The great big short Summer Transfer and "What the hell do we do now" Thread | Page 219 | Vital Football

The great big short Summer Transfer and "What the hell do we do now" Thread

Notwithstanding do we need both Yates and Colback in the team at the same time argument, a tempo to the attacks at this level is vital. Something I would suggest Carvalho gives along with the high risk type football.
 
eastanglianred said:
Notwithstanding do we need both Yates and Colback in the team at the same time argument, a tempo to the attacks at this level is vital. Something I would suggest Carvalho gives along with the high risk type football.
Click to expand...
We do not no. Colback, Silva would be preferred. Yates to come in if Colback and Sow are unavailable. He should be 3rd choice, and if Brennen and McGuane progress, he would then be surplus so we should be looking to sell him next year. Keep for now, but he's a bang average player
 
we should make an offer to Chris Wilder and sack SL. Wilder loves all things Forest, so he might as well come and manage us!
 
#NFFC update: Boss Lamouchi on very thin ice as reported Saturday. Marinakis has told him wants a quick response this term, which hasn't happened so far. Keeper Samba likely to be fall guy after Diallo arrival as both Sabri & Marinakis not been happy with him for while
 
the jock said:
43 permanent and 18 loan signings for Nottingham Forest since June 2017. More than any club in the country.

It's ok though...they know what they are doing allegedly
Click to expand...
In fairness, we have probably made a pretty substantial profit in fees from those players.

We have finished higher every season in that time.

A fair number of the players have been easy to move on (not all obviously).
 
the jock said:
43 permanent and 18 loan signings for Nottingham Forest since June 2017. More than any club in the country.

It's ok though...they know what they are doing allegedly
Click to expand...

I make it 43 permanents and 21 loans totalling 64

Whoever told you that it is more than any other Club in the Country must have been on the lash all day.

The first two Clubs I checked out both beat those figures:

Leeds made 54 permanent signings and 5 loans in the same period

Brentford made 61 permanent and 5 loans in the same period

And I can think of one more Club who I have not checked yet who will have figures very close to ours if not higher

During that period, Brentford had 2 managers, Leeds 3 and us 4
 
Pope John XXIII said:
In fairness, we have probably made a pretty substantial profit in fees from those players.

We have finished higher every season in that time.

A fair number of the players have been easy to move on (not all obviously).
Click to expand...

The current state of the squad in terms of numbers is the best I can remember.

23 first team players

4 under 23's attached to the first team squad

4 bomb squad.

I think you have to go back to the season when Fawaz purchased the Club to find numbers that low.
 
mao tse tung said:
I make it 43 permanents and 21 loans totalling 64

Whoever told you that it is more than any other Club in the Country must have been on the lash all day.

The first two Clubs I checked out both beat those figures:

Leeds made 54 permanent signings and 5 loans in the same period

Brentford made 61 permanent and 5 loans in the same period

And I can think of one more Club who I have not checked yet who will have figures very close to ours if not higher

During that period, Brentford had 2 managers, Leeds 3 and us 4
Click to expand...
Daniel Storey

@danielstorey85

Replying to
@illinoisblue
Looking briefly, it's more first-team additions than any club in the country that hasn't been gutted by financial crisis (ie Bolton).
 
the jock said:
43 permanent and 18 loan signings for Nottingham Forest since June 2017. More than any club in the country.

It's ok though...they know what they are doing allegedly
Click to expand...
Gosh.
[Was going to write 'wow' but didn't want to get Ingy all hot under the collar.]

That is a high turnover but it isn't easy to assess in isolation. Were they keeping us afloat? Did they go up or down? If we had held on to, say, five for one year longer would we have gone up and made more? Who knows.

Manager turnover won't have helped. None of them is content to work with other managers' leftovers, the arrogant swines.
 
in_the_top_one said:
Gosh.
[Was going to write 'wow' but didn't want to get Ingy all hot under the collar.]

That is a high turnover but it isn't easy to assess in isolation. Were they keeping us afloat? Did they go up or down? If we had held on to, say, five for one year longer would we have gone up and made more? Who knows.

Manager turnover won't have helped. None of them is content to work with other managers' leftovers, the arrogant swines.
Click to expand...

Those figures look a little better if you remove the loans which became permanent, but they are still bad, in the main, because we keep on changing managers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.