Sod off Rooney to the bench, he did nothing in our friendly games and stopped Vardy and Kane being effective.Rax wrote:The most depressing thing about this is England's (or Hodgson's) "Rooney must play at all costs" - for the first time in ages we have a young and hungry strikeforce that could really have a go!
Instead he's risking it all to accommodate Rooney where really he should be on the bench.
For Jamie Vardy - see Francis Jeffers - you have been warned....
Vardy is by no stretch of the imagination young !Rax wrote:The most depressing thing about this is England's (or Hodgson's) "Rooney must play at all costs" - for the first time in ages we have a young and hungry strikeforce that could really have a go!
Instead he's risking it all to accommodate Rooney where really he should be on the bench.
For Jamie Vardy - see Francis Jeffers - you have been warned....
Nameless wrote:Vardy is by no stretch of the imagination young !Rax wrote:The most depressing thing about this is England's (or Hodgson's) "Rooney must play at all costs" - for the first time in ages we have a young and hungry strikeforce that could really have a go!
Instead he's risking it all to accommodate Rooney where really he should be on the bench.
For Jamie Vardy - see Francis Jeffers - you have been warned....
He's probably at his peak at 28 but likely to just have one big move in his career. He's at his most marketable now, he almost certainly won't have as good a season next year and being a year nearer 30 he'll be less of a target.
It's a big call for him but he'll get a big pay rise if he goes to Arsenal now, and he'll be able to walk into the dressing room and show off a Champions medal which will make the rest of the squad jealous....
But if he goes it will be the start of a Leicester exodus..
I'd actually think it's a mad move for other reasons. For a start, is he the sort of player who'd fit into Arsenal's style of play? Secondly, is he more likely to challenge for honours next season with Arsenal or Leicester next year? Normally you'd say Arsenal, but it doesn't seem to have been a happy camp for quite a while now.Rax wrote:Nameless wrote:Vardy is by no stretch of the imagination young !Rax wrote:The most depressing thing about this is England's (or Hodgson's) "Rooney must play at all costs" - for the first time in ages we have a young and hungry strikeforce that could really have a go!
Instead he's risking it all to accommodate Rooney where really he should be on the bench.
For Jamie Vardy - see Francis Jeffers - you have been warned....
He's probably at his peak at 28 but likely to just have one big move in his career. He's at his most marketable now, he almost certainly won't have as good a season next year and being a year nearer 30 he'll be less of a target.
It's a big call for him but he'll get a big pay rise if he goes to Arsenal now, and he'll be able to walk into the dressing room and show off a Champions medal which will make the rest of the squad jealous....
But if he goes it will be the start of a Leicester exodus..
Good and accurate points Nameless, I should have made the Vardy/Jeffers comparison clearer - in that it's better to be a big fish in a small pond.......our 106 team suffered exactly the same.
tmesis wrote:Thirdly, is the amount extra they'd be paying him worth it? There must come a point where three years on £150000 a week doesn't really make much difference to your life than three on £100000 a week.
That is alot. However (and it will happen) he is at the wrong end of 25, nearing 30. He will go there, get games, maybe score a few but be a small fish in a much bigger pond. He will sit around on the bench whilst Wenger loves Giroud. Old age question..... do you go from here payrise but hate your job (I know it's football and he won't hate it but sitting on the bench is not what a footballer wants to do) or do you stick withbeing a big fish in a decent size pond and one of the main players for still good money.Platypuss wrote:tmesis wrote:Thirdly, is the amount extra they'd be paying him worth it? There must come a point where three years on £150000 a week doesn't really make much difference to your life than three on £100000 a week.![]()
The difference is about 8 million quid!
It is, but what are you going to do with £24 million that you couldn't do with £16 million?Platypuss wrote:tmesis wrote:Thirdly, is the amount extra they'd be paying him worth it? There must come a point where three years on £150000 a week doesn't really make much difference to your life than three on £100000 a week.![]()
The difference is about 8 million quid!
Your posting of late has been the best I've ever seen from you and many others on here. Please keep it upIan Royal wrote:I think you need to be talking significantly larger figures before £8m becomes irrelevant. Especially for someone with a big earning life span of about 6 years total.
tmesis wrote:It is, but what are you going to do with £24 million that you couldn't do with £16 million?Platypuss wrote:tmesis wrote:Thirdly, is the amount extra they'd be paying him worth it? There must come a point where three years on £150000 a week doesn't really make much difference to your life than three on £100000 a week.![]()
The difference is about 8 million quid!
You get to a stage where you need to be quite inventive to spend £16 million, let alone an extra £8 million on top.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests