Peter Lawwell's lies

I'm always getting told off for saying things like "cuz" instead of because and I do it on accident and apologize to the mod. All I'm asking is that my these gets un-merged from this. Not much to ask

 

If you're implying I'm only agreeing with Lawwell because I came under the "charms" of his PR skills, then jog on mate.

Deila obviously wanted to see what his squad was like before buying. Common sense. Yes we failed miserably in our first real test and should have strengthened especially when we got the reprieve. But that's easier said than done. We were left little time after the reprieve to sign and register players. We lost narrowly to Maribor and too many people are overreacting because there's no CL football this year. I think its inevitable that there will be years we don't play in the CL, due to the league we play in. If we strengthen now and do well in the Europa league, strengthen again in January and do well domestically, it will still be a successful season in anyones book. Our model of buying players hasn't changed, if Pukki for example had came in and scored as many goals as Hooper no one would be moaning about strikers. Just like if our 900k signing of Wanyama had turned out to be a total flop people would have been moaning last few years about no investment in midfield. The bigger picture here has to be looked at. We're debt free, have exciting players on our books and a young manager with a philosophy we all want. Lets give him time amd our full backing, and if in a years time we've went totally backwards I'll be the first to come on here and admit I'm wrong.

 

So is that the scouts fault then ? The players that we know would make a difference are looking at wages that will result in the wage structure needing to be adjusted upwards.

 

He did lie though.

I haven't supported Celtic very long and even I know he told at least one lie. Van Dijk did not replace Kelvin Wilson.

I've read on here, heard someone say it at the Maribor game and been told by Celtic supporters that Van Dijk was brought in before Kelvin Wilson was even rumoured to be off.

 

Lenny's said he was brought in to partner Wilson, has he not?

 

Was only kiddin

 

He did lie, due to the fact he contradicted every point he made in january as stated in the OP

 

It's the same old pish from Peter. I was hoping there was gonna be something interesting in the statement but it's just really justifying the strategy.

He said that they have got more signings right than wrong but I don't think that's correct. We have wasted time and money on lots of players that have not been good enough.

 

Last year we spent £9mil on transfers, this year we realised how awful those signings were and decided to loan players instead of wasting money on duds.

The problem isn't that we're not spending, cause we are. The problem last year was with the * we got in return of our money. Although, all the Lawell Lynchers won't accept that.

 

they was absolutely no transparency in that interview though . he could have said we made a £10 million profit last year and did not buy anyone to help us get into the champions league because..... instead he fudged, genralized ,tried to generate a bit of fear and talked a lot of * and said nothing

 

blah blah blah............

The same old stuff from Lawwell. I could have sat here yesterday and wrote down on a piece of paper pretty much word for word what he said there. He goes on about how the board backed Neil Lennon yet neglects to mention that more money came in to the club via transfers than was paid out during Lennon's time in charge. I don't suppose that fits your argument though Pedro, does it?

If the man can't even get his facts straight about a simple thing like Hearts financial situation(they didn't go 'bust', they entered administration then exited it again. Rangers went bust.) then I see no reason to believe his comments about our finances are entirely accurate.

 

I've personally no problem with a "try before you buy" type arrangement (in fact I wish to Christ we'd done it with the likes of Pukki and Bangura).

It goes a step further than the bold statement though: if your squad isn't up to standard then you need to offload and cut your losses, accept it and bring new guys in; and at the very least address any glaring problem areas of the squad. I like the look of Denayer (but doubt we'll have him beyond this and possibly next season if he likes it here); I'm also willing to give Berget a shot especially given he's already scored 2 goals for us but he can't do it on his own.

Obviously what we need is subjective because everyone has different opinions but from the outside looking in we clearly need a number 9 and an anchor man; Deila likes his wingers as well. Could we not have made sure we addressed these problems? We signed Berget who doesn't look like a winger, and we signed Tonev who's injured and was never going to make the qualifiers. Striker? Anchorman? If we don't get these in prior to qualifying then in my view not enough was done.

 

The issue i have is not the amount we spend its the amount of players we bring in.

So we spent 11.7M last season over 2 transfer windows. Yet the key fact is we signed 7 players, 7 * players!, thats on average less than 2M per player.

Why the * are we signing 7 players when 12M should be spent on 2/3! Thats is the issue i have with our transfer policy, its not that we don't spend money its the amount of players we buy because they are within this 2M 'range'.

Stop buying * quantity and start buying quality!
2/3 players at 3/4M rather than 7 players at under 2M. It all amounts to the same wages and the same transfer fees.

 

For the manager there is only a * return for your money.

Spend your money on good players and Pete will sell them and give you a small percentage of their value to replace them. Buy poor players and you get to keep them.

Lose/lose as far as the manager and team are concerned.

 

When we do invest in a player, like Pukki, we should * play them regularly. Has he ever started 3 games in a row for us? His bit-part roles and lack of faith led to a complete and literally visual lack of confidence. We need to preserve with players who we bother to spend money on.

 

Someone needs to take responsibility for * up and recommending players that are just not good enough. That is our main problem we get more wrong than right.

Yes there have been Wanyama, Ki, Forster, VVD, Lustig, Ledley, Hooper and Matthews.

But there have been much more dross.

Balde, Pukki, Boerrigter, Biton, Johansen, Lassad, Rogne, Rogic, Loovens, Juarez, Murphy, Bangura and Hooiveld have all been a total waste of resource.

 

Johansen has been good. Pukki has never started more than two games in a row. Loovens wasn't as bad as people make out. Lassad barely got a chance, and Juarez is a total mystery because he looked unreal at first.

 

exactly i dont think he would have too many complaints about loans if we had loaned lukaku instead of berget another name he decided to throw in