Summer transfer madness thread

[LeeB]

He was imperious throughout that game, we'd have lost it without him. In fact, the main reason we were struggling was down to his absence in midfield.

[peter w]

It was. How depressing that one defensive midfielder 'missing' and we were struggling to overcome an all but relegated Championship team.

[LeeB]

It was. How depressing that one defensive midfielder 'missing' and we were struggling to overcome an all but relegated Championship team.

I won't disagree with that, even more so when you're watching it live and absolutely piss wet through.

[VinnieChase84]

To fill the jedinak over reliance gap I'd suggest getting Mooy on loan from city (if Huddersfield don't go up and sign him)

[tomd2103]

He was imperious throughout that game, we'd have lost it without him. In fact, the main reason we were struggling was down to his absence in midfield.

He played well at CB against Sheffield Wednesday as well.  I would rather look at him back there next season (where it will be easier to cover him) and bring in another defensive midfielder in the summer who won't have the burden that Jedinak's international commitments bring. 

[Gareth]

I would have liked to have thought injuries aside the plan would have been to use Jedinak to mentor Lyden into that def MF role...rather than continually spend develop one from within. 

[peter w]

To fill the jedinak over reliance gap I'd suggest getting Mooy on loan from city (if Huddersfield don't go up and sign him)

Which one? Leicester? Chester? Brechin?

[VinnieChase84]

To fill the jedinak over reliance gap I'd suggest getting Mooy on loan from city (if Huddersfield don't go up and sign him)

Which one? Leicester? Chester? Brechin?

Manchester

[in exile]

To fill the jedinak over reliance gap I'd suggest getting Mooy on loan from city (if Huddersfield don't go up and sign him)

Which one? Leicester? Chester? Brechin?

Manchester

Ouch!

[peter w]

To fill the jedinak over reliance gap I'd suggest getting Mooy on loan from city (if Huddersfield don't go up and sign him)

Which one? Leicester? Chester? Brechin?

Manchester

Say that then. Other than being mancs with a superiority complex they have done nothing to have earned the right to be known as 'City'. hate them or hate them their rivals have done more than enough to be the team known as 'United'. Man City have done nothing and fans shouldn't buy into their manc 'Cit-eh' nonsense and so I will pull up anyone, and do - especially man City fans - who expect me to know who they mean when they say 'City'.

[paul_e]

To fill the jedinak over reliance gap I'd suggest getting Mooy on loan from city (if Huddersfield don't go up and sign him)

Which one? Leicester? Chester? Brechin?

Manchester

Say that then. Other than being mancs with a superiority complex they have done nothing to have earned the right to be known as 'City'. hate them or hate them their rivals have done more than enough to be the team known as 'United'. Man City have done nothing and fans shouldn't buy into their manc 'Cit-eh' nonsense and so I will pull up anyone, and do - especially man City fans - who expect me to know who they mean when they say 'City'.

I agree with most of that but I don't accept United either and I used to work with a Blarkburn fan who would always say Rovers which used to annoy me as well.  As I said to him something like 'Villa' is fine because you could say that to anyone in the country who follows football and they'd know who you mean but things like united, rovers, city, albion, etc are very much dependent on where you are and who you're talking to.

[peter w]

oh i agree wholeheartedly I never refer to them as United but if anyone can go by that moniker then it's the biggest club. I was thinking of Blackburn as well but those that call them Rovers have tended to have lived there for all or most of their lives when there is no other club around (in Blackburn), so for them it is natural to refer to themselves as Rovers when in conversation with others. Its not the same superiority complex as seen with man City fans.

[Bad English]

"Villa were shite today."
"Which one? SC, Mohun Bagun, the French pop group?"
"..."

[cdbearsfan]

To fill the jedinak over reliance gap I'd suggest getting Mooy on loan from city (if Huddersfield don't go up and sign him)

Which one? Leicester? Chester? Brechin?

Manchester

Say that then. Other than being mancs with a superiority complex they have done nothing to have earned the right to be known as 'City'. hate them or hate them their rivals have done more than enough to be the team known as 'United'. Man City have done nothing and fans shouldn't buy into their manc 'Cit-eh' nonsense and so I will pull up anyone, and do - especially man City fans - who expect me to know who they mean when they say 'City'.

I agree with most of that but I don't accept United either and I used to work with a Blarkburn fan who would always say Rovers which used to annoy me as well.  As I said to him something like 'Villa' is fine because you could say that to anyone in the country who follows football and they'd know who you mean but things like united, rovers, city, albion, etc are very much dependent on where you are and who you're talking to.

I don't mind when people, even Man U fans, do it when talking about their own team. If I'm talking to a Bluenose and he refers to "Blues", I can be fairly certain he's on about the Young Offenders' Institute on the Coventry Road rather than, say, Chelsea, Everton, Rangers or the Cardiff Rugby team.

What does annoy me, and there is no excuse for it, is people with no affinity for either team referring to clubs from the Seventh City as just "City" or "United". Any broadcaster who does this when they are playing another team with the same nickname should be sacked on the spot. ******.

[cdbearsfan]

oh i agree wholeheartedly I never refer to them as United but if anyone can go by that moniker then it's the biggest club. I was thinking of Blackburn as well but those that call them Rovers have tended to have lived there for all or most of their lives when there is no other club around (in Blackburn), so for them it is natural to refer to themselves as Rovers when in conversation with others. Its not the same superiority complex as seen with man City fans.

I'd say, of the two, Man City have more right to just be known by the their second name as, I believe, there were first to adopt said monicker.

There were millions of Uniteds by the time Newnton Heath changed their name.

I'd like to see us adopt a US-style rule where you are only allowed one team per nickname and all the tediously unoriginal Citys, Uniteds and Towns who copied other teams were forced to change their names.

I think Sheffield may have been the first United... not sure who the first Town were.