Football 2014/15

[Gucci Piggy]

He definitely isn't a striker.

[Andre91]

Podolski should be played as a striker.

[mrtourette]

No he isn't. He's a striker who often gets played on the wing, out of position. Podolski and Walcott are wingers who sometimes get played up front, out of position.

I've been watching him for years, and he's no fucking striker. There's a reason he gets played on the wing.

He improves their striking options because, without him, Sanogo would have been first choice striker until January.

He's no better 'striker' than Podolski or Walcott.

[eFestivals]

Not having that. Podolski is not a winger. Never has been, never will be.

He definitely isn't a striker.

I can agree with both of those, because not quite either of those things.

He's a pretty effective forward player, whatever he actually is. I find it weird that Wenger doesn't seem to have much faith in him.

[TheGayTent]

He definitely isn't a striker.

He's spent the majority of his career as a striker.

I think his best position is as the left sided forward in a front 3. Although he's much better as striker in a front two than he is as a left sided winger.

[Gucci Piggy]

I've been watching him for years, and he's no fucking striker. There's a reason he gets played on the wing.

He's no better 'striker' than Podolski or Walcott.

Well almost every Man Utd fan opinion I've seen on Welbeck's transfer has been along the lines of "He'll be decent if he actually gets a run of games up front and isn't shunted out onto the wing".

Arsenal play with a lone striker. I could play as a lone striker with one leg better than Podolski can. His movement is actually abysmal. If Arsenal change to two strikers then sure, play Podolski there, but not as things stand.

[Gucci Piggy]

He's spent the majority of his career as a striker.

I think his best position is as the left sided forward in a front 3. Although he's much better as striker in a front two than he is as a left sided winger.

Not in a lone-striker system. He's completely ineffective as a lone striker. There's a reason Arsenal are playing a kid who can't actually run or kick a football.

[mrtourette]

Well almost every Man Utd fan opinion I've seen on Welbeck's transfer has been along the lines of "He'll be decent if he actually gets a run of games up front and isn't shunted out onto the wing".

They've obviously got a short memory then.

[metallimuse]

Don't know why Wenger isn't taking a chance with Campbell,thought he was fantastic at the world cup and would play him ahead of 'Sanogoals'.

[eFestivals]

Don't know why Wenger isn't taking a chance with Campbell,thought he was fantastic at the world cup and would play him ahead of 'Sanogoals'.

Did Campbell go out on loan in the end, or not? I missed what happened with that.

[Gucci Piggy]

Nope, Wenger said he's not going anywhere.

Was he actually that good in the World Cup? He played well against Uruguay but I thought he was ineffective against Italy. Can't remember the England game.

He came on for Arsenal the other week and looked sloppy. He's probably better than Sanogo, but he's not as ready to start for Arsenal as some people make out.

[Gnomicide]

The horrible aftermath that Sky didn't show last night...

[Bobs]

From what I gather Everton only wanted him on loan and man u wouldn't loan to a rival

The rumour is we agreed a fee, and then almost ironically (see below), changed our mind and tried to haggle it.

Odd move involving Everton and David Henen, been chasing him for weeks/months to the point where his agent was allegedly in town at the end of July discussing terms but he signs for Olympiakos only to be loaned straight to Everton, at which point Martinez says he's a long-term prospect and going into the U21 developmental squad.

Effectively, Henen was available on a free, and as soon as Everton showed an interest, Anderlecht went we want £3m, and Everton weren't prepared to pay that, when he was available for less beforehand, so despite haggling, nothing could be sorted even though the lad was in Liverpool for near enough 6 weeks, so Everton said they'd dip out, Olympiacos signed him for £1.5m, and we've paid £1.5m for the covering loan, with £500k to pay to make it permanently next season.

So Everton save £1m, Olympiakos earn £500k for doing nothing, and Anderlecht learn an important lesson to not be clever.

[lost]

The rumour is we agreed a fee, and then almost ironically (see below), changed our mind and tried to haggle it.

Yes that what the Daily Mail reported though McNulty tweeted Everton never matched the £8m Villa offered and wanted the loan. Seemed to have been backed up by cleverleys dad on twitter too so I'm more inclined to believe that version.

[Wooderson]

Ollie Holt sticking the knife into United in today's Mirror. Not just LFC fans Nal!

[Wooderson]

Does a football club have a soul? Genuine question.

[thetime]

Ollie Holt sticking the knife into United in today's Mirror. Not just LFC fans Nal!

To be fair a couple of months ago Holt said United need to sign world class players, United do that and he still has an agenda.

Not like journalists to change there minds eh.

[thetime]

Does a football club have a soul? Genuine question.

Of course it does, at the top level? That's debatable.

[eFestivals]

Does a football club have a soul? Genuine question.

Of course it does, at the top level? That's debatable.

You might as well be asking if any big corporation has a soul.

Community clubs are a different thing of course, but for your question you're talking about big businesses - where the object is money (or for the likes of Chelski & City, the flattering of someone's ego).

So no.

It's always been blindingly obvious to me that Utd's "soul" would last for only as long as its success did - and so prove itself to not have ever been that "soul".

When i've pointed that out here on occasions over the last 15 years I've had a number of Utd fans queue up to tell me I'm wrong, and that i've only said it because I hate Utd.

Edited September 3, 2014 by eFestivals

[thetime]

You might as well be asking if any big corporation has a soul.

Community clubs are a different thing of course, but for your question you're talking about big businesses - where the object is money (or for the likes of Chelski & City, the flattering of someone's ego).

So no.

It's always been blindingly obvious to me that Utd's "soul" would last for only as long as its success did - and so prove itself to not have ever been that "soul".

When i've pointed that out here on occasions over the last 15 years I've had a number of Utd fans queue up to tell me I'm wrong, and that i've only said it because I hate Utd.

Not like you Neil to bring a general footie question round to United.

[eFestivals]

Not like you Neil to bring a general footie question round to United.

The question was about Utd you numpty.

[thetime]

The question was about Utd you numpty.

Was it ? I didn't see United being mentioned in wooderson's question.

[Wooderson]

It was prompted by Holt's piece - which in and of itself is all we've been talking about on here. He's just the first journo to compare United to Chelsea that I've seen.

LFC/Barca/Munich would strenuously argue that their clubs have "souls". Some essence, incorporeal spirit...

United of course up to recently also had this as part of their identity.

[Wooderson]

Nal's a bit touchy bout the whole shindig. Painful transition for him.

[thetime]

It was prompted by Holt's piece - which in and of itself is all we've been talking about on here. He's just the first journo to compare United to Chelsea that I've seen.

LFC/Barca/Munich would strenuously argue that their clubs have "souls". Some essence, incorporeal spirit...

United of course up to recently also had this as part of their identity.

I can't understand why man utd have only lost there soul because of buying a few expensive players, man utd have always done that.

I would say man utd and Liverpool are in the same position, owned by Americans and spending big money to get success.

Has any of it to do with having a soul?