Wed Oct 21, 2020 1:06 pm
Escott1927 wrote: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....
Wed Oct 21, 2020 1:08 pm
Pulisnewport wrote:skidemin wrote:Crayfish wrote: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.
Wed Oct 21, 2020 1:14 pm
skidemin wrote:Pulisnewport wrote:skidemin wrote:Crayfish wrote: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
Wed Oct 21, 2020 1:28 pm
Pulisnewport wrote:skidemin wrote:Crayfish wrote: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.
Wed Oct 21, 2020 2:00 pm
skidemin wrote:Escott1927 wrote: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.
Wed Oct 21, 2020 2:04 pm
bluesince62 wrote:Pulisnewport wrote:skidemin wrote:Crayfish wrote: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?
Wed Oct 21, 2020 2:29 pm
bluesince62 wrote:Pulisnewport wrote:skidemin wrote:Crayfish wrote: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?
Wed Oct 21, 2020 2:33 pm
Wed Oct 21, 2020 2:38 pm
nubbsy wrote: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.
Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:39 pm
Pulisnewport wrote:skidemin wrote:Pulisnewport wrote:skidemin wrote:Crayfish wrote: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?
Wed Oct 21, 2020 11:36 pm
Pulisnewport wrote:bluesince62 wrote:Pulisnewport wrote:skidemin wrote:Crayfish wrote: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.
Thu Oct 22, 2020 5:25 am
Forever Blue wrote:worcester_ccfc wrote: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.