Jump to content

James Scrowcroft turns down loan to saints


NickG
 Share

Recommended Posts

Shame. would have been ideal

 

Last scored 1 year and 15 days ago.

 

17 goals in the last 4 years. And 3 of them game in THAT game against us.

 

In the last 4 years:

2005/6 - 3 goals in 45 appearances (including 40 starts!!)

2006/7 - 5 goals in 36 appearances

2007/8 - 9 goals in 39 appearances

2008/9 - 0 goals in 7 appearances

 

He has been consistently very average.

 

I don't think Wotte seems to realise the problem is our midfield not creating chances. I cannot remember Saga or Euell missing too many chances in our recent games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last scored 1 year and 15 days ago.

 

I don't think Wotte seems to realise the problem is our midfield not creating chances. I cannot remember Saga or Euell missing too many chances in our recent games.

 

Euell has had a fair few misses - but as you say not main problem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Experienced. Say Euell or Saga pick up a knock? Would rather have Scowcroft about rather than Paterson. Plus he is amazing in the air.

 

As for last goal a yr ago, now many games has he played in that year eh?

 

I would rather we loaned an evil ball winning midfielder granted, but we are still short up top

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Adam Leitch reports in the Echo that:

 

"Mark Wotte believes his side are better off without loan players as Saints prepare for the final run-in"

 

Good work Adam, as sharp as ever!!!!

 

Perhaps you meant "Wotte will now make do with what he has got after being knocked back".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care if we signed him or not really. But, why reject all those offers to stay at Palace and not play, reducing your chances of impressing other clubs for the summer. Doesn't make sense, unless he had to reduce his wages by going on loan. Maybe the story is untrue!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark my words...we're going to suffer because of staying out of the loan market.

If the reports on Scowcroft are accurate, Saints were IN the market and the decision not to move was made by the player. Also, he did not just turn down Saints but had already decided not to move other Championship clubs. How that story can be interpreted as a negative towards the club is quite incredible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the reports on Scowcroft are accurate, Saints were IN the market and the decision not to move was made by the player. Also, he did not just turn down Saints but had already decided not to move other Championship clubs. How that story can be interpreted as a negative towards the club is quite incredible.

 

So, Wotte saying that he wasn't interested in loans when this suggests he was? Nah, can't see a negative in that at all....:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Wotte saying that he wasn't interested in loans when this suggests he was? Nah, can't see a negative in that at all....:rolleyes:

 

 

Seems a positive and realistic statement

 

 

 

Though he might have welcomed one player if they would have instantly improved the team, he was determined not to sign anybody just for the sake of it with finances so tight.

 

Instead, he insists that the fact ALL his players are playing for their own futures could be massively more beneficial than, in effect, hired guns who can return to their parent club in a month or so if things don’t work out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems a positive and realistic statement

 

 

 

Though he might have welcomed one player if they would have instantly improved the team, he was determined not to sign anybody just for the sake of it with finances so tight.

 

Instead, he insists that the fact ALL his players are playing for their own futures could be massively more beneficial than, in effect, hired guns who can return to their parent club in a month or so if things don’t work out

 

Fair comment, I just happen to translate this quote more literally:

 

"Mark Wotte believes his side are better off without loan players as Saints prepare for the final run-in"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems a positive and realistic statement

 

 

 

Though he might have welcomed one player if they would have instantly improved the team, he was determined not to sign anybody just for the sake of it with finances so tight.

 

Instead, he insists that the fact ALL his players are playing for their own futures could be massively more beneficial than, in effect, hired guns who can return to their parent club in a month or so if things don?t work out

 

You mean like Jan Saiejs? Or maybe like Davis, Euell and James who will be free to sign for anyone else at the season's end?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...