Transfer Rumour January transfer window (133 Viewers)

[Chris1987]

Calm down. No coffee yet?

Why do you think he’d talk about if we can keep winning games when asked about more signings?

Also the work “reckon” is there for a reason. JFC some of you get absolutely deranged when I post

He has a point though. FL is always going to be careful with what he says publically and he's doing it well in both backing his current players and saying that we are working on bringing some players in during what is a difficult window.
You have made up the DK thing in this instance

 

---

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Interesting he says “I hope we can keep winning games if we can…” when asked if he wants two or three. Reckon Doug has said we don’t need anyone cos we aren’t going up. If we’re 4 pts off the playoffs after the next game he can’t really argue that.

He wants to keep winning games because that’s his job… That narrative doesn’t make sense when he says we’re closing in on options on loan and permanent deals.

The pertinent quote was that it is (and always been) a ‘difficult window… and not one to be desperate in’.

Hull were desperate last Jan, many people lauded their business last year, now look at them.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

Calm down. No coffee yet?

Why do you think he’d talk about if we can keep winning games when asked about more signings?

Also the work “reckon” is there for a reason. JFC some of you get absolutely deranged when I post

I'm perfectly calm. You're the one that's woken up spouting yet another random DK conspiracy theory to suit your agenda.

It's honestly getting quite weird.

I don't think any comments in there should be even taken with concern. It's all fair points. Due to most of the squad being back in around a month and certain players coming back into form there isn't a desperate need for signings as there might've been 3/4 weeks ago.

And at the end of the day there's no point in changing a drastically winning side and players are going to want to come here to start, certainly loan players.

If we can get a couple in to support the squad though then great.

 

[shmmeee]

I'm perfectly calm. You're the one that's woken up spouting yet another random DK conspiracy theory to suit your agenda.

It's honestly getting quite weird.

I don't think any comments in there should be even taken with concern. It's all fair points. Due to most of the squad being back in around a month and certain players coming back into form there isn't a desperate need for signings as there might've been 3/4 weeks ago.

And at the end of the day there's no point in changing a drastically winning side and players are going to want to come here to start, certainly loan players.

If we can get a couple in to support the squad though then great.

You haven’t answered my question. Why has he talked about winning games?

As for conspiracy theories I’ve been in the minority saying I don’t think we need signings because we aren’t going up or down. Lampard has done well recently to get us close to being in touching distance of the playoffs which would change things. I’m really not sure how that’s a conspiracy theory.

I’m saying I think this and I think Doug thinks it too. No conspiracy unless you’re claiming I’m saying me and Doug are in cahoots?

 

[Sky Blue Goblin]

Why we always arguing , doing well in the league and linked to exactly what we need being noted we’re gonna win the race.

Come on just enjoy it, we all deserve some mindless optimism after this season.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

You haven’t answered my question. Why has he talked about winning games?

As for conspiracy theories I’ve been in the minority saying I don’t think we need signings because we aren’t going up or down. Lampard has done well recently to get us close to being in touching distance of the playoffs which would change things. I’m really not sure how that’s a conspiracy theory.

I think he's trying to play off the desperation around making January signings and that his core focus is to win games.

I really don't think there's anything more in it than that.

 

[Mcbean]

No decent players come cheap in January just has beens and raw meat like Bassette so not expecting any signings

 

[Deity]

Frank managed under the chaos at Everton and didn’t hint at the problems externally, and even since his departure he has been respectful of previous owners. The idea that 2 months in and after a win he is starting to use the media to put pressure on DK is a bit far fetched. Lots of managers do, but it’s not been Franks MO.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

You haven’t answered my question. Why has he talked about winning games?

As for conspiracy theories I’ve been in the minority saying I don’t think we need signings because we aren’t going up or down. Lampard has done well recently to get us close to being in touching distance of the playoffs which would change things. I’m really not sure how that’s a conspiracy theory.

I’m saying I think this and I think Doug thinks it too. No conspiracy unless you’re claiming I’m saying me and Doug are in cahoots?

He is talking about winning games because that’s his job. Bristol, Blackburn and Watford are all teams up and around the playoffs so they’re tough games.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I think he's trying to play off the desperation around making January signings and that his core focus is to win games.

I really don't think there's anything more in it than that.

There was a lot of noise after Norwich saying how we need to gut the team and so on. Which was an irrational knee jerking response.

This team was good enough to finish 9th last season and we’ve improved it. Yes, we need 2-3 more players but we’re not as far away as has been made out at times.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

There was a lot of noise after Norwich saying how we need to gut the team and so on. Which was an irrational knee jerking response.

This team was good enough to finish 9th last season and we’ve improved it. Yes, we need 2-3 more players but we’re not as far away as has been made out at times.

The recruitment hasn't been anywhere near as bad as it's been made out to be either.

There are still some gaps that need filling but for the most part every player signed bought in over the past few windows is making a positive contribution.

 

[shmmeee]

He is talking about winning games because that’s his job. Bristol, Blackburn and Watford are all teams up and around the playoffs so they’re tough games.

That’s not at all what this reads like. His job is also improving players why didn’t he mention that? “Will you get two or three?” “If we can keep winning games”

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

View attachment 40905

That’s not at all what this reads like. His job is also improving players why didn’t he mention that? “Will you get two or three?” “If we can keep winning games”

You're quite clearly on the wind up now.

You've just reworded what is written in print.

 

[David O'Day]

View attachment 40905

That’s not at all what this reads like. His job is also improving players why didn’t he mention that? “Will you get two or three?” “If we can keep winning games”

He doesn't say that

I'll break it down for you

He says he hopes we can keep winning games

He then moves on to the transfers so the hope part was only about the winning

He then says he wants the right players in

Understand

 

[shmmeee]

You're quite clearly on the wind up now.

You've just reworded what is written in print.

Iv made it easier for you to read as clearly reading comprehension isn’t your strong point. I’ve not changed the meaning at all. Just give up man it’s pathetic.

 

[Chicken Mcgraw]

I’m actually with @shmmeee his response did read like that.

It certainly doesn’t read how the Telegraph are trying to spin it

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

Iv made it easier for you to read as clearly reading comprehension isn’t your strong point. I’ve not changed the meaning at all. Just give up man it’s pathetic.

I give up my IQ is plummeting by the minute speaking to you.

Someone else please take over.

 

[shmmeee]

I give up my IQ is plummeting by the minute speaking to you.

Someone else please take over.

He could mean “if we can get some players in” but that’s not what he’s said. As written the if we can is after the if we can keep winning.

 

[Sky Blue Goblin]

Blackburn fans seem to think BTA turned them down as he doesn’t want to move from the East Midlands. Apparently wants to stay here but if to move would be to Stoke. Not sure if any truth as don’t even know all our ITKs but they say we wanted £500K loan fee

 

[TomRad85]

We'll end the window with a couple of signings i'm sure. He's doing well with what he's got atm though, thats for sure.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

He could mean “if we can get some players in” but that’s not what he’s said. As written the if we can is after the if we can keep winning.

It's not written like that Shmeee.

If you want to take it that way I'm seriously not the one with comprehension issues I can wholeheartedly assure you of that. But take it however you wish.

Food for thought though. He's being asked that off the back of a win. So don't you think perhaps that his priority at that point in time isn't going to be who's potentially coming in, but rather about looking to the next game which is only in three days time.

 

[TomRad85]

Blackburn fans seem to think BTA turned them down as he doesn’t want to move from the East Midlands. Apparently wants to stay here but if to move would be to Stoke. Not sure if any truth as don’t even know all our ITKs but they say we wanted £500K loan fee

Why on earth would we loan him out?

 

[Sky Blue Goblin]

Why on earth would we loan him out?

Think this was from before and all Stoke could offer due to the financials atm there

 

[Sbarcher]

Get them in Doug then we can slag off the players and not argue over wording!

 

[Deity]

Bloody hell iits obvious …… Frank are you HOPING For 3 new signings ? I’m HOPING to carry on winning games ….. it’s both slightly humourus and also putting it into perspective. His priority right now is to carry on this run but if the right players come in that can help then great.

 

[TomRad85]

Get them in Doug then we can slag off the players and not argue over wording!

We'll probably end up doing something that makes a lot of the posts above look ridiculous tbh. It's often the case.

 

[SkyBlueDom26]

Amazing how a bollocks article from Andy turner causes civil war on this forum, hilarious

 

[shmmeee]

It's not written like that Shmeee.

If you want to take it that way I'm seriously not the one with comprehension issues I can wholeheartedly assure you of that. But take it however you wish.

Food for thought though. He's being asked that off the back of a win. So don't you think perhaps that his priority at that point in time isn't going to be who's potentially coming in, but rather about looking to the next game which is only in three days time.

“Certainly! Here’s a grammatical breakdown:


1. Clause Structure:

• The sentence contains a main clause: “I’m hoping we can keep winning games” and a compound conditional clause: “but if we can and if they’re the right players.”

• The word “if” introduces two subordinate conditional clauses:

• “if we can”

• “if they’re the right players.”


2. Ellipsis:

• In the first conditional clause (“if we can”), the predicate “keep winning games” is omitted but implied from the earlier main clause.
• This is an example of ellipsis, where part of the sentence is left out because it is understood from the context. Without ellipsis, the sentence would read:

“I’m hoping we can keep winning games, but if we can keep winning games and if they’re the right players.”


3. Reference and Cohesion:
• The pronoun “we” in “if we can” refers to the same subject as the main clause (“we” in “we can keep winning games”).
• The modal verb “can” expresses ability or possibility, and its meaning is tied to the omitted action “keep winning games.”

In summary, “if we can” is a conditional clause with an implied predicate (“keep winning games”) that relies on ellipsis for conciseness. It derives its meaning from the main clause.”

 

[David O'Day]

He could mean “if we can get some players in” but that’s not what he’s said. As written the if we can is after the if we can keep winning.

That's not what it reads like at all.

Once again he is asked if he hopes we can sign new players

He replies he hopes we can keep winning matches - this is a glib statement in jest

he then says but - this indicates he is going back to the original question

The he addresses transfers

It's rich that you attack peoples reading comprehension when you are either mispresenting on purpose what FL said or said read yourself

 

[David O'Day]

Why on earth would we loan him out?

Given they already asked if they could loan Kitching and we said "sorry no loans out"

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

“Certainly! Here’s a grammatical breakdown:


1. Clause Structure:

• The sentence contains a main clause: “I’m hoping we can keep winning games” and a compound conditional clause: “but if we can and if they’re the right players.”

• The word “if” introduces two subordinate conditional clauses:

• “if we can”

• “if they’re the right players.”


2. Ellipsis:

• In the first conditional clause (“if we can”), the predicate “keep winning games” is omitted but implied from the earlier main clause.
• This is an example of ellipsis, where part of the sentence is left out because it is understood from the context. Without ellipsis, the sentence would read:

“I’m hoping we can keep winning games, but if we can keep winning games and if they’re the right players.”


3. Reference and Cohesion:
• The pronoun “we” in “if we can” refers to the same subject as the main clause (“we” in “we can keep winning games”).
• The modal verb “can” expresses ability or possibility, and its meaning is tied to the omitted action “keep winning games.”

In summary, “if we can” is a conditional clause with an implied predicate (“keep winning games”) that relies on ellipsis for conciseness. It derives its meaning from the main clause.”

 

[Deity]

“Certainly! Here’s a grammatical breakdown:


1. Clause Structure:

• The sentence contains a main clause: “I’m hoping we can keep winning games” and a compound conditional clause: “but if we can and if they’re the right players.”

• The word “if” introduces two subordinate conditional clauses:

• “if we can”

• “if they’re the right players.”


2. Ellipsis:

• In the first conditional clause (“if we can”), the predicate “keep winning games” is omitted but implied from the earlier main clause.
• This is an example of ellipsis, where part of the sentence is left out because it is understood from the context. Without ellipsis, the sentence would read:

“I’m hoping we can keep winning games, but if we can keep winning games and if they’re the right players.”


3. Reference and Cohesion:
• The pronoun “we” in “if we can” refers to the same subject as the main clause (“we” in “we can keep winning games”).
• The modal verb “can” expresses ability or possibility, and its meaning is tied to the omitted action “keep winning games.”

In summary, “if we can” is a conditional clause with an implied predicate (“keep winning games”) that relies on ellipsis for conciseness. It derives its meaning from the main clause.”

Thank you or should i say thank you Chat GTP.

 

[shmmeee]

OK I see the conspiracy is me and OpenAI now. Anyone else you’d like to add?

 

[shmmeee]

Thank you or should i say thank you Chat GTP.

Hence the quote marks

 

[Littlewood CCFC]

“Certainly! Here’s a grammatical breakdown:


1. Clause Structure:

• The sentence contains a main clause: “I’m hoping we can keep winning games” and a compound conditional clause: “but if we can and if they’re the right players.”

• The word “if” introduces two subordinate conditional clauses:

• “if we can”

• “if they’re the right players.”


2. Ellipsis:

• In the first conditional clause (“if we can”), the predicate “keep winning games” is omitted but implied from the earlier main clause.
• This is an example of ellipsis, where part of the sentence is left out because it is understood from the context. Without ellipsis, the sentence would read:

“I’m hoping we can keep winning games, but if we can keep winning games and if they’re the right players.”


3. Reference and Cohesion:
• The pronoun “we” in “if we can” refers to the same subject as the main clause (“we” in “we can keep winning games”).
• The modal verb “can” expresses ability or possibility, and its meaning is tied to the omitted action “keep winning games.”

In summary, “if we can” is a conditional clause with an implied predicate (“keep winning games”) that relies on ellipsis for conciseness. It derives its meaning from the main clause.”

Fucking hell