Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Kerrydale Street. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use.

If you decide to register, please be aware that we don't accept email addresses from free web accounts like gmail, Hotmail, live.co.uk etc. Sorry, but almost all of the abuse and spam that we get is from free web accounts. The software on the forum will automatically block any requests using a free email account.

Upon Registration, you will be given access to all our varied Forums, and you will be expected to comply with our fairly stringent Rules and Regulations. Meantime, enjoy your visit

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Scott Sinclair; New baby arrives, and there to greet her were her mama and papa.
Topic Started: 5 Aug 2016, 04:00 PM (514,387 Views)
tinytim81
Member Avatar
42
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
mikebhoy
7 Aug 2016, 08:54 AM
Ghost of Fitzpas
6 Aug 2016, 09:38 PM
Have reservations about him at this price and wage, Villa fans down here don't rate him at all.

Fingers crossed that Rodgers knows what he's doing.
Me too. I've said this before, but I've always thought of him as a poster boy for that type of overpaid, underachiever who had a bit of promise but chased the dosh and never amounts to much. Be happy to be proved wrong and he turns out to be another Alan Thompson type resurrection job but I think he's more akin to being another Stuart Slater.

Still. At least he's clearly Rodgers' signing rather than Lawwell or Park.
Alan Thompson was the one I thought of as well. As I recall the Villa fans were happy to see him go.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bobby Peru
Member Avatar
The Maestro

fatboab
7 Aug 2016, 09:32 AM
I think this is a great example of a manager knowing and trusting a player, in the same way , for example, that MON trusted Lennon.
Sinclair has struggled at Villa, but Rodgers got the best out him at Swansea and obviously feels he can do so again. Using Villa as a marker for any player is jaundiced though, as none of their players has enhanced their reputations in the last few years.
Let's see what Sinclair can do with a bit belief and confidence in his manager. If it works, we get a very exciting player who is approaching the prime years of his career.
He also worked with him as a youngster at Chelsea too so he will be well aware of the type of person he is as well as the type of player.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerinho
Member Avatar
Club Captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
tinytim81
7 Aug 2016, 09:33 AM
mikebhoy
7 Aug 2016, 08:54 AM
Ghost of Fitzpas
6 Aug 2016, 09:38 PM
Have reservations about him at this price and wage, Villa fans down here don't rate him at all.

Fingers crossed that Rodgers knows what he's doing.
Me too. I've said this before, but I've always thought of him as a poster boy for that type of overpaid, underachiever who had a bit of promise but chased the dosh and never amounts to much. Be happy to be proved wrong and he turns out to be another Alan Thompson type resurrection job but I think he's more akin to being another Stuart Slater.

Still. At least he's clearly Rodgers' signing rather than Lawwell or Park.
Alan Thompson was the one I thought of as well. As I recall the Villa fans were happy to see him go.
The villa fans were also happy to see martin oneill go. They arent the brightest bunch to be fair.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
J_C_X
Member Avatar
Considering retirement
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Adam Smith 11
7 Aug 2016, 06:31 AM
Sorry if a bit off topic but possibly of use to the debate on this transfer and our signing policies in general given some of the comments on valuation possibly being high on this one.

It takes time to get used to new valuations of players, the fundamentals of the finances though generated by the EPL's combined new TV deals demand that the valuation of all players who are either in the English Leagues ( not just the EPL ) or whose market is intrinsically linked - which includes ours - raise by at least 50%. There is a very strong economic argument for a far higher increase that we may actually see happen.

The combined global EPL TV deals have increased by 50% to £8.1 billion per year until 2020. This 50% increase almost automatically passes through as increase on any constrained/finite assets that are required to participate in the market. This is as close to an economic law as you get. There are only a certain amount of players capable of playing or possibly playing in the league at the required level, they are therefore a finite asset that must go up in price in a rising market.

Given that TV money is almost pure profit to the clubs as there is minimum cost to them, the argument is that there is also a multiplier effect as this is worth more than any other type of turnover (not 4p for every £1 as in some turnover margins more like 90p).

It matters that clubs like us adjust to this quickly and don't get caught up in any subjective "not worth it because of previous history" arguments, the longer it takes a club to adapt to the new valuations the more they will have to pay or the further they will fall relative to other clubs. Much like not being on the property market as it rises this can be an economic trap if you wait too long for the market to see sense and come down to realistic prices.

Despite arguments otherwise the EPL is not a bubble ( individual clubs may be, but not the league) , not many businesses have the vast majority of their income guaranteed for the next 4 years with no sign of it slowing down beyond that as macro trends are moving towards an experience economy ( which football is ). The fundamentals do not point to a bubble meaning that players as assets are safe as a group. This safety creates further upward pressure on valuations.

I would argue given all this that players values have at least doubled since last summer and we therefore have to take this into consideration when looking at this signing and others.

Ross McCormack's transfer looks like an outlier that is testing the extreme end of the valuations. £12m for a 30 year old who cannot get in the Scotland team, this is possibly the benchmark that all other valuations of players should be seen as relative to. Is Scott Sinclair worth a third of Ross McCormack is maybe a bit too simplistic but in general it is a far better question than anything relating to past transfer valuations.


People used to think that the housing market bubble was never going to burst.

The EPL wealth is intrinsically linked with Sky's, whilst I agree that the EPL's popularity may never diminish, Sky's ability to adapt to a changing television market and how the general public consume it in the future may eventually have a knock on effect of the EPL's finances.

Of course then that leaves BT, but I suppose you could ask the question, if BT have the finances to compete with Sky and can buy the bulk of the EPL rights then why haven't they done it by now? They've demostrated before that they have the financial muscle to not only compete with Sky, but overpower them too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lawlerm
Member Avatar
Off treasure hunting in Holland
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
J_C_X
7 Aug 2016, 09:47 AM
Adam Smith 11
7 Aug 2016, 06:31 AM
Sorry if a bit off topic but possibly of use to the debate on this transfer and our signing policies in general given some of the comments on valuation possibly being high on this one.

It takes time to get used to new valuations of players, the fundamentals of the finances though generated by the EPL's combined new TV deals demand that the valuation of all players who are either in the English Leagues ( not just the EPL ) or whose market is intrinsically linked - which includes ours - raise by at least 50%. There is a very strong economic argument for a far higher increase that we may actually see happen.

The combined global EPL TV deals have increased by 50% to £8.1 billion per year until 2020. This 50% increase almost automatically passes through as increase on any constrained/finite assets that are required to participate in the market. This is as close to an economic law as you get. There are only a certain amount of players capable of playing or possibly playing in the league at the required level, they are therefore a finite asset that must go up in price in a rising market.

Given that TV money is almost pure profit to the clubs as there is minimum cost to them, the argument is that there is also a multiplier effect as this is worth more than any other type of turnover (not 4p for every £1 as in some turnover margins more like 90p).

It matters that clubs like us adjust to this quickly and don't get caught up in any subjective "not worth it because of previous history" arguments, the longer it takes a club to adapt to the new valuations the more they will have to pay or the further they will fall relative to other clubs. Much like not being on the property market as it rises this can be an economic trap if you wait too long for the market to see sense and come down to realistic prices.

Despite arguments otherwise the EPL is not a bubble ( individual clubs may be, but not the league) , not many businesses have the vast majority of their income guaranteed for the next 4 years with no sign of it slowing down beyond that as macro trends are moving towards an experience economy ( which football is ). The fundamentals do not point to a bubble meaning that players as assets are safe as a group. This safety creates further upward pressure on valuations.

I would argue given all this that players values have at least doubled since last summer and we therefore have to take this into consideration when looking at this signing and others.

Ross McCormack's transfer looks like an outlier that is testing the extreme end of the valuations. £12m for a 30 year old who cannot get in the Scotland team, this is possibly the benchmark that all other valuations of players should be seen as relative to. Is Scott Sinclair worth a third of Ross McCormack is maybe a bit too simplistic but in general it is a far better question than anything relating to past transfer valuations.


People used to think that the housing market bubble was never going to burst.

The EPL wealth is intrinsically linked with Sky's, whilst I agree that the EPL's popularity may never diminish, Sky's ability to adapt to a changing television market and how the general public consume it in the future may eventually have a knock on effect of the EPL's finances.

Of course then that leaves BT, but I suppose you could ask the question, if BT have the finances to compete with Sky and can buy the bulk of the EPL rights then why haven't they done it by now? They've demostrated before that they have the financial muscle to not only compete with Sky, but overpower them too.
Going wildly off-topic but I'd say it no longer is and the changing television market you mention is the reason why. Like it or not the EPL is, by far, the biggest brand in football and if Sky went under Amazon, Twitter and the hoards of 'new media' providers would be queuing up to get involved.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CaltonBhoy1967
Member Avatar
Billy McNeill - "Mr Celtic"
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Bobby Peru
7 Aug 2016, 09:41 AM
fatboab
7 Aug 2016, 09:32 AM
I think this is a great example of a manager knowing and trusting a player, in the same way , for example, that MON trusted Lennon.
Sinclair has struggled at Villa, but Rodgers got the best out him at Swansea and obviously feels he can do so again. Using Villa as a marker for any player is jaundiced though, as none of their players has enhanced their reputations in the last few years.
Let's see what Sinclair can do with a bit belief and confidence in his manager. If it works, we get a very exciting player who is approaching the prime years of his career.
He also worked with him as a youngster at Chelsea too so he will be well aware of the type of person he is as well as the type of player.
Agree with these two posts - The Manager knows him as with Toure and they are coming to Celtic on the strength of Rodgers - Sutton,Hartson and Lennon all came to Celtic under MON - Sutton had alledgedly failed at Chelsea (he didn't really),Hartson was supposed to be trouble and Lennon was the boring type of player who played for a boring football team in Leicester - Similar with MON and Thompson - MON knew their characters and knew they were winners - We already know Toure is a winner and he showed enough on Wednesday night that he is going to be the leader and a winner still.

Let's trust in Rodgers - We are at last letting a Manager getting HIS chosen players in.

Oh aye and fairplay to PL on this one :rubeyes: :o - He will have known Wyness was waiting until the result on Wednesday and the qualification/signing deadline probably cost us an extra £0.5m as Wyness knew Rodgers's wanted Sinclair and similarly knew when to let Sinclair go in the negotiating - In the past PL would have probably said say £3.0m and then we are gone and would have adhered to it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fly Pelican
The nascent 45
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Lawlerm
7 Aug 2016, 09:51 AM
J_C_X
7 Aug 2016, 09:47 AM
Adam Smith 11
7 Aug 2016, 06:31 AM
Sorry if a bit off topic but possibly of use to the debate on this transfer and our signing policies in general given some of the comments on valuation possibly being high on this one.

It takes time to get used to new valuations of players, the fundamentals of the finances though generated by the EPL's combined new TV deals demand that the valuation of all players who are either in the English Leagues ( not just the EPL ) or whose market is intrinsically linked - which includes ours - raise by at least 50%. There is a very strong economic argument for a far higher increase that we may actually see happen.

The combined global EPL TV deals have increased by 50% to £8.1 billion per year until 2020. This 50% increase almost automatically passes through as increase on any constrained/finite assets that are required to participate in the market. This is as close to an economic law as you get. There are only a certain amount of players capable of playing or possibly playing in the league at the required level, they are therefore a finite asset that must go up in price in a rising market.

Given that TV money is almost pure profit to the clubs as there is minimum cost to them, the argument is that there is also a multiplier effect as this is worth more than any other type of turnover (not 4p for every £1 as in some turnover margins more like 90p).

It matters that clubs like us adjust to this quickly and don't get caught up in any subjective "not worth it because of previous history" arguments, the longer it takes a club to adapt to the new valuations the more they will have to pay or the further they will fall relative to other clubs. Much like not being on the property market as it rises this can be an economic trap if you wait too long for the market to see sense and come down to realistic prices.

Despite arguments otherwise the EPL is not a bubble ( individual clubs may be, but not the league) , not many businesses have the vast majority of their income guaranteed for the next 4 years with no sign of it slowing down beyond that as macro trends are moving towards an experience economy ( which football is ). The fundamentals do not point to a bubble meaning that players as assets are safe as a group. This safety creates further upward pressure on valuations.

I would argue given all this that players values have at least doubled since last summer and we therefore have to take this into consideration when looking at this signing and others.

Ross McCormack's transfer looks like an outlier that is testing the extreme end of the valuations. £12m for a 30 year old who cannot get in the Scotland team, this is possibly the benchmark that all other valuations of players should be seen as relative to. Is Scott Sinclair worth a third of Ross McCormack is maybe a bit too simplistic but in general it is a far better question than anything relating to past transfer valuations.


People used to think that the housing market bubble was never going to burst.

The EPL wealth is intrinsically linked with Sky's, whilst I agree that the EPL's popularity may never diminish, Sky's ability to adapt to a changing television market and how the general public consume it in the future may eventually have a knock on effect of the EPL's finances.

Of course then that leaves BT, but I suppose you could ask the question, if BT have the finances to compete with Sky and can buy the bulk of the EPL rights then why haven't they done it by now? They've demostrated before that they have the financial muscle to not only compete with Sky, but overpower them too.
Going wildly off-topic but I'd say it no longer is and the changing television market you mention is the reason why. Like it or not the EPL is, by far, the biggest brand in football and if Sky went under Amazon, Twitter and the hoards of 'new media' providers would be queuing up to get involved.
It's becoming easier and easier to access these games for free (or at least without paying a hefty subscription to sky, bt). It will eventually come full circle - the broadcasters can't keep up with technology.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
J_C_X
Member Avatar
Considering retirement
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Lawlerm
7 Aug 2016, 09:51 AM
J_C_X
7 Aug 2016, 09:47 AM
Adam Smith 11
7 Aug 2016, 06:31 AM
Sorry if a bit off topic but possibly of use to the debate on this transfer and our signing policies in general given some of the comments on valuation possibly being high on this one.

It takes time to get used to new valuations of players, the fundamentals of the finances though generated by the EPL's combined new TV deals demand that the valuation of all players who are either in the English Leagues ( not just the EPL ) or whose market is intrinsically linked - which includes ours - raise by at least 50%. There is a very strong economic argument for a far higher increase that we may actually see happen.

The combined global EPL TV deals have increased by 50% to £8.1 billion per year until 2020. This 50% increase almost automatically passes through as increase on any constrained/finite assets that are required to participate in the market. This is as close to an economic law as you get. There are only a certain amount of players capable of playing or possibly playing in the league at the required level, they are therefore a finite asset that must go up in price in a rising market.

Given that TV money is almost pure profit to the clubs as there is minimum cost to them, the argument is that there is also a multiplier effect as this is worth more than any other type of turnover (not 4p for every £1 as in some turnover margins more like 90p).

It matters that clubs like us adjust to this quickly and don't get caught up in any subjective "not worth it because of previous history" arguments, the longer it takes a club to adapt to the new valuations the more they will have to pay or the further they will fall relative to other clubs. Much like not being on the property market as it rises this can be an economic trap if you wait too long for the market to see sense and come down to realistic prices.

Despite arguments otherwise the EPL is not a bubble ( individual clubs may be, but not the league) , not many businesses have the vast majority of their income guaranteed for the next 4 years with no sign of it slowing down beyond that as macro trends are moving towards an experience economy ( which football is ). The fundamentals do not point to a bubble meaning that players as assets are safe as a group. This safety creates further upward pressure on valuations.

I would argue given all this that players values have at least doubled since last summer and we therefore have to take this into consideration when looking at this signing and others.

Ross McCormack's transfer looks like an outlier that is testing the extreme end of the valuations. £12m for a 30 year old who cannot get in the Scotland team, this is possibly the benchmark that all other valuations of players should be seen as relative to. Is Scott Sinclair worth a third of Ross McCormack is maybe a bit too simplistic but in general it is a far better question than anything relating to past transfer valuations.


People used to think that the housing market bubble was never going to burst.

The EPL wealth is intrinsically linked with Sky's, whilst I agree that the EPL's popularity may never diminish, Sky's ability to adapt to a changing television market and how the general public consume it in the future may eventually have a knock on effect of the EPL's finances.

Of course then that leaves BT, but I suppose you could ask the question, if BT have the finances to compete with Sky and can buy the bulk of the EPL rights then why haven't they done it by now? They've demostrated before that they have the financial muscle to not only compete with Sky, but overpower them too.
Going wildly off-topic but I'd say it no longer is and the changing television market you mention is the reason why. Like it or not the EPL is, by far, the biggest brand in football and if Sky went under Amazon, Twitter and the hoards of 'new media' providers would be queuing up to get involved.
No they won't. They're doing fine without sport and they would have to pay such a huge fee for rights to show something in a market they're pretty much well established in. Netflix and Amazon won't go anywhere near live sport.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neil Jung
Member Avatar
Off treasure hunting in Holland
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The lad is entering his prime years. Going by his performances at Villa he still can shift and he still has tricks to beat a man. While it is a lot of money for us he looks to be a guy who can thrive playing for a team who will be going for trophies rather than fighting relegation year on year. He looks more than good enpugh for the SPFL and good performances in Europe would see his value rocket.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
auldbhoy1975
Member Avatar
Occasional Substitute
[ *  *  *  * ]
CaltonBhoy1967
7 Aug 2016, 09:56 AM
Bobby Peru
7 Aug 2016, 09:41 AM
fatboab
7 Aug 2016, 09:32 AM
I think this is a great example of a manager knowing and trusting a player, in the same way , for example, that MON trusted Lennon.
Sinclair has struggled at Villa, but Rodgers got the best out him at Swansea and obviously feels he can do so again. Using Villa as a marker for any player is jaundiced though, as none of their players has enhanced their reputations in the last few years.
Let's see what Sinclair can do with a bit belief and confidence in his manager. If it works, we get a very exciting player who is approaching the prime years of his career.
He also worked with him as a youngster at Chelsea too so he will be well aware of the type of person he is as well as the type of player.
Agree with these two posts - The Manager knows him as with Toure and they are coming to Celtic on the strength of Rodgers - Sutton,Hartson and Lennon all came to Celtic under MON - Sutton had alledgedly failed at Chelsea (he didn't really),Hartson was supposed to be trouble and Lennon was the boring type of player who played for a boring football team in Leicester - Similar with MON and Thompson - MON knew their characters and knew they were winners - We already know Toure is a winner and he showed enough on Wednesday night that he is going to be the leader and a winner still.

Let's trust in Rodgers - We are at last letting a Manager getting HIS chosen players in.

Oh aye and fairplay to PL on this one :rubeyes: :o - He will have known Wyness was waiting until the result on Wednesday and the qualification/signing deadline probably cost us an extra £0.5m as Wyness knew Rodgers's wanted Sinclair and similarly knew when to let Sinclair go in the negotiating - In the past PL would have probably said say £3.0m and then we are gone and would have adhered to it.
Fair play to PL??

If he knew the valuation was circa 4M why was he allegedly bidding 1?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
morpheus
Club Captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Even at Villa, he looked as though he retained his pace and ability to go past a man, didn't realise that he'd played that often to be honest.

Just looking at that, he will terrorise defences. He's clearly got talent and will create plenty of chances for us this season and hopefully beyond.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack Thaler
Member Avatar
Flying North
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
CaltonBhoy1967
7 Aug 2016, 09:56 AM
Bobby Peru
7 Aug 2016, 09:41 AM
fatboab
7 Aug 2016, 09:32 AM
I think this is a great example of a manager knowing and trusting a player, in the same way , for example, that MON trusted Lennon.
Sinclair has struggled at Villa, but Rodgers got the best out him at Swansea and obviously feels he can do so again. Using Villa as a marker for any player is jaundiced though, as none of their players has enhanced their reputations in the last few years.
Let's see what Sinclair can do with a bit belief and confidence in his manager. If it works, we get a very exciting player who is approaching the prime years of his career.
He also worked with him as a youngster at Chelsea too so he will be well aware of the type of person he is as well as the type of player.
Agree with these two posts - The Manager knows him as with Toure and they are coming to Celtic on the strength of Rodgers - Sutton,Hartson and Lennon all came to Celtic under MON - Sutton had alledgedly failed at Chelsea (he didn't really),Hartson was supposed to be trouble and Lennon was the boring type of player who played for a boring football team in Leicester - Similar with MON and Thompson - MON knew their characters and knew they were winners - We already know Toure is a winner and he showed enough on Wednesday night that he is going to be the leader and a winner still.

Let's trust in Rodgers - We are at last letting a Manager getting HIS chosen players in.

Oh aye and fairplay to PL on this one :rubeyes: :o - He will have known Wyness was waiting until the result on Wednesday and the qualification/signing deadline probably cost us an extra £0.5m as Wyness knew Rodgers's wanted Sinclair and similarly knew when to let Sinclair go in the negotiating - In the past PL would have probably said say £3.0m and then we are gone and would have adhered to it.
Sutton 'didn't really' fail at Chelsea?
Signed in 1999 for £10 million, scored 1 goal, and 12 months later was moving to the SPL for £6 million.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
hailhailceltic
First-team captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Officially announced :thumbsup: :clap:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CaltonBhoy1967
Member Avatar
Billy McNeill - "Mr Celtic"
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
auldbhoy1975
7 Aug 2016, 10:12 AM
CaltonBhoy1967
7 Aug 2016, 09:56 AM
Bobby Peru
7 Aug 2016, 09:41 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Agree with these two posts - The Manager knows him as with Toure and they are coming to Celtic on the strength of Rodgers - Sutton,Hartson and Lennon all came to Celtic under MON - Sutton had alledgedly failed at Chelsea (he didn't really),Hartson was supposed to be trouble and Lennon was the boring type of player who played for a boring football team in Leicester - Similar with MON and Thompson - MON knew their characters and knew they were winners - We already know Toure is a winner and he showed enough on Wednesday night that he is going to be the leader and a winner still.

Let's trust in Rodgers - We are at last letting a Manager getting HIS chosen players in.

Oh aye and fairplay to PL on this one :rubeyes: :o - He will have known Wyness was waiting until the result on Wednesday and the qualification/signing deadline probably cost us an extra £0.5m as Wyness knew Rodgers's wanted Sinclair and similarly knew when to let Sinclair go in the negotiating - In the past PL would have probably said say £3.0m and then we are gone and would have adhered to it.
Fair play to PL??

If he knew the valuation was circa 4M why was he allegedly bidding 1?
That's what he does and it pisses me off as much as anyone - Has cost us good players in the past and we have ended up with sheer dross - Lots of politics in football and transfer negotiating - Will change it to "PL wasn't allowed to feck it up this time" if it suits - Just glad we have got a player the Manager wants. :thumbsup:

Anyways offski Tynecastle beckons.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Scooterbhoy
Member Avatar
MOD GOD !!!!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
oops
Edited by Scooterbhoy, 7 Aug 2016, 10:21 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Blessed Martin
Member Avatar
Off treasure hunting in Holland
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
hailhailceltic
7 Aug 2016, 10:20 AM
Officially announced :thumbsup: :clap:
was just going to post that but as you have been spot on hhc then you can have the praise :)

Welcome to the Sellick Scott
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CaltonBhoy1967
Member Avatar
Billy McNeill - "Mr Celtic"
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jack Thaler
7 Aug 2016, 10:19 AM
CaltonBhoy1967
7 Aug 2016, 09:56 AM
Bobby Peru
7 Aug 2016, 09:41 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Agree with these two posts - The Manager knows him as with Toure and they are coming to Celtic on the strength of Rodgers - Sutton,Hartson and Lennon all came to Celtic under MON - Sutton had alledgedly failed at Chelsea (he didn't really),Hartson was supposed to be trouble and Lennon was the boring type of player who played for a boring football team in Leicester - Similar with MON and Thompson - MON knew their characters and knew they were winners - We already know Toure is a winner and he showed enough on Wednesday night that he is going to be the leader and a winner still.

Let's trust in Rodgers - We are at last letting a Manager getting HIS chosen players in.

Oh aye and fairplay to PL on this one :rubeyes: :o - He will have known Wyness was waiting until the result on Wednesday and the qualification/signing deadline probably cost us an extra £0.5m as Wyness knew Rodgers's wanted Sinclair and similarly knew when to let Sinclair go in the negotiating - In the past PL would have probably said say £3.0m and then we are gone and would have adhered to it.
Sutton 'didn't really' fail at Chelsea?
Signed in 1999 for £10 million, scored 1 goal, and 12 months later was moving to the SPL for £6 million.
Read what Chelsea fans think of Sutton pre him signing with us - A fair amount still backed him - Now they slag him to feck as he played for Celtic and destroyed the hun effwits.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Haitch
Considering retirement
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Article on the website says he's in today's squad :rocker:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tonyjaa-csc
Older than dirt
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
http://www.celticfc.net/news/11029
According to this he might play v hearts
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Watts Kiwi Manias
Member Avatar
First-team starter
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Official!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Celtic Football Club Discussion Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply