, is going to cost us MUCH more than �£500k so my guess is that we'll possibly rely on our �£2.5m man McCulloch with the youngster Ness as central midfield backup or John Fleck as an attacking midfielder & put any transfer money made available to strengthening the defense. That's what I'd do anyway; just get the defense strengthened with a center back & another RB, as SW can move to left back if Papac is out.

[craig 5,199]

This is why while most people were saying Adam should take a hint & GTF, I really hoped we'd manage to hold on to him. With Fergie away, Thomson coming back from serious injury & Edu still out I knew we could have done with keeping Adam for backup. Our problem now with the midfield is that replacing a good squad player like Adam with one who's even just marginally better than Adam was, is going to cost us MUCH more than �£500k so my guess is that we'll possibly rely on our �£2.5m man McCulloch with the youngster Ness as central midfield backup or John Fleck as an attacking midfielder & put any transfer money made available to strengthening the defense. That's what I'd do anyway; just get the defense strengthened with a center back & another RB, as SW can move to left back if Papac is out.

 

But Adam was never going to get a game under WS. Therefore better to take the money.

 

I think we need a proper LM and/or LM. Adam was a central midfielder and we constantly decry WS for playing a guy out of position.

 

We need a CB far more than we need a midfielder. In midfield we have Mendes, Davis, Thomson, Edu, McCulloch (supposedly), Beasley - and Novo, Fleck, Aaron & Naismith who can also play there too - I make that 10 midfielders and we should be able to get 4 (or 5 depending on formation) out of that lot surely ? On top of that.... as someone said last week we havent had a LM since Albertz left - and we won the league last year. I don't think it imperative to have kept Adam. That said I would rather have Adam stay than McCulloch - but I suspect McCulloch is staying because of his "versatility".

 

We also don't necessarily need another RB to punt Whittaker to LB. When Broadfoot is fit he can slot into RB (and I don't care what others say, the big fella has rarely let us down) or use Lowing, that is what the "squad" is for, correct ? As well as that..... If Stevie Smith is fit again and remains injury-free then there is competition for Papac right there.

 

The first and foremost position we NEED to strengthen is CB. Anything else is a bonus.

 

But Charlie Adam wasn't going to get a game - he had fallen so far behind so many that he just simply wouldn't be quoted. I know what you are saying about replacing him Shroomz - but that is pretty much an invalid statement. Why ? Because he won't be replaced - we all knew that this summer was going to be one of trimming the squad and, if I am honest, the players that have left so far are the ones I would have let go too. I think that WS has gotten rid of the ones who we, for the most part, would have been comfortable in letting go.

[Zappa 0]

But Adam was never going to get a game under WS. Therefore better to take the money.

 

I think we need a proper LM and/or LM. Adam was a central midfielder and we constantly decry WS for playing a guy out of position.

 

We need a CB far more than we need a midfielder. In midfield we have Mendes, Davis, Thomson, Edu, McCulloch (supposedly), Beasley - and Novo, Fleck, Aaron & Naismith who can also play there too - I make that 10 midfielders and we should be able to get 4 (or 5 depending on formation) out of that lot surely ?

When I brought the Adam subject up it was in the context of cover for central midfield, not LM. With Thomson rightly being brought back slowly, we can't count him as 100% reliable yet imo & with Edu still out, that only leaves us with Mendes, Davis & McCulloch, but remember that McCulloch is not a natural central midfielder, he's a striker that happens to be able to play there & just about anywhere else he's asked, but not always with the level of ability we really need in the role he's given. So, other than Mendes & Davis in central midfield, we're left with our young attacking midfielder options like Fleck & Aaron or the lad Ness. My basic point is that taking injuries into account, we're actually now as thin in central midfield as we are at the back. Add to that the fact that McCulloch is likely to be played as a center half on occasion if we don't bring at least one CB in before September & that leaves the central midfield looking even thinner.

 

We also don't necessarily need another RB to punt Whittaker to LB. When Broadfoot is fit he can slot into RB (and I don't care what others say, the big fella has rarely let us down) or use Lowing, that is what the "squad" is for, correct ? As well as that..... If Stevie Smith is fit again and remains injury-free then there is competition for Papac right there.

I hear you, but Broadfoot isn't fit. Not sure when he might be back, but until he is, we'll likely see SW played at LB when Papac isn't playing.

 

The first and foremost position we NEED to strengthen is CB. Anything else is a bonus.

Agreed!

 

But Charlie Adam wasn't going to get a game - he had fallen so far behind so many that he just simply wouldn't be quoted. I know what you are saying about replacing him Shroomz - but that is pretty much an invalid statement. Why ? Because he won't be replaced - we all knew that this summer was going to be one of trimming the squad and, if I am honest, the players that have left so far are the ones I would have let go too. I think that WS has gotten rid of the ones who we, for the most part, would have been comfortable in letting go.

If Thomson's return from injury doesn't go as well as planned & Edu doesn't get back quickly enough, Adam would definitely have got a game here and there. Not an extended run unless Mendes or Davis picked up an injury, but he'd have got some games. Would have been handy to have for cup games while the top players concentrate mainly on the SPL & CL.

[craig 5,199]

When I brought the Adam subject up it was in the context of cover for central midfield, not LM. With Thomson rightly being brought back slowly, we can't count him as 100% reliable yet imo & with Edu still out, that only leaves us with Mendes, Davis & McCulloch, but remember that McCulloch is not a natural central midfielder, he's a striker that happens to be able to play there & just about anywhere else he's asked, but not always with the level of ability we really need in the role he's given. So, other than Mendes & Davis in central midfield, we're left with our young attacking midfielder options like Fleck & Aaron or the lad Ness. My basic point is that taking injuries into account, we're actually now as thin in central midfield as we are at the back. Add to that the fact that McCulloch is likely to be played as a center half on occasion if we don't bring at least one CB in before September & that leaves the central midfield looking even thinner.

 

That is fair enough. However, we can't keep players "just in case" things don't go right with Thomson and/or Edu's return to fitness. Our finances predicate that we need to balance the books. Unfortunate ? Yes. But that is the reality. And WS must (maybe I say should) already have given thought as to whether he needs to keep certain players (if not being forced to sell no matter the player) and he has determined that we don't need Charlie Adam. He no doubt would have been one of the "cover" options but 500k in the bank plus saved wages is something, sadly, the club need right now.

 

We have Davis and Mendes for CM. Thomson is fit again, just not match fit and Edu's own website says he is scheduled to return in September. Yes, both those can go wrong but we have to expect them not to. So when Edu returns we have Mendes, Thomson, Davis, Edu - it will be September, so we would have Charlie Adam playing reserve football (as the transfer window would have closed) and pulling a decent wage and the club have missed out on 500k in transfer fees too.

 

I understand what you are saying Shroomz about him being good cover, I just don't think that the club could have turned the transfer down. On top of that, you originally also mentioned the cost of bringing in a replacement. But we won't bring in a replacement for Charlie Adam because we knew that we would have to trim and he is a player that commanded a fee.

 

McCulloch may not be the greatest but he probably won't be any worse than Adam would have been in CM. Probably.....

 

I hear you, but Broadfoot isn't fit. Not sure when he might be back, but until he is, we'll likely see SW played at LB when Papac isn't playing.

 

 

I think that Broadfoot is back around Xmas ? However, as I said, if Papac is out then Stevie Smith slots into LB. Natural position, has shown his talent for the position and can slot in there easily.

 

If WS DID decide to put Whittaker at LB in the event of Papac's omission then it looks like we would go with Andy Little back there (seemingly he can play a number of positions) and we also have Lowing.

 

Again, we have cover for those positions as things stand and we are not a club which is presently able to simply go out and buy players for the sake of it.

 

We have to pick our positions and, as I said, CB is the one position where we truly have NO back-up at all. We have Papac & Smith at LB, we have Whittaker at RB along with Lowing and now Little (untried and untested I know) but at CB we have no cover for Weir & Bougherra other than Danny Wilson and, whilst I would put Wilson, Lowing & Little in the same category as promising but untried & untested I think (rightly or wrongly) that CB is probably the most demanding position for someone to come into, especially for a youngster.

 

We may not be able to sign ANYONE this transfer window and that would make it a worry Re CB first and foremost for me. I think we can "get by" in other departments but that one slightly concerns me (although McCulloch has played pretty well there when called upon - but we dont want to HAVE to call upon him for that position).

 

 

If Thomson's return from injury doesn't go as well as planned & Edu doesn't get back quickly enough, Adam would definitely have got a game here and there. Not an extended run unless Mendes or Davis picked up an injury, but he'd have got some games. Would have been handy to have for cup games while the top players concentrate mainly on the SPL & CL.

 

As I said above, we shouldn't really be holding onto players "just in case" recoveries from injuries dont go as planned. Financially we can't.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think Charlie Adam would have been a decent squad member and wouldnt have complained had he got the odd game and cup games - but financially we simply couldnt turn it down.

 

And he won't be getting replaced (unless..... Celtic go out of the CL and the additional TV revenue is utilised). This is not a slight on Charlie Adam but there may even be Bosman's that could fulifill the role of "squad filler" as well as Charlie would.