Just had a horrible thought about Mc pake's going!
If the only benefit to us was to get rid of a big salary - how come "small team" Hibs could aford him?
Did he take a pay cut to leave the sinking ship?
imp:
OSB, maybe Hibs wanted McPake and some money. Perhaps, in that case, it was a great piece of negotiating by Mr. Waggot!!why does it take lengthy negotiations to let him go for nothing, zip, nada, nowt, SFA !
why does it take lengthy negotiations to let him go for nothing, zip, nada, nowt, SFA !
Can't believe people whingimg about McPake going on a free, think good negotiation that we didn't have to pay totak e him off our hands.
One of those players signed during the Coleman/Ranson years that we had to say was brilliant despite being absolute shite to justify replacing better players. (Bell/Clingan/Deegan also fall into this category)
Remember people seriously saying he'd be better than Dann.
How right you are. Mcpake was one of numerous defenders signed by Coleman so he could kick out ward. As Coleman was almost as clueless as thorn most he signed or loaned were abject. Mcpake was useless. There was a game at the very end of a season (Watford) when even Eastwood scored and we were winning by a couple of goals and then ward is injured. Mcpake lumbers on and we lose. Even the clueless thorn preferred a 17 year old novice at right back and Keogh at centre half. Anyone who says he is worth half a million really needs to go and lie down in a dark room. I'd have given him away and paid his train fare back to Scotland. Good riddance.
Q: 'Who would you rather have, Messi or Ronaldo?' Thorn: 'Well errrr, I'd probably 'av Ronaldo, ye, cos he's more used to the err football in this err country-would have Messi on the bench though, errr just to bring on'
He isn't worth 500k solely because of his injury record but he isn't half as bad as you make him out to be.How right you are. Mcpake was one of numerous defenders signed by Coleman so he could kick out ward. As Coleman was almost as clueless as thorn most he signed or loaned were abject. Mcpake was useless. There was a game at the very end of a season (Watford) when even Eastwood scored and we were winning by a couple of goals and then ward is injured. Mcpake lumbers on and we lose. Even the clueless thorn preferred a 17 year old novice at right back and Keogh at centre half. Anyone who says he is worth half a million really needs to go and lie down in a dark room. I'd have given him away and paid his train fare back to Scotland. Good riddance.
He isn't worth 500k solely because of his injury record but he isn't half as bad as you make him out to be.
Our best two runs over the last 3 seasons under Boothroyd and Coleman came in a spell when Mcpake was fit and playing. He would be brilliant in league 1 if he could keep fit but if he was on 6k as has been said it was probably wise to get rid of a player with his injury record on such a high wage.
James Mcpakes first season at CovAre you referring to the 9 game unbeaten run that turned out to be 5 and he did not start 2 of them? Even Thorn didn't rate him.
To be fair Cameron and Turner were first choice when we had our decent run under Boothroyd, infact Turner was our top scorer for a while.
Coleman almost appeared fixated at having a pop at Ward. For a while he criticised him in every post-match interview even when he wasn't selected. Ward was hounded out of the club by Coleman which was totally out of order.How right you are. Mcpake was one of numerous defenders signed by Coleman so he could kick out ward. As Coleman was almost as clueless as thorn most he signed or loaned were abject. Mcpake was useless. There was a game at the very end of a season (Watford) when even Eastwood scored and we were winning by a couple of goals and then ward is injured. Mcpake lumbers on and we lose. Even the clueless thorn preferred a 17 year old novice at right back and Keogh at centre half. Anyone who says he is worth half a million really needs to go and lie down in a dark room. I'd have given him away and paid his train fare back to Scotland. Good riddance.
Are you referring to the 9 game unbeaten run that turned out to be 5 and he did not start 2 of them? Even Thorn didn't rate him.
It was 8, and he did.
If you look back at the page before Mcpake was unbeaten in 8 consecutive games he played in that season. There was a 4-1 loss to Newcastle sandwiched in them 8 games in which Mcpake was injuredLongest unbeaten run during that time was 5, played half of the winless run too(The half with more losses than draws).
Don't mean to be rude but cheers for stating the obvious.takes more than one man for a team to be unbeaten or to be beaten
Don't mean to be rude but cheers for stating the obvious.
He isn't half as bad as some are making out and I was posting stats which back that up
17 goals conceded in 17 league games isn't bad at all as a whole defensive unit which Mcpake was part of. Injuries an unfitness have held him back, not his ability
At the moment I am not overly worried that Mcpake has left simply because of his injuries, if we can replace him with someone who is able to play over 35 games a season then great. I just think when he was fully fit an playing he was a good player.CCFC, you can't be rude to our most highly esteemed and regarded poster, without him and one or two others we would all be in the dark.If you want to be you can slag me off as generally i write a load of shite full to the brim of untruths
I agree with you though, that Mc Pake would have been one to keep than one to off-load.
The Rev
.If you want to you can slag me off ,as generally i write a load of shite full to the brim of untruths
The Rev
If you look back at the page before Mcpake was unbeaten in 8 consecutive games he played in that season. There was a 4-1 loss to Newcastle sandwiched in them 8 games in which Mcpake was injured
Just checked and it was a 1-0 win over QPR he missedThere was also a 1-0 win against Derby in that sequence you missed out. Was the win and clean sheet then entirely down to McPake being out injured for it? Probably not, but any wins with him in the side probably not down to McPake being in the side either. Don't mind people using stats to back up their arguments, but correct and non-selective ones would help your argument more.
Just checked and it was a 1-0 win over QPR he missed
Over the last few years that run with Coleman has been our best of recent years and Mcpake missed 2 games of it, a 1-0 win over QPR and a 4-1 defeat to Newcastle
5 wins 4 draws and 1 loss was the run
I am not saying any results in that time are solely down for Mcpake or any other player but you can't deny in that time our defence record in that period is probably the best for a while.
This was the only season Mcpake had a consistent run in the side that season and he and the team performed well in that period. We only lost 4 times in 17 games he played, of course he didn't win the games by himself but we have never scored a lot of goals so it says at this time the defence was good. A defence which he was part of. I don't see what else I could judge his ability from as this is the only time in his City career he had a decent run of games without injury
I don't know, I have said many times in my eyes this was a mistake his refusal to break up the Cranie/Keogh partnership when they were needed at full back.Why did thorn leave him on the bench when fit then and played Christie at right back and Keogh centre half?
Don't mean to be rude but cheers for stating the obvious.
He isn't half as bad as some are making out and I was posting stats which back that up
17 goals conceded in 17 league games isn't bad at all as a whole defensive unit which Mcpake was part of. Injuries an unfitness have held him back, not his ability
You mean like Fleck going to Norwich? ;-)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?