Paul Konchesky?! Who let you in?

[Kenneth]

I haven't "dodged it". I've said I don't think Konchesky is better than Insua - therefore doesn't, in my opinion, give us "a better LB". Is that alright with you?

Point missed.

You are taunting people for saying they are happy with the signing because they think he is an improvement. Whether or not they identified Koncheskey as a player they specifically wanted is not relevant. It is logical to use the judgement of whether he is an improvement when deciding whether or not to be happy with the transfer. Your view if him is not relevant to this.

[Shaggy]

Point missed.

You are taunting people for saying they are happy with the signing because they think he is an improvement. Whether or not they identified Koncheskey as a player they specifically wanted is not relevant. It is logical to use the judgement of whether he is an improvement when deciding whether or not to be happy with the transfer. Your view if him is not relevant to this.

A pig in make-up is an improvement but it doesn't really make it more attractive.

[red g]

A pig in make-up is an improvement but it doesn't really make it more attractive.

you suggesting gary Neville?

[Shaggy]

Since I heard that we were in the market for a left back who would be an improvement on Insua and who was available for around £5m or less. I honestly think he's the best available option. Put it this way, I haven't heard anyone mention a viable alternative signing that I prefer to Konchesky.

In response to the logic of that question though, wanting Messi to play behind Torres in an ideal world doesn't mean I can't be happy with the Joe Cole signing.

Okay...no problem with that.

I don't think £4m and a four year contract for a mediocre player who is 30 before the season finishes is ideal. I would have preferred someone else. No biggie.

It's a sign of the times though. 12 months ago the notion of signing this lad would've been ridiculed.

[Kenneth]

A pig in make-up is an improvement but it doesn't really make it more attractive.

Amusing, but pointless.

Basicially, if someone thinks PK is worth having because he's better than Insua, it doesn't warrant a rant about people accepting **** and justifying signing Christopher Biggins.

[red g]

I don't think it was Roy's decision to part with him in the first place anyway. I remember one of his quotes saying he does rate the player and the man himself. So if Roy did rate him, why the insistence of shipping him out? He's not been given a chance, he's never featured under Hodgson.

Obviously, opinions will diverge on Insua, but he is 21 and hardly at an age where you could state for certain that he was going to be a flop. He had time on his side, had been capped by Argentina and has contributed in the attacking third of the field when he played last season.

He's hardly a liability and hardly the finished article at 21.

he was a a liability last season as was Cole and prob every other full back seen Rafael at scum **** up on several occasions and he looks decent to.

We have sent him on Loan as a full season elsewhere will do him good as last season proved he isnt good enough to be our number 1 LB and at 21 no shame in that.

[red g]

Okay...no problem with that.

I don't think £4m and a four year contract for a mediocre player who is 30 before the season finishes is ideal. I would have preferred someone else. No biggie.

It's a sign of the times though. 12 months ago the notion of signing this lad would've been ridiculed.

[Shaggy]

Amusing, but pointless.

Basicially, if someone thinks PK is worth having because he's better than Insua, it doesn't warrant a rant about people accepting shot and justifying signing Christopher Biggins.

It does in my opinion - there are posters who would try their best to justify anything. And they haven't disappointed with Konchesky. Or Jones. Or Poulsen.

But still I hope I'm wrong about all of them.

[dww]

Not a big fan of Konchesky but defending is a lot about doing things as a unit and he has the advantage of knowing the way Roy wants to play. Hopefully he can come in do a job and help form a cohesive back four. We struggled to do that for large periods last season and it has continued this. I'm not sure I agree with the way Roy wants to do things and I'm certain that in a year or two we will be looking to upgrade again but in the short term getting a stable, well organised unit is the priority and Konchesky may represent a relatively quick was of achieving that.

The fact that I have lowered my expectations to this level is sad but I don't see why we should focus on one player or even one part of the team. I would feel sorry for Roy but he came into a bad situation and if he couldn't see the restrictions he would have then he only has himself to blame.

I hope we gel as a team soon and at least we aren't just assessing a team in transition all season.

[Kenneth]

you suggesting gary Neville?

[Zapater]

Luke Young I apologise for being so harsh on you in the other thread, this one takes the cake.

Also, the other thing is that we are almost conceding the decline in our status with this signing. We are a boxer who has just gotten hit really hard and showing that were hurt rather than playing it cool and laughing it off. Other teams will really see us as there for the taking which quite frankly thus far we have been.

[Maxiedge]

Did we not want to sign Lucas Neil a couple of seasons ago? Times haven't changed that much...

[Shaggy]

Some welcome thread, this.

Hope he never reads it.

[Icon]

Some welcome thread, this.

Hope he never reads it.

[Shaggy]

Did we not want to sign Lucas Neil a couple of seasons ago? Times haven't changed that much...

There's no accounting for managers' tastes, and that potential signing was met by widespread derision and horror.

A sign of the times that a similar player (not as good as Neill IMO) is being accepted.