egg

Legend status won't give him and his family a great life in the 50+ years after he hangs up his boots though. Cash will. Let's see what happens, but if he's only going to be a bit part player somewhere else, and/or other clubs are only willing to pay derisory money, he could well stay until the next window. It's going to be an interesting window.

The issue for him is finding a club who'll actually play him, and pay us a decent fee. There aren't many options, and if the only taker is West Ham, they'll undoubtedly low ball us knowing there are no other chasers. I think he'll go, but I don't think he he'll get a whole lot of football anywhere else, and we won't get the kind of fee many on here are expecting.

This could get messy for you.

Interesting development, and a crap statement from the sun. I hadn't appreciated that this was all based on a 3rd party complaint.

Weeping

He's a splendid newsreader. Anyone know why he's not been on the telly the last couple of days?

Yep, there's experience, and then there's past it.

I think people on here have made it up. My understanding is that he refused to commit to a new deal so wasn't made available for selection. If true, that reflects badly on us, not him.

That doesn't look too different to the person who I think it is.

Orsic was signed in the window after Edozie. I doubt if he'd have signed of Edozie delivered. I'm not sure why you say that there was no expectation ok Edozie to deliver. He was signed for the first team and was regularly picked to play. Of course he was expected to deliver, that much is obvious.

He'd see a few people saying that he wasn't ready last season and didn't deliver, but nobody writing him off. I'm pretty sure he'd agree with that, despite some on here not being able to.

I get that, but the split thread and responses has missed the point of the initial discussion...was a transfer policy of signing Man City kids (rather than players ready to hit the ground running) a wise one? My point on Edozie, simply, is that he was signed for and used by the first team last season, but wasn't at the required standard last season.

I don't care what potential you think he has. If a player played last season, he had to be good enough to produce last season. That he might come good in 2025 ain't a lot of use is it. Edozie wasn't the discussion initially. It was about the policy of signing kids from city for millions who aren't ready for the first team. I still think that was a mental strategy, and that players like Edozie, Bazunu and Larios were a mile away from ready. The money spent could and should have been put to better use imo. Then it somehow became Edozie dominated. Seemingly a lot of people are impressed by a kid running around a lot but doing fuck all of actual use. Then saying it doesn't matter that he did shit, cos he might be good one day.

What impact? He never got his head up so missed other players runs, didn't assist, didn't score, was lightweight. How exactly did he assist? Dropping him was one of the few things Selles got right.

He was signed to play in the team. He was picked to play. He didn't improve us so much so that we bought Orsic. The excuses being made for the kid are bewildering.

So you're saying that the club signed a first team player, but without an expectation that he'd perform to the standard required of the first team in the PL. That's non sensical. The expectation was plainly that he'd produce, otherwise he wouldn't have been picked to play.

You know exactly what I was asking. Like Edozie he wasn't good enough last season for our first team. How good either of them is irrelevant to how bad they were last season. You judge them on hope, I judge them on the reality of how they performed. Kids playing kids football can be viewed on hope, not young players signed for millions and playing for the first team.

This is tedious. Any arguing that he genuinely helped the first team is talking nonsense. Sure, by a kid for the future, ease them in off the bench and in cip games, but this kid was plainly bought for the first team but wasn't up to it. Don't tell me that you use the same argument for Bazunu.

Hmm, another massive risk moving a kid from kids football straight into our level of football. I sincerely hope thay you're wrong.

No. Edozie was crap last year. He was signed to deliver. He didn't. We could go around the houses all day mate, I'll still be of the opinion that he was shit last season.

Yes. If we want first team now, then Winks. If we had the cash for both and used Charles as and when, and let him develop without the need to deliver that was thrown onto Baz and Edozie, then great. I have a feeling that we'll get the balance right this year.

And that's the rub. He was signed, at cost, to improve the first team last season. However, you and others are judging him as if he was one of our promising kids breaking through and doing his best. Last season he didn't produce. Others see more promise than I do. I'll leave the discussion here. My view is that the policy of signing kids at great expense for the first team isn't the way to go.

Comparing the progress of different players is daft for one simple reason. They are different players. I'm judging Edozie on what he did last season, not how he compares to another player! He did not get his head up, he did not see runs, he did not score, he did not assist. You and others may see that as a great contribution, but the one thing Selles got right was dropping him.

What does the Tella question matter? Edozie played for us and failed to deliver. I couldn't care if he was 19 or 29 - he didn't deliver.

Yep. Future potential is all well anf good, but results are based on a players ability to deliver at the time. Reading the stuff on here, and judging by the confused emoji's, it's almost like I'm the only one who can remember how shite most of our signings were!