Neil Harris: News on striker Isaac Vassell:

no mate you can not predict the future and seen similar happen lots of times.... being reasonable is not wrong..VVD looks like he is out for the season, what if he were to have a 2nd separate injury during pre season which keeps him our a further 3 months and then klopp decides to ease him back ?
nobody but nobody would consider him injury prone after taking part in 14 games and no fan would not want to sign him because he is injury prone...

its unreasonable....

VVD almost had his leg broken after being chopped down in a bad tackle. If he was picking up long term injuries just running around I don't think people would want to sign him - for big money anyway. Theres a difference between being injury prone and physically being put out of action due bad tackles etc.[/quote]


so its ok if its a tackle ? pretty much sums it up... i know and know of lots of players that have come through a run of horrendous injuries and also some that have had to stop playing... knowing which is which in between injuries is for mystic meg fans not football...this perfect world stuff is not how real life is , and not just football...
as for just running around the injury he was recovering from came during an under 23 match..

There are two schools of thought about Vassel. One group to which I belong believed that Vassel was a potentially disastrous signing as his injury record was appalling in the last two or three years and he had all the look of a semi permanent sick note who we should not touch with a ten foot barge pole. We made our views clear at the time of his signing and subsequent events have vindicated us completely we were right and anyone else was wrong.

The other group thought he was a good signing as he had made a few subsistute appearances in the last three seasons and perhaps he wasn't the crock the other group was saying he was. You were wrong and completely wrong and only the most pig headed idiot won't admit he was wrong but there seem to be quite a few on here. Obviously no one could predict that he would drop a tea cup on his foot and be out for the next six months. The people who authorised this transfer deserve shooting.[/quote



no mate you can not predict the future and seen similar happen lots of times.... being reasonable is not wrong..VVD looks like he is out for the season, what if he were to have a 2nd separate injury during pre season which keeps him our a further 3 months and then klopp decides to ease him back ?
nobody but nobody would consider him injury prone after taking part in 14 games and no fan would not want to sign him because he is injury prone...

its unreasonable....

VVD was injured by an horrendous tackle!

Up to that point he was outstanding at the back for Liverpool and to my knowledge had only missed a few games.

Hopefully he comes back without any problems and resumes his career.

There is absolutely no comparison with IV who had a long history prior to signing for us! How the hell we didn’t put a clause in his contract about further injuries is a complete mystery. As pointed out if he wouldn’t sign a contract with such a clause that would immediately have sent one a message he was worried about his body.

In such a case we should have walked away.

I don’t think he has ever been injured in a tackle more like suffered from injuries from running etc.

Let the club learn from it and not sign any player who has a history of injuries. Thus avoiding having a player on the books collecting money for no reason.

If he worked in the real world any company would have got shot before now and certainly he would not have had top quality medical advice to boot.

yes lets learn by it and sack the whole squad because each and every one has had injuries....... jesus

There are two schools of thought about Vassel. One group to which I belong believed that Vassel was a potentially disastrous signing as his injury record was appalling in the last two or three years and he had all the look of a semi permanent sick note who we should not touch with a ten foot barge pole. We made our views clear at the time of his signing and subsequent events have vindicated us completely we were right and anyone else was wrong.

The other group thought he was a good signing as he had made a few subsistute appearances in the last three seasons and perhaps he wasn't the crock the other group was saying he was. You were wrong and completely wrong and only the most pig headed idiot won't admit he was wrong but there seem to be quite a few on here. Obviously no one could predict that he would drop a tea cup on his foot and be out for the next six months. The people who authorised this transfer deserve shooting.[/quote



no mate you can not predict the future and seen similar happen lots of times.... being reasonable is not wrong..VVD looks like he is out for the season, what if he were to have a 2nd separate injury during pre season which keeps him our a further 3 months and then klopp decides to ease him back ?
nobody but nobody would consider him injury prone after taking part in 14 games and no fan would not want to sign him because he is injury prone...

its unreasonable....

VVD was injured by an horrendous tackle!

Up to that point he was outstanding at the back for Liverpool and to my knowledge had only missed a few games.

Hopefully he comes back without any problems and resumes his career.

There is absolutely no comparison with IV who had a long history prior to signing for us! How the hell we didn’t put a clause in his contract about further injuries is a complete mystery. As pointed out if he wouldn’t sign a contract with such a clause that would immediately have sent one a message he was worried about his body.

In such a case we should have walked away.

I don’t think he has ever been injured in a tackle more like suffered from injuries from running etc.

Let the club learn from it and not sign any player who has a history of injuries. Thus avoiding having a player on the books collecting money for no reason.

If he worked in the real world any company would have got shot before now and certainly he would not have had top quality medical advice to boot.

yes lets learn by it and sack the whole squad because each and every one has had injuries....... jesus

Do you actually follow City?

Players get injured all the time some more than most however IV has a nightmare of medical history and there appears no light at the end of the tunnel.

You off School today?

There are two schools of thought about Vassel. One group to which I belong believed that Vassel was a potentially disastrous signing as his injury record was appalling in the last two or three years and he had all the look of a semi permanent sick note who we should not touch with a ten foot barge pole. We made our views clear at the time of his signing and subsequent events have vindicated us completely we were right and anyone else was wrong.

The other group thought he was a good signing as he had made a few subsistute appearances in the last three seasons and perhaps he wasn't the crock the other group was saying he was. You were wrong and completely wrong and only the most pig headed idiot won't admit he was wrong but there seem to be quite a few on here. Obviously no one could predict that he would drop a tea cup on his foot and be out for the next six months. The people who authorised this transfer deserve shooting.[/quote



no mate you can not predict the future and seen similar happen lots of times.... being reasonable is not wrong..VVD looks like he is out for the season, what if he were to have a 2nd separate injury during pre season which keeps him our a further 3 months and then klopp decides to ease him back ?
nobody but nobody would consider him injury prone after taking part in 14 games and no fan would not want to sign him because he is injury prone...

its unreasonable....

VVD was injured by an horrendous tackle!

Up to that point he was outstanding at the back for Liverpool and to my knowledge had only missed a few games.

Hopefully he comes back without any problems and resumes his career.

There is absolutely no comparison with IV who had a long history prior to signing for us! How the hell we didn’t put a clause in his contract about further injuries is a complete mystery. As pointed out if he wouldn’t sign a contract with such a clause that would immediately have sent one a message he was worried about his body.

In such a case we should have walked away.

I don’t think he has ever been injured in a tackle more like suffered from injuries from running etc.

Let the club learn from it and not sign any player who has a history of injuries. Thus avoiding having a player on the books collecting money for no reason.

If he worked in the real world any company would have got shot before now and certainly he would not have had top quality medical advice to boot.

You simply cannot sack a person whilst on the "sick" neil warnock pursued vassell,an DC had a huge say in his signing! Backed by the committee on his trust,so failings all around,but if your manager insists this,or that player is worth the outlay,then the board will(most likely) back the manager,as he is the man with the most knowledge,especially with warnock?

no mate you can not predict the future and seen similar happen lots of times.... being reasonable is not wrong..VVD looks like he is out for the season, what if he were to have a 2nd separate injury during pre season which keeps him our a further 3 months and then klopp decides to ease him back ?
nobody but nobody would consider him injury prone after taking part in 14 games and no fan would not want to sign him because he is injury prone...

its unreasonable....

VVD almost had his leg broken after being chopped down in a bad tackle. If he was picking up long term injuries just running around I don't think people would want to sign him - for big money anyway. Theres a difference between being injury prone and physically being put out of action due bad tackles etc.

so its ok if its a tackle ? pretty much sums it up... i know and know of lots of players that have come through a run of horrendous injuries and also some that have had to stop playing... knowing which is which in between injuries is for mystic meg fans not football...this perfect world stuff is not how real life is , and not just football...
as for just running around the injury he was recovering from came during an under 23 match..[/quote]

So are you saying there is no such thing as an injury prone player? If a manager was to sign jazz richards now, you wouldn't have to be mystec meg to predict he would be most likely spend more time than usual out injured. You'd just have to take a look at his medical record.

Some players are fortunate enough to go through their careers with few injuries and, on the opposite end of the spectrum, some players careers are plaqued with injury. Vassel falls into the latter. For whatever reason it seems he is prone to picking up injuries through tearing and pulling muscles.

There are two schools of thought about Vassel. One group to which I belong believed that Vassel was a potentially disastrous signing as his injury record was appalling in the last two or three years and he had all the look of a semi permanent sick note who we should not touch with a ten foot barge pole. We made our views clear at the time of his signing and subsequent events have vindicated us completely we were right and anyone else was wrong.

The other group thought he was a good signing as he had made a few subsistute appearances in the last three seasons and perhaps he wasn't the crock the other group was saying he was. You were wrong and completely wrong and only the most pig headed idiot won't admit he was wrong but there seem to be quite a few on here. Obviously no one could predict that he would drop a tea cup on his foot and be out for the next six months. The people who authorised this transfer deserve shooting.[/quote



no mate you can not predict the future and seen similar happen lots of times.... being reasonable is not wrong..VVD looks like he is out for the season, what if he were to have a 2nd separate injury during pre season which keeps him our a further 3 months and then klopp decides to ease him back ?
nobody but nobody would consider him injury prone after taking part in 14 games and no fan would not want to sign him because he is injury prone...

its unreasonable....

VVD was injured by an horrendous tackle!

Up to that point he was outstanding at the back for Liverpool and to my knowledge had only missed a few games.

Hopefully he comes back without any problems and resumes his career.

There is absolutely no comparison with IV who had a long history prior to signing for us! How the hell we didn’t put a clause in his contract about further injuries is a complete mystery. As pointed out if he wouldn’t sign a contract with such a clause that would immediately have sent one a message he was worried about his body.

In such a case we should have walked away.

I don’t think he has ever been injured in a tackle more like suffered from injuries from running etc.

Let the club learn from it and not sign any player who has a history of injuries. Thus avoiding having a player on the books collecting money for no reason.

If he worked in the real world any company would have got shot before now and certainly he would not have had top quality medical advice to boot.

You simply cannot sack a person whilst on the "sick" neil warnock pursued vassell,an DC had a huge say in his signing! Backed by the committee on his trust,so failings all around,but if your manager insists this,or that player is worth the outlay,then the board will(most likely) back the manager,as he is the man with the most knowledge,especially with warnock?

no you cant go around sacking people especially if their illness/injury happened in work.. i doubt there is a club at any level anywhere in the world that has not had this bad luck having signed a player..

There are two schools of thought about Vassel. One group to which I belong believed that Vassel was a potentially disastrous signing as his injury record was appalling in the last two or three years and he had all the look of a semi permanent sick note who we should not touch with a ten foot barge pole. We made our views clear at the time of his signing and subsequent events have vindicated us completely we were right and anyone else was wrong.

The other group thought he was a good signing as he had made a few subsistute appearances in the last three seasons and perhaps he wasn't the crock the other group was saying he was. You were wrong and completely wrong and only the most pig headed idiot won't admit he was wrong but there seem to be quite a few on here. Obviously no one could predict that he would drop a tea cup on his foot and be out for the next six months. The people who authorised this transfer deserve shooting.[/quote



no mate you can not predict the future and seen similar happen lots of times.... being reasonable is not wrong..VVD looks like he is out for the season, what if he were to have a 2nd separate injury during pre season which keeps him our a further 3 months and then klopp decides to ease him back ?
nobody but nobody would consider him injury prone after taking part in 14 games and no fan would not want to sign him because he is injury prone...

its unreasonable....

VVD was injured by an horrendous tackle!

Up to that point he was outstanding at the back for Liverpool and to my knowledge had only missed a few games.

Hopefully he comes back without any problems and resumes his career.

There is absolutely no comparison with IV who had a long history prior to signing for us! How the hell we didn’t put a clause in his contract about further injuries is a complete mystery. As pointed out if he wouldn’t sign a contract with such a clause that would immediately have sent one a message he was worried about his body.

In such a case we should have walked away.

I don’t think he has ever been injured in a tackle more like suffered from injuries from running etc.

Let the club learn from it and not sign any player who has a history of injuries. Thus avoiding having a player on the books collecting money for no reason.

If he worked in the real world any company would have got shot before now and certainly he would not have had top quality medical advice to boot.

You simply cannot sack a person whilst on the "sick" neil warnock pursued vassell,an DC had a huge say in his signing! Backed by the committee on his trust,so failings all around,but if your manager insists this,or that player is worth the outlay,then the board will(most likely) back the manager,as he is the man with the most knowledge,especially with warnock?

I don’t think I mentioned anything about sacking!

He’d have to be paid up and released so win all around for the player.

During my careers, I’ve known on numerous occasions that people have applied for a job and been turned down and it was all down to their poor sickness records.

You cannot cater for a player getting a serious injury but you can control not signing a player who has a history of injuries before it starts.

Just don't sign players with his kind of injury record, it's not worth the risk. I hope we have now learnt after Jazz and Isaac.

Just don't sign players with his kind of injury record, it's not worth the risk. I hope we have now learnt after Jazz and Isaac.

Hopefully we will.

Always remember when Solksjar became manager Mehmet Dalman said he felt like the cat who got the cream! Hmmm business people.

There are two schools of thought about Vassel. One group to which I belong believed that Vassel was a potentially disastrous signing as his injury record was appalling in the last two or three years and he had all the look of a semi permanent sick note who we should not touch with a ten foot barge pole. We made our views clear at the time of his signing and subsequent events have vindicated us completely we were right and anyone else was wrong.

The other group thought he was a good signing as he had made a few subsistute appearances in the last three seasons and perhaps he wasn't the crock the other group was saying he was. You were wrong and completely wrong and only the most pig headed idiot won't admit he was wrong but there seem to be quite a few on here. Obviously no one could predict that he would drop a tea cup on his foot and be out for the next six months. The people who authorised this transfer deserve shooting.[/quote



no mate you can not predict the future and seen similar happen lots of times.... being reasonable is not wrong..VVD looks like he is out for the season, what if he were to have a 2nd separate injury during pre season which keeps him our a further 3 months and then klopp decides to ease him back ?
nobody but nobody would consider him injury prone after taking part in 14 games and no fan would not want to sign him because he is injury prone...

its unreasonable....

VVD was injured by an horrendous tackle!

Up to that point he was outstanding at the back for Liverpool and to my knowledge had only missed a few games.

Hopefully he comes back without any problems and resumes his career.

There is absolutely no comparison with IV who had a long history prior to signing for us! How the hell we didn’t put a clause in his contract about further injuries is a complete mystery. As pointed out if he wouldn’t sign a contract with such a clause that would immediately have sent one a message he was worried about his body.

In such a case we should have walked away.

I don’t think he has ever been injured in a tackle more like suffered from injuries from running etc.

Let the club learn from it and not sign any player who has a history of injuries. Thus avoiding having a player on the books collecting money for no reason.

If he worked in the real world any company would have got shot before now and certainly he would not have had top quality medical advice to boot.

yes lets learn by it and sack the whole squad because each and every one has had injuries....... jesus

Do you actually follow City?

Players get injured all the time some more than most however IV has a nightmare of medical history and there appears no light at the end of the tunnel.

You off School today?

Mate, I think some people on here who go on virtually every thread constantly must be so bored and that they will say anything to get a response and argue black is blue.
Taints of Roathy without being him.

There are two schools of thought about Vassel. One group to which I belong believed that Vassel was a potentially disastrous signing as his injury record was appalling in the last two or three years and he had all the look of a semi permanent sick note who we should not touch with a ten foot barge pole. We made our views clear at the time of his signing and subsequent events have vindicated us completely we were right and anyone else was wrong.

The other group thought he was a good signing as he had made a few subsistute appearances in the last three seasons and perhaps he wasn't the crock the other group was saying he was. You were wrong and completely wrong and only the most pig headed idiot won't admit he was wrong but there seem to be quite a few on here. Obviously no one could predict that he would drop a tea cup on his foot and be out for the next six months. The people who authorised this transfer deserve shooting.[/quote



no mate you can not predict the future and seen similar happen lots of times.... being reasonable is not wrong..VVD looks like he is out for the season, what if he were to have a 2nd separate injury during pre season which keeps him our a further 3 months and then klopp decides to ease him back ?
nobody but nobody would consider him injury prone after taking part in 14 games and no fan would not want to sign him because he is injury prone...

its unreasonable....

VVD was injured by an horrendous tackle!

Up to that point he was outstanding at the back for Liverpool and to my knowledge had only missed a few games.

Hopefully he comes back without any problems and resumes his career.

There is absolutely no comparison with IV who had a long history prior to signing for us! How the hell we didn’t put a clause in his contract about further injuries is a complete mystery. As pointed out if he wouldn’t sign a contract with such a clause that would immediately have sent one a message he was worried about his body.

In such a case we should have walked away.

I don’t think he has ever been injured in a tackle more like suffered from injuries from running etc.

Let the club learn from it and not sign any player who has a history of injuries. Thus avoiding having a player on the books collecting money for no reason.

If he worked in the real world any company would have got shot before now and certainly he would not have had top quality medical advice to boot.

You simply cannot sack a person whilst on the "sick" neil warnock pursued vassell,an DC had a huge say in his signing! Backed by the committee on his trust,so failings all around,but if your manager insists this,or that player is worth the outlay,then the board will(most likely) back the manager,as he is the man with the most knowledge,especially with warnock?

I don’t think I mentioned anything about sacking!

He’d have to be paid up and released so win all around for the player.

During my careers, I’ve known on numerous occasions that people have applied for a job and been turned down and it was all down to their poor sickness records.

You cannot cater for a player getting a serious injury but you can control not signing a player who has a history of injuries before it starts.

Ok,fair play you said get rid (without the mention of being paid up!) Not sacking,you didn't clarify he would be paid up, which by the way,doesn't free up a wage,as he would still receive his full contracted pay from the club.I'm not saying it was right to sign him,in fact I was taken by surprise,when warnock said he had wanted to sign him for years! I believe he convinced the committee that he was worth signing,as why or how could they argue with a man of his experience on football?? Hasn't worked out to date,so I guess we will try and get him fit,to loan out in january(if a club would take him that is).

More wasted money by crooked Neil Warnock

Wow

Ned the Committee has to fully sanction this especially knowing he was injury prone everyone of them including Warnock should take the blame.

A cheap option. which back fired. We'd signed Pato when injured.
A shame really because I've seen nothing to suggest
Gazial is the back up striker