Not a bad read, and a very good question.
I think Trappatoni's suggestion has legs, and as with many players, there is a right time to sell, sadly for Doyle, we didn't take it.
At the time that was good for us, but sadly not good for Doyle.
talksport reckon palace have offered 3 million for hennessey
This has got nothing to do with me, honestly, but just highlights what I have been suggesting for quite a while now. I have nothing against Doyle at all, but he has gone backwards in the last two seasons.
He was a good player in a 4-5-1 set up, but not in a 4-4-2 and now he will not feature much at all. I feel sorry for the lad, but it's time he moved on for the benefit of both him and Wolves.
comment by Cinciwolf (U11551)
posted 15 minutes ago
talksport reckon palace have offered 3 million for hennessey
...............................................
Next thing you'll be telling us some idiot will pay £2 mill. for Doyle.
I know Wolfgang, i nearly fell off me chair!!!
'but it's time he moved on for the benefit of both him and Wolves'
You might have to clarify the 'benefit to Wolves' bit WITSS.
If it is defined in purely monetary terms then the benefit is that they have him off the wage bill and if that is all we are concerned about, then that is correct.
If it is defined in footballing terms, then I disagree. There is no benefit at all from losing him from the playing staff.
Even if his standards have slipped, they are still perfectly good enough for a team trying to get promoted from League 1.
Offer him on loan to any other club in this division and see if they say no.
Mr Wolf - Doyle has gone backwards in the past two seasons because the club has gone backwards in the past two seasons.
To be fair Bute, Doyle hasn't quite reached the same standard of performances as he did in the Premier League.
However, as I said before, they are still perfectly good enough for us considering where we are at the moment.
Muddy. If we are to believe what KJ is saying, then these kind of players we still have, have to be moved on. Doyle isn't getting any younger and the longer we keep him, the worse off it is for both us and him. His form has dipped and in this league he should be doing better. We now have enough strength in depth for him and others to leave.
Our problem still remains....who will take them? The window shuts tomorrow and after that it's only loan deals that can be done.
I'm really surprised that so many on here still think he has a future with us.
We seem to cope well enough without him so I am not too concerned if he goes.
Bute, has ikeme, dohert and danny batth gone backwards the last year and a half and sako too?
Doyle needs a new challenge hes finished at wolves and is a drain on our resources.
3m for henners ffs where's my keys?
Latest news boro still looking to do a deal and doylie is keen on the move but only on loan.
Why not permanent?
We need him off the bank roll.
Who was it coined the phrase "The Golden Ti t"
Well its happening again Sir Jack
WITTS, again, why are we worse off if we keep him?
Are you seriously suggesting that the Wolves squad will be worse if Doyle stays?
Financially yes muddy, his wages could allow us to bring in a few good signings and ones that might actually contribute to the team.
I feel we may have missed a trick by not trying him in a role behind the striker before now, but as of yesterday I don't see where he fits in.
A decent sub I guess.
'might actually contribute to the team'
I have read some stupid things on here but that is so stupid it's actually funny.
As I said before, if all we are worried about is the finances then you are right, we are worse off if we keep him.
However, the squad will be poorer.
Cinci, if he was willing to be on the bench, I'd go further and say a fantastic sub ti have in League 1
Yes mud its a joke a joke he is still with us.
Draining our club of 40k a week.
#wasteofmoney
And I dont think thats funny
He is a striker and I guess their job is to score goals.....we have defenders and midfielders who have scored more or equalled his tally.
Perton, did you read my post?....particularly the bit about me agreeing with you about the finances.......it's the bit about 'might actually contribute to the team' that I find fascinating.
Exactly what did you mean by that?
Maybe I misunderstood and you are just wumming me and you didn't mean any of what you wrote, you little scamp.
(See.. I'm so kind I've even given you an out to save face by admitting it was a WUM rather than have to explain).
Here's another question.
Would you sign a "striker" who's league strike rate was 1 in 5 and pay him 40k a week?
Oh...a cross post, so you have explained, he is only judged to have made a contribution by the goals he scores is he?
I have always rated him muddy, and have no probs with him being a sub til the end of the season, a good option to change things up.
But I do understand why he gets the criticism, despite some claiming it doesn't matter where the goals come from, it really does.
A striker needs to be scoring at a decent rate or be creating at a decent rate, Doyle does do neither, add to that his massive wages(for league 1) and then you have to say he does not add enough.
Sign in if you want to comment
Thats a very good question.................
Page 1 of 3
posted on 30/1/14
posted on 30/1/14
Not a bad read, and a very good question.
I think Trappatoni's suggestion has legs, and as with many players, there is a right time to sell, sadly for Doyle, we didn't take it.
At the time that was good for us, but sadly not good for Doyle.
posted on 30/1/14
talksport reckon palace have offered 3 million for hennessey
posted on 30/1/14
This has got nothing to do with me, honestly, but just highlights what I have been suggesting for quite a while now. I have nothing against Doyle at all, but he has gone backwards in the last two seasons.
He was a good player in a 4-5-1 set up, but not in a 4-4-2 and now he will not feature much at all. I feel sorry for the lad, but it's time he moved on for the benefit of both him and Wolves.
posted on 30/1/14
comment by Cinciwolf (U11551)
posted 15 minutes ago
talksport reckon palace have offered 3 million for hennessey
...............................................
Next thing you'll be telling us some idiot will pay £2 mill. for Doyle.
posted on 30/1/14
I know Wolfgang, i nearly fell off me chair!!!
posted on 30/1/14
'but it's time he moved on for the benefit of both him and Wolves'
You might have to clarify the 'benefit to Wolves' bit WITSS.
If it is defined in purely monetary terms then the benefit is that they have him off the wage bill and if that is all we are concerned about, then that is correct.
If it is defined in footballing terms, then I disagree. There is no benefit at all from losing him from the playing staff.
Even if his standards have slipped, they are still perfectly good enough for a team trying to get promoted from League 1.
Offer him on loan to any other club in this division and see if they say no.
posted on 30/1/14
Mr Wolf - Doyle has gone backwards in the past two seasons because the club has gone backwards in the past two seasons.
posted on 30/1/14
To be fair Bute, Doyle hasn't quite reached the same standard of performances as he did in the Premier League.
However, as I said before, they are still perfectly good enough for us considering where we are at the moment.
posted on 30/1/14
Muddy. If we are to believe what KJ is saying, then these kind of players we still have, have to be moved on. Doyle isn't getting any younger and the longer we keep him, the worse off it is for both us and him. His form has dipped and in this league he should be doing better. We now have enough strength in depth for him and others to leave.
Our problem still remains....who will take them? The window shuts tomorrow and after that it's only loan deals that can be done.
I'm really surprised that so many on here still think he has a future with us.
posted on 30/1/14
We seem to cope well enough without him so I am not too concerned if he goes.
posted on 30/1/14
Bute, has ikeme, dohert and danny batth gone backwards the last year and a half and sako too?
Doyle needs a new challenge hes finished at wolves and is a drain on our resources.
posted on 30/1/14
3m for henners ffs where's my keys?
posted on 30/1/14
Latest news boro still looking to do a deal and doylie is keen on the move but only on loan.
Why not permanent?
We need him off the bank roll.
Who was it coined the phrase "The Golden Ti t"
Well its happening again Sir Jack
posted on 30/1/14
WITTS, again, why are we worse off if we keep him?
Are you seriously suggesting that the Wolves squad will be worse if Doyle stays?
posted on 30/1/14
Financially yes muddy, his wages could allow us to bring in a few good signings and ones that might actually contribute to the team.
posted on 30/1/14
I feel we may have missed a trick by not trying him in a role behind the striker before now, but as of yesterday I don't see where he fits in.
A decent sub I guess.
posted on 30/1/14
'might actually contribute to the team'
I have read some stupid things on here but that is so stupid it's actually funny.
As I said before, if all we are worried about is the finances then you are right, we are worse off if we keep him.
However, the squad will be poorer.
posted on 30/1/14
Cinci, if he was willing to be on the bench, I'd go further and say a fantastic sub ti have in League 1
posted on 30/1/14
Yes mud its a joke a joke he is still with us.
Draining our club of 40k a week.
#wasteofmoney
And I dont think thats funny
posted on 30/1/14
He is a striker and I guess their job is to score goals.....we have defenders and midfielders who have scored more or equalled his tally.
posted on 30/1/14
Perton, did you read my post?....particularly the bit about me agreeing with you about the finances.......it's the bit about 'might actually contribute to the team' that I find fascinating.
Exactly what did you mean by that?
Maybe I misunderstood and you are just wumming me and you didn't mean any of what you wrote, you little scamp.
(See.. I'm so kind I've even given you an out to save face by admitting it was a WUM rather than have to explain).
posted on 30/1/14
Here's another question.
Would you sign a "striker" who's league strike rate was 1 in 5 and pay him 40k a week?
posted on 30/1/14
Oh...a cross post, so you have explained, he is only judged to have made a contribution by the goals he scores is he?
posted on 30/1/14
I have always rated him muddy, and have no probs with him being a sub til the end of the season, a good option to change things up.
But I do understand why he gets the criticism, despite some claiming it doesn't matter where the goals come from, it really does.
A striker needs to be scoring at a decent rate or be creating at a decent rate, Doyle does do neither, add to that his massive wages(for league 1) and then you have to say he does not add enough.
Page 1 of 3