bobbymoore 4:24 Tue Feb 7
Lacazette
|
|
Reviewing his options? Should we try again or just accept he wouldn't want to come to us.
http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/onetime-arsenal-and-west-ham-target-alexandre-lacazette-reveals-he-wants-to-leave-lyon-this-summer-a3459736.html
|
|
|
Replies - Newest Posts First ( Show In Chronological Order)
Trevor B
11:47 Wed Feb 8
Re: Lacazette
|
Fair enough, players only sign for clubs when they know that someone they've never met is still going to be playing there. Fair point son.
|
Northern Sold
11:44 Wed Feb 8
Re: Lacazette
|
Why would they came if our only world class player would be off soon?
Errr.... the stadium ??
|
daveyg
11:32 Wed Feb 8
Re: Lacazette
|
Trevor
It's called Networking.
Rumours were around that he may go after the Euro's .
A simple phone call and if there was any doubt that he wouldn't be at the club within the year then he wouldn't sign.
|
Spandex Sidney
11:27 Wed Feb 8
Re: Lacazette
|
Buy quality AND desire to play for us.
Any player that is better than what we have improves us, doesn't have to be a billion pound player. Snodgrass is better than Feghouli, Fonte is better than Collins, not headline grabbing signings but players that make us better and obviously wanted to play for us.
I want effort and commitment from my team more that talent to be honest. If we have talent with desire, brilliant.
|
Trevor B
11:25 Wed Feb 8
Re: Lacazette
|
Yeah I hear Payet is big mates with Bacca....
|
daveyg
11:24 Wed Feb 8
Re: Lacazette
|
I think the real reason why the likes of Lacazette,Bacca and Batshuayi didn't join was Payet telling them all he wasn't going to stay the whole season.
Why would they came if our only world class player would be off soon?
|
jack flash
12:17 Wed Feb 8
Re: Lacazette
|
Don't need another mardy French bottler do we?
|
pdbis
12:10 Wed Feb 8
Re: Lacazette
|
Avoid.
|
mattyolmes
11:48 Tue Feb 7
Re: Lacazette
|
buy quality nor quantity - can only put 11 on the pitch and quality will win you games.
we tried to buy in the summer but no fucker wanted to come i.e. Janssen, Lacazette, Batshityouashi, Chewbacca any others? - we know what happened next.
Kante was a steal at £7mill but this summer had his head turned and wanted to go to Chelsea (as they win things cunts) do you think he's have come here if we'd matched the bid? Nae chance. Ayew had multiple offers and we had to pay the "going rate" more or less
If Lacazette wants in and is the right character then ok re-consider bidding. Serems to me we were bitten this summer by buying players unsuited to the prem, do not make same mistake in Jan.
I hope Carroll stays fit.
|
Eerie Descent
6:59 Tue Feb 7
Re: Lacazette
|
Fucking hell.
You alright, Trev?
I see the fat little Gloucester incest cuckold Johnson is trying to impress his Internet friends again.
|
Alex V
6:45 Tue Feb 7
Re: Lacazette
|
>>> its more like buying the land rover in a rally why you buy ten skateboards
Well let's compare Kante at 7m and Ayew at 20m. Which is the land rover and which is the skateboard? That's the problem with your analogy - it does not describe a remotely similar comparison to decisions on transfers. So what use is it?
>>> when buying footballers you can load the odds in your favour by sensibly spending more upon one player rather than the same split into multiples of cheaper
Simply not true. Would you rather have three Kantes or one Ayew for the same price? If you answer the latter you need your head checked.
|
Crassus
6:36 Tue Feb 7
Re: Lacazette
|
Now Alex, I am going to explain the rules of roulette probability, coin spinning et al
Each turn/spin is an individual event to which the previous results have no bearing
No when buying footballers you can load the odds in your favour by sensibly spending more upon one player rather than the same split into multiples of cheaper
Its not buying ten tosses of a coin hoping one comes up heads - its more like buying the land rover in a rally why you buy ten skateboards
|
Alex V
6:36 Tue Feb 7
Re: Lacazette
|
>>> Dont buy quality as it is too pricey and too much of a risk, so buy multiples of inferior product and hope one turns out ok
A moment ago you were claiming my suggested approach was to buy no product at all. Now you move the goalposts.
Once again I point out that we are not in a position where quality is always apparent, or always priced correctly, or always leads to guaranteed results. If quality was always correctly priced and always delivered exactly according to what was paid, you'd be absolutely right. Unfortunately that is a fantasy world, a worthless model.
But it's good news. If the best player in the league is Kante, he cost only 7m 18 months ago. 2 years before that he cost nothing at all! There are hundreds of similar examples. We do not have to buy inferior products at all. What we have to get better at is finding quality products that are undervalued.
|
1307
6:31 Tue Feb 7
Re: Lacazette
|
Alex, you have just wrote a thesis on a statement I did not write....and you made up.
Where did I say regardless of cost? Pure fabrication.
I have no issue debating your points but please do not fabricate statements from myself.
|
Alex V
6:30 Tue Feb 7
Re: Lacazette
|
Crassus 6:24 Tue Feb 7
You described a situation where there was no way Lacazette would not be worth more after 12 months with us. I described a simple way where he would be worth nothing.
Your statement was just plain wrong.
|
Alex V
6:28 Tue Feb 7
Re: Lacazette
|
>>> Minimise the bet? No. The way for us to minimise risk is decide who we want and go all out to sign them.
Assuming you mean regardless of the price - that is utterly false. You would not find any best practice in any field that would suggest that as a theoretical way to minimise risk. It is actually among the very worst ways.
Extrapolating from that, your suggestion for the best way to minimise risk at roulette is to bet more!
|
Crassus
6:26 Tue Feb 7
Re: Lacazette
|
Alex V 6:24 Tue Feb 7
Not my logic mate - the natural extension of yours
Dont buy quality as it is too pricey and too much of a risk, so buy multiples of inferior product and hope one turns out ok
Ther is a phrase you would do well to consider
Buy cheap and buy twice
|
Crassus
6:24 Tue Feb 7
Re: Lacazette
|
V
That is just plain wrong
For starters we would have sold season tickets, lifted morale, displayed intent and enhanced marketing appeal
When knackered, the insurance would have covered the loss and we move on
|
Alex V
6:24 Tue Feb 7
Re: Lacazette
|
>>> Better way still is to not bet at all - you are just not in the game then though
Which is why that approach would be absurdly bad. In which case it is not 'a better way' at all so your suggestion is entirely false. That is the worst approach in fact.
Once again, the assumption that the alternative to a bad approach is 'the worst approach' is just a logical fallacy.
|
1307
6:23 Tue Feb 7
Re: Lacazette
|
Just to be clear like Cras, win and dressing room good, lose and dressing room bad......like.
Only the most gullible supporter believes this 'great in the dressing room' nonsense.
|
Crassus
6:21 Tue Feb 7
Re: Lacazette
|
1307
Ok so conversely, bad in the dressing room etc is neither more likely to promote bad results?
Just to be clear like
|
| 
