collapse collapse

Please donate to help keep this site going.

The Fanzine

Heroes & Villains Fanzine

Get your fix of all things Claret & Blue by subscribing to the online version!

* H&V Best Of

Follow us on...

Author Topic: Jack Grealish  (Read 1249307 times)

Offline Sexual Ealing

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7806
  • Location: West Ealing
  • GM : PCM
Re: Jack Grealish
« Reply #13395 on: February 22, 2020, 11:26:05 PM »
Buying wank like Reina, Baston and Drinkwater in January when the side needed a proper kick up the arse and some pace and power injected is what will we to us losing Jack and having to watch shite like Jota playing against Reading next season.

Where are all the non-wank players who are happy to come to relegation scraps? If you think we ought to be paying over the odds for mid-table wankers to come somewhere they're not happy, I have a message for you from Sunderland AFC.

Online LukeJames

  • Member
  • Posts: 2354
Re: Jack Grealish
« Reply #13396 on: February 22, 2020, 11:27:04 PM »
I'm a bit drunk but I think we are agreeing on the same point now 😂

Offline Luke8

  • Member
  • Posts: 397
Re: Jack Grealish
« Reply #13397 on: February 22, 2020, 11:44:51 PM »
I'm a bit drunk but I think we are agreeing on the same point now 😂

Ha, quite possibly - all good in that case!

Offline ChicagoLion

  • Member
  • Posts: 9820
  • Location: Chicago
Re: Jack Grealish
« Reply #13398 on: February 23, 2020, 07:48:45 AM »
The strain of trying to carry this team really showed yesterday, there was a point when he went to the bench arms out in a what the fuck is going on? Gesture.
What a shame that his last season with us will be like this.

Offline The_ads

  • Member
  • Posts: 439
Re: Jack Grealish
« Reply #13399 on: February 23, 2020, 09:13:33 AM »
Buying wank like Reina, Baston and Drinkwater in January when the side needed a proper kick up the arse and some pace and power injected is what will we to us losing Jack and having to watch shite like Jota playing against Reading next season.

Reina has been pretty good overall and Baston has played a grand total of 18 minutes, but yeah, Ďwankí.


Heís right though isnít he because, letís face it, Whilst Reina has been decent itís been shots in, in most games since Xmas and playing fucking two goalkeepers at once wouldnít have prevented the elementary mistakes were making at the back leading to gilt edge chances for the opposition in every game we play.

Baston maybe deserves benefit of doubt but letís face it here, based on his performances in England since he arrived he looks crap and Drinkwater is gone at the game so Iíd say recruitment in Jan, given our position, was horrific.

Offline David_Nab

  • Member
  • Posts: 3972
  • Location: Luton
  • GM : 24.12.2015
Re: Jack Grealish
« Reply #13400 on: February 23, 2020, 10:25:05 AM »
The strain of trying to carry this team really showed yesterday, there was a point when he went to the bench arms out in a what the fuck is going on? Gesture.
What a shame that his last season with us will be like this.

I noticed as well he going ape shit when Conner didn't play him in ..It's a wonder its taken him this long to start to be effected could do with SJM back just to have someone on same wave length on pitch

Offline Luke8

  • Member
  • Posts: 397
Re: Jack Grealish
« Reply #13401 on: February 23, 2020, 02:24:16 PM »
Buying wank like Reina, Baston and Drinkwater in January when the side needed a proper kick up the arse and some pace and power injected is what will we to us losing Jack and having to watch shite like Jota playing against Reading next season.

Reina has been pretty good overall and Baston has played a grand total of 18 minutes, but yeah, Ďwankí.


Heís right though isnít he because, letís face it, Whilst Reina has been decent itís been shots in, in most games since Xmas and playing fucking two goalkeepers at once wouldnít have prevented the elementary mistakes were making at the back leading to gilt edge chances for the opposition in every game we play.

Baston maybe deserves benefit of doubt but letís face it here, based on his performances in England since he arrived he looks crap and Drinkwater is gone at the game so Iíd say recruitment in Jan, given our position, was horrific.

Iím not sure Iíve understood your logic re Reina. He is a good player but because our defending has been poor he is a bad signing?

Baston is a third/fourth choice centre forward for us, it was hardly a signing to set the world alight but I would be staggered if many people had watch him at all closely before he signed for us.

Drinkwater hasnít been great, but has been getting better in my opinion and itís not like our other options are putting in incredible performance either - Nakamba was very poor yesterday for one

Heís not been mentioned but Samatta looks a decent signing so far..

Iím not saying the recruitment was great, but given the unpredictable injuries and that it is a difficult window anyway, I donít think the club did that badly. Certainly there wasnít loads of other realistic transfers that took place where I think we should have been making those signings instead - even if it was that simple.

Online GarTomas

  • Member
  • Posts: 1132
Re: Jack Grealish
« Reply #13402 on: February 23, 2020, 04:18:43 PM »
Buying wank like Reina, Baston and Drinkwater in January when the side needed a proper kick up the arse and some pace and power injected is what will we to us losing Jack and having to watch shite like Jota playing against Reading next season.

Agreed, our recruitment has been desperate. With the likes of Grealish, and to a lesser extent McGinn and Mings, I thought we would give it a real go this season. Sheffield United have shown up the supposed quality in the division for what it is.

Name the club and name the player that was signed in January that we should of been in for.

Online hilts_coolerking

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13075
  • Location: Kennington
  • GM : 26.07.2020
Re: Jack Grealish
« Reply #13403 on: February 23, 2020, 04:22:35 PM »
Name the club and name the player that was signed in January that we should of been in for.
Why is that limited to players that were signed in January?  They weren't the only ones available.

Online GarTomas

  • Member
  • Posts: 1132
Re: Jack Grealish
« Reply #13404 on: February 23, 2020, 04:24:47 PM »
Name the club and name the player that was signed in January that we should of been in for.
Why is that limited to players that were signed in January?  They weren't the only ones available.

It was a response to the players we had signed in January being called out.

Online hilts_coolerking

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13075
  • Location: Kennington
  • GM : 26.07.2020
Re: Jack Grealish
« Reply #13405 on: February 23, 2020, 04:28:27 PM »
Name the club and name the player that was signed in January that we should of been in for.
Why is that limited to players that were signed in January?  They weren't the only ones available.

It was a response to the players we had signed in January being called out.
If you're saying there's no-one better we could have signed you have to consider everyone who was or might have been available, not just the ones who moved.  I defy anyone to say there was no better player than Drinkwater available. 

Online Brassneck

  • Member
  • Posts: 1623
Re: Jack Grealish
« Reply #13406 on: February 23, 2020, 07:18:49 PM »
Name the club and name the player that was signed in January that we should of been in for.
Why is that limited to players that were signed in January?  They weren't the only ones available.

It was a response to the players we had signed in January being called out.
If you're saying there's no-one better we could have signed you have to consider everyone who was or might have been available, not just the ones who moved.  I defy anyone to say there was no better player than Drinkwater available.

How about if someone says that there was no better than Drinkwater available on loan?

It is widely being reported that we are perilously close to FFP limits.

I personally think that we had no choice other than to scrape the barrel in January with the New years Day injuries impacting our activity as well.

Online GarTomas

  • Member
  • Posts: 1132
Re: Jack Grealish
« Reply #13407 on: February 25, 2020, 06:12:09 AM »
Name the club and name the player that was signed in January that we should of been in for.
Why is that limited to players that were signed in January?  They weren't the only ones available.

It was a response to the players we had signed in January being called out.
If you're saying there's no-one better we could have signed you have to consider everyone who was or might have been available, not just the ones who moved.  I defy anyone to say there was no better player than Drinkwater available.

But logic dictates we would of signed them then? Or they didnít want to join or we were restricted by FFP.

Clearly Drinkwater was a gamble but it was a tough window.  Although that Bruno Fernandes Man United signed looks good so Iím clearly disgruntled we didnít break our transfer record for him.

Offline Monty

  • Member
  • Posts: 17505
  • Location: El Alamein.
  • GM : 26.08.2019
Re: Jack Grealish
« Reply #13408 on: February 25, 2020, 04:04:22 PM »
At the risk of actually talking about Jack on this thread, much is made of our own FFP troubles when discussing selling him, but not enough of those of others. Could Man United really afford him, for instance? They've just spen the best part of £50m on Bruno Fernandes which Christ knows how that's paid for, maybe they'll make some back on Pogba but how much (and is that meant to pay for Fernandes anyway), and especially if they don't make the Champions League this year.

All this prompted by the news today of their 20% revenue drop and the more than fivefold increase in their net debt: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/feb/25/manchester-uniteds-net-debt-rises-736m-to-3913m-in-three-months-solskjaer-woodward

Offline PeterWithesShin

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 57001
  • Location: B16
  • GM : 17.03.2015
Re: Jack Grealish
« Reply #13409 on: February 25, 2020, 04:17:34 PM »
It's risen £73.6m to £391.3m, not from 73 to 391. Still eye-watering amounts mind.