Lescott [Merged]

[kippax88]

no he was right, its joleon
<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joleon_Lescott" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joleon_Lescott</a>

 

[ToffeeAndy]

..and jolean Lescott want to join Manchester City.

That is also a dynamic on the deal.

Moyes is no fool, he will no that it is no good to anyone to have a player on the books who wants to leave and is prevented by his club. Sam Allardice made a huge error in holding out for too much money for RSC in Jan.

Everton have to sell because the player does not want to stay and we appear to be the only bidders.

According to who tho?

 

[Mikeegrini]

..and jolean Lescott want to join Manchester City.

Its Julian

Its Joleon you weapon !

what sort of name is "joleon you weopon lescott"... seems abit stupid, maybe his mum was high?

Its his penis name.

 

[CBF]

ToffeeAndy, you speak a lot of sense, and try to stick to the facts (which - in this time of giddyness for us - we seem increasingly incapable of doing. But hey, I guess it'd be the same if the roles were reversed).

That. Is. All.

Moyes won't let Lescott go for 15m, but I firmly believe that he will end up at COMS before 31st August.

I think your guess of around 22m is spot on, and you are also spot on with your 'what is he worth to the club' as opposed to 'what is he worth in todays transfer market' statement.

 

[@BluePhil8]

Garry cook says we are investing in the club and investments now will affect us in ten years, you have to invest to beat top 4, we stop buying when we have enougth quality for mark hughes. SSN.

 

[twinkletoes]

Who doesnt want to come to us? If you believe the as yet unsubstantiated reoprts the Sheff UTD players ahve gone to spurs then you should also believe we havent been allowed to speak to them, it was in the same article afterall

If it's unsubstantiated why then quote the article to back up your argument?

 

[Matty]

ToffeeAndy, you speak a lot of sense, and try to stick to the facts (which - in this time of giddyness for us - we seem increasingly incapable of doing. But hey, I guess it'd be the same if the roles were reversed).

That. Is. All.

Moyes won't let Lescott go for 15m, but I firmly believe that he will end up at COMS before 31st August.

I think your guess of around 22m is spot on, and you are also spot on with your 'what is he worth to the club' as opposed to 'what is he worth in todays transfer market' statement.

You could well be right, but I doubt it'll be £22m upfront, with no clauses etc. Even United, when they bought Rooney from Everton, had some of the fee tied into success, appearances etc.

The idea, mentioned earlier in the thread, of using Javier Garrido as a makeweight, is a sound one. He's our backup left back, so wouldn't be required if we had Lescott, and he'd solve Everton's backup left back issue as well, leaving them the rest of the fee to find a replacement centre-half.

 

[Project Rain]

Anyone else think his face has just been pasted on this picture lmao

 

[CBF]

Matty, seems like a good sound proposal, although I have my doubts whether Moyes would like Garrido or not (not that Garrido is a bad player, far from it, I just think that his abilities are not best suited to the English game).

Still, he seemed to get more than we could out of Jo, so maybe he could.

Plus, Garrido doesnt seem to mind warming the bench.

 

[ToffeeAndy]

Who doesnt want to come to us? If you believe the as yet unsubstantiated reoprts the Sheff UTD players ahve gone to spurs then you should also believe we havent been allowed to speak to them, it was in the same article afterall

If it's unsubstantiated why then quote the article to back up your argument?

No I think your missing the point. What I was asking was "which players dont want to come to us"? Because if the original statement was relating to the Sheff UTD players, then there's only one news outlet and a few associated with it that have said they are off to spurs. If this is the source of the thinking behind the statement then it should also be noted that the same article states we werent allowed to speak to the players... thus removing the validity of the argument that they turned us down.

So in summary - if someone is using a new article to back up a statement then they can't just discount certain parts of that article to make their points true.

I in no way am using the article to back up my argument as have no idea if its true. I'm pointing out that if your to use a source then use all of it, not just the bits that suit your own agenda.