Loosey Boy Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 3 minutes ago, WarksRobin said: £11m seems a bit of a bargain for him, with his current scoring record Only be a bargain if he does the business for them……time will tell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveF Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 29 minutes ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said: The fee reported for Szmodics merely goes to prove that Ipswich paid too much for Delap. Not sure a 28 year old AM is comparable to a 21 year old striker? Very different type of purchase... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nugget Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 Interesting £4M for Palmer, fairly similar to Twine valuation, prob take Twine over Kasey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steviestevieneville Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 1 hour ago, DirtySanchez said: Oh dear. One that slipped through the NP net. LJ not Pearson 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 1 hour ago, DirtySanchez said: Oh dear. One that slipped through the NP net. Oh dear, You've had a nightmare here, he wasn't even at the club the same time as Pearson....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary s Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 Not good enough for us off to prem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 41 minutes ago, GrahamC said: Yep, been covered a million times before. Already had Paterson, bought Szmodics, then Palmer, didn’t need them all, so Paterson was shipped off on loan to Detby. Szmodics got minimal opportunity then was sold to (League One) Peterborough. Palmer did nothing & Paterson came back from his loan & got back in the team. Muddled thinking par excellence. Paterson on his day had proven he could score goals, Palmer at 4 million had to play also so Szmodics was unproven in the Championship when he came to BC... such a shame we let him go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoystonFoote'snephew Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 23 minutes ago, DaveF said: Not sure a 28 year old AM is comparable to a 21 year old striker? Very different type of purchase... One is a proven goalscorer despite being in a poor team and the other is a second rate Conway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob k Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 I thought it was a mistake at the time to let him go after just 3/4 games as was not given a proper chance, however, i don’t think we have made too many mistakes like this in the past have we? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tin Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 (edited) I’m sure the sell-on will be a welcome boost for the nest egg. Edited August 16 by tin 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveF Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 14 minutes ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said: One is a proven goalscorer despite being in a poor team and the other is a second rate Conway. Let's see how his career goes... I'm confident he will play more in the prem and have a better career than Conway despite being '2nd rate'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 In fairness to Palmer when he was behind Weimann and Afobe that precise combination kind of worked. When Afobe got injured however..and we all know how it declined from there for Palmer. There was a duplication though and Palmer was the bigger name which was unfortunate and shouldn't be a way to pick sides- Szmodics never got a proper chance but players can also develop at different speeds. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedEyez Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 1 hour ago, Nugget said: Wasn’t he here around the time of Palmer? Maybe we were obliged to play him a certain number of times from Chelsea if it was the loan Yep, we had SS , KP45 AND Pato. Absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nugget Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 Yeah that Afobe & Palmer with Weimann looked brilliant, didn’t get a chance to see it for long 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steviestevieneville Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 8 minutes ago, RedEyez said: Yep, we had SS , KP45 AND Pato. Absurd. Yes, szmodics wasn’t given a chance . Seemed like (guessing )a mark Ashton signing . We already had pato then palmer & Sami but funnily enough didn’t play with a no10 . Bizarre. while most of us climbed into Ashton , blaming him for everything & giving some of the blame to Lansdown for just signing off on everything. He actually needs to take the majority of the blame . Ashton has proved at Ipswich to be a good at his job. If he’d had a better structure to work to & had a director of football to work with then it might have worked out differently . However as SL has proved time & again , on the football side of things he gets it massively wrong . 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 2 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said: If he’d had a better structure to work to & had a director of football to work with then it might have worked out differently Agree, or a suitable go-between between LJ and CEO / Board. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Oil Services Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 55 minutes ago, Nugget said: Yeah that Afobe & Palmer with Weimann looked brilliant, didn’t get a chance to see it for long ... or long enough for it to not look brilliant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted August 16 Admin Share Posted August 16 1 hour ago, gary s said: Not good enough for us off to prem How long ago was he with us? Do you think he was ready for the Prem then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTIDhc Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 Very surprised by his answer for us tbh obviously could just be an image thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awbb Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 4 hours ago, steviestevieneville said: Yes, szmodics wasn’t given a chance . Seemed like (guessing )a mark Ashton signing . We already had pato then palmer & Sami but funnily enough didn’t play with a no10 . Bizarre. while most of us climbed into Ashton , blaming him for everything & giving some of the blame to Lansdown for just signing off on everything. He actually needs to take the majority of the blame . Ashton has proved at Ipswich to be a good at his job. If he’d had a better structure to work to & had a director of football to work with then it might have worked out differently . However as SL has proved time & again , on the football side of things he gets it massively wrong . From what I recall, Szmodics was a data driven signing. LJ said he wanted a particular set of characteristics and his name kept matching it. I can’t remember the exact LJ comment but it was almost along the lines of ‘I didn’t really want to sign him, but he kept ticking the boxes so I had to’. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary s Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 4 hours ago, phantom said: How long ago was he with us? Do you think he was ready for the Prem then? No but not to give him a go was criminal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dolman Pragmatist Posted August 17 Share Posted August 17 Szmodics and Wes Burns could line up against Liverpool today… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.