(13-02-2015, 19:11)Towinjustonce Wrote: Yeah it just seems strange that he is gone considering he is suppose to be a great attacking prospect and we are struggling for goals. He didn't have much time to bed in but it would have seemed it would of been a match made in heaven.

(13-02-2015, 15:10)peiowl Wrote: Full of cliches.      

(13-02-2015, 19:17)St Charles Owl Wrote: Personally if I was the owner and I knew that SG was not going to be the guy to take us further, then I would pay up his contract and get rid now.  I would rather get a new manager in now, lets him tinker with the team, formation and tactics and give him real time information as regards to what we have and ultimately what we will need in the summer.  Problem with firing a manager at the end of the season is that you have to get the new guy in straight away and then the transfer window opens on June 1st, so he will not have been able to work with the team at all.

Even though we now have money, we are not going to replace the whole team, so giving a manager a spell of games to be able to see what he has and what he needs could well be the difference between challenging next season or not!!  Get SG moved on now and make a push for Lambert!!

---

(13-02-2015, 19:11)Towinjustonce Wrote: Yeah it just seems strange that he is gone considering he is suppose to be a great attacking prospect and we are struggling for goals. He didn't have much time to bed in but it would have seemed it would of been a match made in heaven.

I think the fact we got McGugan back meant he was surplus to requirements and Chelsea would want him to be playing most if not all the games while he is with us.

(13-02-2015, 22:29)St Charles Owl Wrote: Of course at this stage we have no idea what the new owners are thinking about anything.  Until ratification comes through from the FL (How long does this normally take??) there will be no major changes.  Once that goes through then they could well start to clean house immediately and SG could be gone.  At the end of the day they must have watched maybe the last 10 or so games while going through all the negotiations, so they have seen what we see!!

(14-02-2015, 01:21)Statesideowl Wrote: The great one tipped Baker to be one for the future, and we either let him sit on the bench or have 10 minutes...

I hope that Chelski don't tell us to eff off in future if we ever need a loanee

(14-02-2015, 01:21)Statesideowl Wrote: The great one tipped Baker to be one for the future, and we either let him sit on the bench or have 10 minutes...

I hope that Chelski don't tell us to eff off in future if we ever need a loanee

(14-02-2015, 01:41)Washington Wrote:

(14-02-2015, 01:21)Statesideowl Wrote: The great one tipped Baker to be one for the future, and we either let him sit on the bench or have 10 minutes...

I hope that Chelski don't tell us to eff off in future if we ever need a loanee

Perhaps the loan was set up in anticipation of the takeover becoming protracted and not getting the new permanent signings in.  Personally I think we need to get the players on LT contracts getting playing time and gelling. Baker was never going to be ours long term just  like Wickham and Barkley. As others have
noted there needs to be a big clear out in the summer and ideally we already have a target list of out of contract replacements identified so we can use preseason to fully prepare for a major onslaught next season.