bobzy Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) Houlston asked it earlier. If Holt is such a decent option as cover why doesn't an average championship team want him for this role? Also could we not recall bent back? Is that not an option? If you've got a strategy of getting balls up to the "big man" (Benteke, Kozak) why on earth would you bring back Darren Bent as cover? Not even touching the wage issues. Christ, I hate our fan base sometimes. Edited January 14, 2014 by bobzy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimzk5 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 His agent says its a done deal prove me wrong please Mr Holt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 to be fair Holt fell out of favour with the Wigan boss hence why hes not in the team.. maybe its not based on ability. They've had two managers this season so far, and neither have fancied him. And this is Wigan who aren't exactly overrun with forwards at the moment. He isn't good enough for the Championship, and he isn't good enough for us. A lazy, half-arsed signing from a limited boss who continues to prove he hasn't got what it takes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 to be fair Holt fell out of favour with the Wigan boss hence why hes not in the team.. maybe its not based on ability. He isn't good enough for the Championship, and he isn't good enough for us. A lazy, half-arsed signing from a limited boss who continues to prove he hasn't got what it takes. Apart from that though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Why do we need cover for cover ? Because our covers broken leg is COVERED in a cast? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 to be fair Holt fell out of favour with the Wigan boss hence why hes not in the team.. maybe its not based on ability. He isn't good enough for the Championship, and he isn't good enough for us. A lazy, half-arsed signing from a limited boss who continues to prove he hasn't got what it takes. Apart from that though.... Cometh the Hour................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Houlston asked it earlier. If Holt is such a decent option as cover why doesn't an average championship team want him for this role? Also could we not recall bent back? Is that not an option? If you've got a strategy of getting balls up to the "big man" (Benteke, Kozak) why on earth would you bring back Darren Bent as cover? Not even touching the wage issues. Christ, I hate our fan base sometimes. Haha yeah me to. The pathetic acceptance of absolutely anything is very frustrating. So what you're saying is the manager is incapable of playing anything but hoof ball so we need to sign holt because we can't use the other players the manager has signed. Fills you with faith for the future doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelboyVilla Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Not really bothered about this unless it impacts other potential signings, if it does, then i'm pretty bothered. Well I can't see how it doesn't if our fugal wage saving policy is still in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 to be fair Holt fell out of favour with the Wigan boss hence why hes not in the team.. maybe its not based on ability. They've had two managers this season so far, and neither have fancied him. And this is Wigan who aren't exactly overrun with forwards at the moment. He isn't good enough for the Championship, and he isn't good enough for us. A lazy, half-arsed signing from a limited boss who continues to prove he hasn't got what it takes. Rosler plays good football, he likes the ball to be kept on the floor, and knocked around. He's quite a progressive, forward thinking manager who plays exciting football. No wonder he doesn't need Holt 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelboyVilla Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I have an analogy. It's not perfect but it makes sense to an extent. This season, the Dallas Cowboys lost their starting QB Tony Romo. They then needed cover for cover and chose to go with Jon Kitna. 'Who is Jon Kitna?' - you might ask. Jon Kitna is a 41 year old maths teacher. He retired from the league 2 years ago and American football is a sport where, generally, the players retire far sooner (the stats are scewed by 41/42 year old kickers and 5head). They could have gone for a young player. They could have easily gone for a fitter, better player. They went for a player who 1) knows the game 2) knows the team 3) has experience and leadership As I said this isn't a perfect analogy but it helped me to get my head around the potential signing and the role that Holt could play within the squad. The logic and reasoning behind the signing has been posted numerous times in this thread. Whether or not you agree with it is another story but it's there. To say that 'nothing makes sense' about the signing makes no sense within itself. While he's here, lets hope for a few goals in not too many minutes. So how the Cowboys doing? They in the Superbowl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieVillan Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) Think its a decent signing. I expect him to feature in every other game. I reckon he'll score 5 goals before the end of the season, assuming we can get Lowton forward and crossing the ball like yesterday. If he hasn't been playing games then he should be relatively fresh (if not match fit). Lambert knows how to get the best out of him, and if we are going to continue playing our current style, then he is a player who should fit. Even if he is out of shape, he is player who can hold up the ball, maybe just aswell as Benteke. Hopefully he can be like a Kevin Davies style player for us. If he helps to keep us up then so be it. I also think its ridiculous for people to criticise the principal of signing another striker. If Benteke got injured again and we were left with Gabby, Weimann, Bowery and Helenius, we would be in big trouble in terms of relegation. And people on this board would be going into meltdown blaming Lambert for not having cover. You may not be happy about the signing of Holt, but you can't argue with the logic of signing a big target man with proven premier league experience. Edited January 14, 2014 by GeordieVillan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pez1974 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 If we brought in Guidetti and he did well, we would only be doing Man City a favour and hindering our youngsters progress Whereas bringing in Holt ... does what to help our youngsters or first team ? Cheers for taking my quote out of context! The point of the whole comment was that no matter what was done for a striker, PL would be castigated unless it was a £20m superstar, when he would be castigated for not buying a midfielder! The alternatives to Holt within the squad are Helenius (who PL seems to have an issue with) or Bowery (meh). We need an extra striker with Kozak injured IMO. We crave experience, Holt has it. Do I think it's a really good singing? No. Do I think it is understandable and appropriate in the circumstances - yes. He brings experience and an ability to play within the system we use.He is available. He is (I assume) cheap. And his experience and obvious leadership will help the youngsters in the team, and may help them off it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I have an analogy. It's not perfect but it makes sense to an extent. This season, the Dallas Cowboys lost their starting QB Tony Romo. They then needed cover for cover and chose to go with Jon Kitna. 'Who is Jon Kitna?' - you might ask. Jon Kitna is a 41 year old maths teacher. He retired from the league 2 years ago and American football is a sport where, generally, the players retire far sooner (the stats are scewed by 41/42 year old kickers and 5head). They could have gone for a young player. They could have easily gone for a fitter, better player. They went for a player who 1) knows the game 2) knows the team 3) has experience and leadership As I said this isn't a perfect analogy but it helped me to get my head around the potential signing and the role that Holt could play within the squad. The logic and reasoning behind the signing has been posted numerous times in this thread. Whether or not you agree with it is another story but it's there. To say that 'nothing makes sense' about the signing makes no sense within itself. While he's here, lets hope for a few goals in not too many minutes. So how the Cowboys doing? They in the Superbowl? No. But that's an irrelevant point and leads me to believe you didn't actually read what I said. I'm going to leave it with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thefeet1980 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Reminds me of when MON signed Sutton, which proved a waste of time. Happy to give him the benefit of the doubt and not overly concerned given the need for short term cover. Still hoping (probably in vain) that we'll sign someone to give everyone a lift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I have an analogy. It's not perfect but it makes sense to an extent. This season, the Dallas Cowboys lost their starting QB Tony Romo. They then needed cover for cover and chose to go with Jon Kitna. 'Who is Jon Kitna?' - you might ask. Jon Kitna is a 41 year old maths teacher. He retired from the league 2 years ago and American football is a sport where, generally, the players retire far sooner (the stats are scewed by 41/42 year old kickers and 5head). They could have gone for a young player. They could have easily gone for a fitter, better player. They went for a player who 1) knows the game 2) knows the team 3) has experience and leadership As I said this isn't a perfect analogy but it helped me to get my head around the potential signing and the role that Holt could play within the squad. The logic and reasoning behind the signing has been posted numerous times in this thread. Whether or not you agree with it is another story but it's there. To say that 'nothing makes sense' about the signing makes no sense within itself. While he's here, lets hope for a few goals in not too many minutes. So how the Cowboys doing? They in the Superbowl? No. But that's an irrelevant point and leads me to believe you didn't actually read what I said. I'm going to leave it with you. I read your whole post, so here's another question. Is Kitna fat and rubbish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Houlston asked it earlier. If Holt is such a decent option as cover why doesn't an average championship team want him for this role? Also could we not recall bent back? Is that not an option? If you've got a strategy of getting balls up to the "big man" (Benteke, Kozak) why on earth would you bring back Darren Bent as cover? Not even touching the wage issues. Christ, I hate our fan base sometimes. Haha yeah me to. The pathetic acceptance of absolutely anything is very frustrating. So what you're saying is the manager is incapable of playing anything but hoof ball so we need to sign holt because we can't use the other players the manager has signed. Fills you with faith for the future doesn't it? Yes, obviously I was saying that we're incapable of playing anything but hoof ball. And obviously the 5 month loan signing of Grant Holt is "one for the future". Obviously. Obv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted January 14, 2014 Moderator Share Posted January 14, 2014 Risso, your post kinda implies that the only way Holt (Kitna) could be deemed a success or worthwhile is if Villa (Cowboys) get to the CL (Superbowl). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Risso, your post kinda implies that the only way Holt (Kitna) could be deemed a success or worthwhile is if Villa (Cowboys) get to the CL (Superbowl). Even though it wasn't me who mentioned the Superbowl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I have an analogy. It's not perfect but it makes sense to an extent. This season, the Dallas Cowboys lost their starting QB Tony Romo. They then needed cover for cover and chose to go with Jon Kitna. 'Who is Jon Kitna?' - you might ask. Jon Kitna is a 41 year old maths teacher. He retired from the league 2 years ago and American football is a sport where, generally, the players retire far sooner (the stats are scewed by 41/42 year old kickers and 5head). They could have gone for a young player. They could have easily gone for a fitter, better player. They went for a player who 1) knows the game 2) knows the team 3) has experience and leadership As I said this isn't a perfect analogy but it helped me to get my head around the potential signing and the role that Holt could play within the squad. The logic and reasoning behind the signing has been posted numerous times in this thread. Whether or not you agree with it is another story but it's there. To say that 'nothing makes sense' about the signing makes no sense within itself. While he's here, lets hope for a few goals in not too many minutes. So how the Cowboys doing? They in the Superbowl? No. But that's an irrelevant point and leads me to believe you didn't actually read what I said. I'm going to leave it with you. I read your whole post, so here's another question. Is Kitna fat and rubbish? Well he's 41, hasn't played in 2 years and I know your opinion on teachers so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENTLEMAN Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) Risso, your post kinda implies that the only way Holt (Kitna) could be deemed a success or worthwhile is if Villa (Cowboys) get to the CL (Superbowl). I think some posters still expect us to be competing for a CL place and judge the club accordingly. Edited January 14, 2014 by GENTLEMAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts