Diego Lattie

I can't see what George has said wrong in regards to Lattie. He rates him and thinks he should've been kept.

He also makes fair points about Suarez, who's slowly been making magnificent progress during his times at Sevilla and Villarreal.

Let's just hope we didn't offer Lattie a contract rather than him choosing to leave. As letting a England U17 go seems rather strange, no matter who else is currently in front/behind him in the system.
 
I can't see what George has said wrong in regards to Lattie. He rates him and thinks he should've been kept.

He also makes fair points about Suarez, who's slowly been making magnificent progress during his times at Sevilla and Villarreal.

Let's just hope we didn't offer Lattie a contract rather than him choosing to leave. As letting a England U17 go seems rather strange, no matter who else is currently in front/behind him in the system.

Not one single person has denied Lattie's qualtiy. All our kids are good. All of em. We all know one could come back to bite us, we get that...we all agree with that point, but all George has done is refused to engage in the VERY reasonable and very logical counter argument. He is constantly ignoring is the fact that we can't literally sign all the u16s scholars and basically slagging off the club for it. People like myself, and others, have asked if Lattie gets in then someone else has to miss out, and who should that be? A fair question, and a mature discussion. He's ignored that point each and every time, and he was the first to start being condescending and calling people simpletons. No one else took that tone first. No one - he did. Totally uncalled for and untoward when people were just very reasonably trying to point out the other side of the debate, a situation that has left City with a forced hand. He seemingly just wants the best of both worlds, or maybe really he can't answer that question as he knows very little about the other u16s, hence dodging it.

The idea that it's strange 'no matter who else is in front of him' is nonsense. There is always a reason, and this one is huge.

To spell it out in the simplest, most blunt terms. WE CAN'T KEEP EVERY U16 PLAYER. In an ideal world, we could. BUT WE CAN'T. There are limits. Despite Lattie's quality, there are other's at City that are (rightfully) rated higher by a hell of a lot of people. If Lattie is included, one of them is missed out. Now given the fact that we have an exceptional RB in Duhaney currently only a year older than him which would see his chances limited (plus Maffeo only three years older and countless VERY comfortable CBs who can play at FB) and the fact that City see the others as potentially better prospects, then they have MAYBE come to the conclusion that sadly maybe he's one who has to give way. Something has to give.

How is that unfair? Now, a reasonable, considered reply would make the argument for Lattie being kept, stating who else should make way instead and also look at the long term role for Lattie in the academy set up. Maybe what his strengths are over others. Why he should be the one kept on over, say, Francis. Cos that is EXACTLY what this is about. There has been nothing of the sort. Just toys out of the pram and a complete disregard for all those very sane, very logical, and very clear reasons. No one minds someone rating a player and arguing that they should be kept, but at least attempt to not be a twat about it and actually consider the fair points others have put forward. George hasn't, he's just moaned.

As an aside - those opinions of mine, George? They're based on watching the players, not based on 'trust the club' nonsense. If yours are based off watching the u16s too then fair enough, but the fact that you've basically just seen him once seemingly, and not at all this year, and then are kicking up a huge fuss suggests you're just being a moaner for the sake of it.
 
Last edited:
Not one single person has denied Lattie's qualtiy. All our kids are good. All of em. We all know one could come back to bite us, we get that...we all agree with that point, but all George has done is refused to engage in the VERY reasonable and very logical counter argument. He is constantly ignoring is the fact that we can't literally sign all the u16s scholars and basically slagging off the club for it. People like myself, and others, have asked if Lattie gets in then someone else has to miss out, and who should that be? A fair question, and a mature discussion. He's ignored that point each and every time, and he was the first to start being condescending and calling people simpletons. No one else took that tone first. No one - he did. Totally uncalled for and untoward when people were just very reasonably trying to point out the other side of the debate, a situation that has left City with a forced hand. He seemingly just wants the best of both worlds, or maybe really he can't answer that question as he knows very little about the other u16s, hence dodging it.

The idea that it's strange 'no matter who else is in front of him' is nonsense. There is always a reason, and this one is huge.

To spell it out in the simplest, most blunt terms. WE CAN'T KEEP EVERY U16 PLAYER. In an ideal world, we could. BUT WE CAN'T. There are limits. Despite Lattie's quality, there are other's at City that are (rightfully) rated higher by a hell of a lot of people. If Lattie is included, one of them is missed out. Now given the fact that we have an exceptional RB in Duhaney currently only a year older than him which would see his chances limited, and the fact that City see the others as potentially better prospects, then they have MAYBE come to the conclusion that sadly maybe he's one who has to give way.

How is that unfair? Now, a reasonable, considered reply would make the argument for Lattie being kept, stating who else should make way instead and also look at the long term role for Lattie in the academy set up. There has been nothing of the sort. Just toys out of the pram and a complete disregard for all those very sane, very logical, and very clear reasons. No one minds someone rating a player and arguing that they should be kept, but at least attempt to not be a twat about it and actually consider the fair points others have put forward. George hasn't, he's just moaned.

As an aside - those opinions of mine, George? They're based on watching the players, not based on 'trust the club' nonsense. If yours are based off watching the u16s too then fair enough, but the fact that you've basically just seen him once seemingly, and not at all this year, and then are kicking up a huge fuss suggests you're just being a moaner for the sake of it.

I can fully understand both sides, but it seems everyone has taken an argumentative, self-righteous approach.

In terms of letting Lattie go, just because Duhaney is currently ahead of him does not mean it will stay that way. There are so many variables in football that you need as many options as possible.

Anyway, the club have done what they've done and it doesn't matter now. Let's just hope the players we've kept prove that they were worth keeping instead.
 
Like Twosips has said you can't keep every player, you after go with the players you think are going to be potential better.
So next season you could have too many players for 1 position if you signed to many players and you would potential stop one players progress if they didn't get enough games.
 
This section of the site is normally dickhead free lads,and it will stay that way.

With regards the topic,debating whether or not Lattie should have been kept is a moot point given the fact,at this stage of his career,he has been informed other players are ahead of him in the pecking order......Subsequently that is the reason he will be seeking pastures new.

Will that have been the correct decision when all have fully matured? nobody can accurately predict...... so,unfortunately,due to the limitations of numbers,all we as supporters can hope for.....is that our coaches have called it right.

I'm glad to see most people are grasping that simple concept and aren't here simply to be contrary or argumentative.
 
I can fully understand both sides, but it seems everyone has taken an argumentative, self-righteous approach.

In terms of letting Lattie go, just because Duhaney is currently ahead of him does not mean it will stay that way. There are so many variables in football that you need as many options as possible.

Anyway, the club have done what they've done and it doesn't matter now. Let's just hope the players we've kept prove that they were worth keeping instead.
That only occurred after George started being silly, before that it was just an adult discussion.
 
Not one single person has denied Lattie's qualtiy. All our kids are good. All of em. We all know one could come back to bite us, we get that...we all agree with that point, but all George has done is refused to engage in the VERY reasonable and very logical counter argument. He is constantly ignoring is the fact that we can't literally sign all the u16s scholars and basically slagging off the club for it. People like myself, and others, have asked if Lattie gets in then someone else has to miss out, and who should that be? A fair question, and a mature discussion. He's ignored that point each and every time, and he was the first to start being condescending and calling people simpletons. No one else took that tone first. No one - he did. Totally uncalled for and untoward when people were just very reasonably trying to point out the other side of the debate, a situation that has left City with a forced hand. He seemingly just wants the best of both worlds, or maybe really he can't answer that question as he knows very little about the other u16s, hence dodging it.

The idea that it's strange 'no matter who else is in front of him' is nonsense. There is always a reason, and this one is huge.

To spell it out in the simplest, most blunt terms. WE CAN'T KEEP EVERY U16 PLAYER. In an ideal world, we could. BUT WE CAN'T. There are limits. Despite Lattie's quality, there are other's at City that are (rightfully) rated higher by a hell of a lot of people. If Lattie is included, one of them is missed out. Now given the fact that we have an exceptional RB in Duhaney currently only a year older than him which would see his chances limited (plus Maffeo only three years older and countless VERY comfortable CBs who can play at FB) and the fact that City see the others as potentially better prospects, then they have MAYBE come to the conclusion that sadly maybe he's one who has to give way. Something has to give.

How is that unfair? Now, a reasonable, considered reply would make the argument for Lattie being kept, stating who else should make way instead and also look at the long term role for Lattie in the academy set up. Maybe what his strengths are over others. Why he should be the one kept on over, say, Francis. Cos that is EXACTLY what this is about. There has been nothing of the sort. Just toys out of the pram and a complete disregard for all those very sane, very logical, and very clear reasons. No one minds someone rating a player and arguing that they should be kept, but at least attempt to not be a twat about it and actually consider the fair points others have put forward. George hasn't, he's just moaned.

As an aside - those opinions of mine, George? They're based on watching the players, not based on 'trust the club' nonsense. If yours are based off watching the u16s too then fair enough, but the fact that you've basically just seen him once seemingly, and not at all this year, and then are kicking up a huge fuss suggests you're just being a moaner for the sake of it.

Yeah but he's from Stockport...
 
Not one single person has denied Lattie's qualtiy. All our kids are good. All of em. We all know one could come back to bite us, we get that...we all agree with that point, but all George has done is refused to engage in the VERY reasonable and very logical counter argument. He is constantly ignoring is the fact that we can't literally sign all the u16s scholars and basically slagging off the club for it. People like myself, and others, have asked if Lattie gets in then someone else has to miss out, and who should that be? A fair question, and a mature discussion. He's ignored that point each and every time, and he was the first to start being condescending and calling people simpletons. No one else took that tone first. No one - he did. Totally uncalled for and untoward when people were just very reasonably trying to point out the other side of the debate, a situation that has left City with a forced hand. He seemingly just wants the best of both worlds, or maybe really he can't answer that question as he knows very little about the other u16s, hence dodging it.

The idea that it's strange 'no matter who else is in front of him' is nonsense. There is always a reason, and this one is huge.

To spell it out in the simplest, most blunt terms. WE CAN'T KEEP EVERY U16 PLAYER. In an ideal world, we could. BUT WE CAN'T. There are limits. Despite Lattie's quality, there are other's at City that are (rightfully) rated higher by a hell of a lot of people. If Lattie is included, one of them is missed out. Now given the fact that we have an exceptional RB in Duhaney currently only a year older than him which would see his chances limited (plus Maffeo only three years older and countless VERY comfortable CBs who can play at FB) and the fact that City see the others as potentially better prospects, then they have MAYBE come to the conclusion that sadly maybe he's one who has to give way. Something has to give.

How is that unfair? Now, a reasonable, considered reply would make the argument for Lattie being kept, stating who else should make way instead and also look at the long term role for Lattie in the academy set up. Maybe what his strengths are over others. Why he should be the one kept on over, say, Francis. Cos that is EXACTLY what this is about. There has been nothing of the sort. Just toys out of the pram and a complete disregard for all those very sane, very logical, and very clear reasons. No one minds someone rating a player and arguing that they should be kept, but at least attempt to not be a twat about it and actually consider the fair points others have put forward. George hasn't, he's just moaned.

As an aside - those opinions of mine, George? They're based on watching the players, not based on 'trust the club' nonsense. If yours are based off watching the u16s too then fair enough, but the fact that you've basically just seen him once seemingly, and not at all this year, and then are kicking up a huge fuss suggests you're just being a moaner for the sake of it.

In regards to the bolded part, how many players are we allowed to give contracts? I never knew there was a limit...

Also i've seen the EDS and 18's a few times, so I know a few of the up and coming 16's, Sancho and Diaz being the obvious standouts already but do you know which players have been offered or signed contracts already? I'll assume Diaz and Sancho are definites...I know Campbell's still kicking up a fuss last I heard.
 
In regards to the bolded part, how many players are we allowed to give contracts? I never knew there was a limit...

Also i've seen the EDS and 18's a few times, so I know a few of the up and coming 16's, Sancho and Diaz being the obvious standouts already but do you know which players have been offered or signed contracts already? I'll assume Diaz and Sancho are definites...I know Campbell's still kicking up a fuss last I heard.

Don't think there is a limit how many you sign up.But the thing is if you have got 2 players in the same position you after let one go.
It might be an hard decision to let him go. Not my Decision. And after watching them i have got a good i dear imho who they should be.
 
He's struggling to get game time at the minute for Liverpools U18s making the bench but not getting a run out....now no disrespect to Liverpool but if he can't get minutes for them there was no way he would get any for City...
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.