Charly Musonda

That's football. No club has a 100% success rate with transfers, some work and some don't. No big deal.

It hasn't been farcical, it hasn't been a mess, it's just a failed transfer so no drama. Would be more drama if we were struggling as a club or we had signed him on a permanent transfer but we aren't and we didn't so all's good.

 

Not overly fussed that hes away tbh, hopefully we can bring our own player in and develop him rather than developing players for Chelsea.

 

We had Roberts for 2 and a half years. We’d have been lucky to hold onto him for that amount of time if we signed him. Edouard could be about to sign permanently.

Some people are too proud and hate the fact that we loan players from other clubs. I personally think it’s great. As long as it’s 2 max.

 

Roberts is basically the only exception to this and it was a pleasure to watch him play but....at least with Edouard and Bain there was an option to buy. With Roberts and Musonda it was always going to be a loan and that was it. Spending 4-5m on loan players in one season isn't exactly the best bit of business financially would rather see that sort of money spent on a quality permanent signing (eg. Ntcham, Sinclair)

 

Just never worked out, but that's football. C'est la vie.

 

Why oh why bring him in then Brendan ma lad?

Anyhow, good luck Charly

 

Well we * that one

 

At least it’s done now.

 

Maybe never expected him to be so weak in the 'hole' and be so powderpuff on the wing.

I think we are changing to more play 3-5-1-1 or 3-4-2-1 or 3-5-2 or 3-4-1-2 whatever you want to call it. That'll get the best out of Forrest and Tierney as wing-backs but it has no room for wingers.

Musonda that game he played in the hole against Kilmarnock away was probably the worst performance of the season, he got absolutley dominated and couldn't do nothing after that he never really played again because he couldnt play the Forrest or Tierney roles and he looked utter dross in the Rogic/McGregor/Armstrong role.

 

Nah thats not a reason for me tbh, we dont just sign players like you would on FM, we scout players to the extreme, even well known ones, look at the signing of Compper, Rodgers new he was a vegan and how many kids he had ect ect so we would of known how skinny he was and what his strengths and weaknesses where, if Rodgers was upset at him being small he shouldnt of signed him.

Id also be upset if we were just judging him off that game at Killie, everyone was * that day and he was a knew signing cant just expect him to hit ground running straight away, every player deserves 2-3 games to get invovled.

Anyhow prefer rogic anyway

 

We may have asked him to bulk up though and it's not happened so we've pulled the plug - you can never really tell a players mentality before you work with them although with how thin and weak he was aged 21 at Chelsea it should really have set alarm bells ringing, he's definitely far too weak to play in the hole, he isn't able to bounce off guys and turn them.

I thought he was terrible in every game he played apart from his debut where he came on in the right wing and looked a bit skillful and the Zenit game where he set up the goal although that was all he done but still great play. All the other 5/6 times he played he did absolutley nothing and was incapable of getting involved.

 

Rogic >

 

He came, tweeted a lot, got bullied, never played, went home

 

I don't care, TOM ROGIC

 

Heart of a Lisbon lion

 

Good luck to him

 

Should've played Zenit away to really see if he had it. Strange he seemed to be the difference in the home leg and was dropped for the return.

Anyway, all the best to him but this kind of puts to bed the idea our league is a walk in the park. If this kid who's on sky high wages and supposed "next big thing" can't get in for a game against the likes of Ross county or the huns...