NO -that is not the wording being used , the wording that everyone else will read is "Sunderland demand" , go look for yourself , if you are going to be cocky about it - go check first .No, the reports are that Sunderland would like us to
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] When did things last feel this bad?
- Thread starter junior
- Start date
MetroEverything i wrote is factual , it is reported we picked up 2 more injuries in the Forest game . Chelsea ( the bank of England - joke) have bid 45m euros for FB according to metro uk , and he will not feel wanted by FH after this loan deal so we could well lose him permanently .
Until my Bat phone gets installed I have to read what`s printed like everyone else - accurate or otherwise , if you have consistently and genuinely reliable sources then you are very lucky .Metro
Silverhatch
Well-known member
Hurzeler is not the manager. He is the head coach. It’s his job to work with the players he’s given.
pigmanovich
Good Old Sausage by the Sea
The wording in the original article on Sunderland's demand for a Watson-Adingra swap is literally "Sunderland demand Simon Adingra in return for Tommy Watson".
Just step away from the keyboard for a day (or longer) if you can't understand the difference between Sunderland demanding something of us and us acceding to that demand.
Van Cleef
Well-known member
- Jun 17, 2023
- 922
Dramatic headline causes consternation - shock.
Not shock anger . Are you ok with the football fans up and down seeing another team "Demand" a prem quality player that we don`t want to lose this window from us to secure a deal ? . Every deal we do from now on would come with a "Demand" for a player of higher quality as replacement or the price would go up .
And you don`t have a problem with the word "Demand" ?
- Jun 27, 2012
- 14,932
No. This was claimed by one outlet only - probably a bit of hyperbole by a journalist to fit a headline. . Bit moot now since Adingra is not going anywhere. And also boringly standard practice in transfer negotiations especially on transfer day for one of the clubs to agree to a deal only if there is a suitable replacement - sometimes from the team they're doing business with. As it turns out Albion were having none of it.
"it is understood neither Albion nor Adingra himself were keen [on a move North] with the player himself determined to stay in the Premier League."
Adingra won't be going north but Sunderland still wary of Albion push for Watson
Simon Adingra will not be heading to Sunderland for the rest of the season.
www.theargus.co.uk
Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo
I believe in Joe Hendry
- Oct 4, 2003
- 12,377
Why do you have a problem with people using that word when we have no control over what words the media use in a report.
We also have no control over clubs being interested in our players. Sunderland can demand all they want, doesn’t mean they will get (and in this case they haven’t).
Maybe they should have asked nicely as my old gran would say when I demanded a slice of ginger cake as a youngster.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Sunderland haven't used the word "demand", because they are in no position to do so. They may haved asked, or suggested.
The word DEMAND will have been chucked into the headline by a sub-editor in the hope of attracting clicks, and annoying folk such as yourself.
I would have demanded 2 slices
pigmanovich
Good Old Sausage by the Sea
Where did you read that we had agreed to swap Adingra for Watson? This was your original point and it isn’t supported by the reporting I cited. I’m not sure what my feelings about the word “demand” have to do with anything.
Unfortunately that is the way i`m wired , if someone say`s something other than an obvious joke i process it as meant .
I didn`t read that and i didn`t write that , you have made that up - it was never my point . You need to read my post again
pigmanovich
Good Old Sausage by the Sea
You’re right, you didn’t - another poster did, and when I challenged them, you made your (still confusing) point about the Mail’s language. Sorry for the mix up.
I never mentioned The Mail
sussex_guy2k2
Well-known member
- Jun 6, 2014
- 4,610
The bar isn’t the same for these two managers though, and trying to compare his first 24 games against RDZs last 24 games when the context is totally different, makes zero sense.
He’s been given £200m worth of talent (now £230m worth of talent) to mould into a team. In his time here, he’s made no one better, except potentially Baleba who’s arguably just benefited from a year in the league. The team looks aimless, lacks strategy, lacks heart, lacks idea, lacks defensive cohesion, lack tactical ideas. None of those things could be argued about an RDZ side, except for when we had a squad riddled with injuries. We also refused to back RDZ when he pointed out that we didn’t have the squad to cope with the demands that were being placed on them. Whereas we’ve done the exact opposite with this guy. We’ve even, somehow, allowed many of our most promising talents to be pushed out of the club at a time when we apparently have so many injuries that the new manager can’t cope.
I’m sorry, but progress is a relative term. We progressed under RDZ and that progress only stopped when the ownership decided not to back him, but we haven’t progressed under FH - we’ve gone backwards. The league is easier, and we’ve got a much better squad in theory which means we’ve had enough quality to pick up some points we frankly haven’t deserved, but that isn’t progress.