It's a tricky one. Are we going to continue with 451? In which case we need some one who can play as a lone striker when Doyle is injured, and I think Fletcher fits that bill. Where would we have ended up if Doyle had been injured for 3 months?
They should also be able to play together in a 442, although they are quite similar. Surely two is better than one? Doyle is well recognised because he plays for Ireland and has played in the Prem before. I would agree with Paul that this is like signing Doyle 12 months ago rather than signing Doyle now. It's probably as good as we can expect, and it fits in with what we've been doing up to now - buying players and making them better than they were. What's the next level above a Fletcher? Probably out of our reach both in attracting them and money wise. Taek a look at the top scorers in the Prem last season. Everyone above Doyle is out of our reach I would say http://soccernet.espn.go.com/stats/topscorers?league=eng.1&cc=3436 On 28 May 2010 13:46, Marcus Chantry <marcus.chan...@macquarie.com> wrote: > I wasn't really questioning the respective values. It was more a question > of Doyle being a well recognised and often talked about international > striker with many plaudits in the press before he signed for us. > > Fletcher on the other hand is not someone that I've heard much about and > certainly not someone who seems to carry the same reputation or respect as > Doyle. When Doyle himself said that he was looking forward to sum big name > signings in the summer, I doubt he expected that Fletcher would be one of > those big name signings, particularly for 7 million for a player with a > lesser reputation. > > ------------------------------ > *From*: nswolves@googlegroups.com <nswolves@googlegroups.com> > *To*: nswolves@googlegroups.com <nswolves@googlegroups.com> > *Sent*: Fri May 28 13:31:14 2010 > *Subject*: RE: [NSWolves] Fletcher > > You work in finance Marcus – it’s called inflation. Paul understands it. > > A guy is worth 4m – we buy him for 6.5 and then sell him for 3.5. Surely > you understand that! > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswol...@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Paul Crowe > *Sent:* Friday, 28 May 2010 1:22 PM > *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] Fletcher > > > > Hello Marcus, > > > > From the games I saw last season I would be happy with this signing. Looks > a classy footballer with the old style inside forward skills. Could > complement Doyle well. > > > > 7 million is okay in my opinion. Burnley purchased him for 3 million last > season and he is now a proven goal scorer in the Prem. We paid 6.5 million > for Doyle last season and would expect to get at least 10 million if we sold > him now. So relatively speaking not a bad deal. Think Jez will structure the > deal so that we pay 6 million or so upfront with the balance based on number > of appearances, staying up next season etc. > > > > Cheers > > > > Paul. > > > > Paul Crowe > > Sales Manager - Asia Pacific > > > > ConTech (Sydney Office) > > > > PO Box 3517 > > Rhodes Waterside > > Rhodes NSW 2138 > > Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542 > > Mob: 0406009562 > > Email: pcr...@contechengineering.com > > Website: www.contechengineering.com > > > > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswol...@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Marcus Chantry > *Sent:* Friday, 28 May 2010 12:41 PM > *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* [NSWolves] Fletcher > > > > Rumours suggest we're looking to spend 7 million on Fletcher from Burnley. > Does anyone rate him better than Doyle, who we paid 6.5 million for. > > The information contained in this email is confidential. If you are not the > intended recipient, you may not disclose or use the information in this > email in any way and should destroy any copies. Macquarie does not guarantee > the integrity of any emails or attached files. The views or opinions > expressed are the author's own and may not reflect the views or opinions of > Macquarie. > > > > -- > Pig's pudding - it's a mon's dinner aer kid > > -- > Pig's pudding - it's a mon's dinner aer kid > > -- > Pig's pudding - it's a mon's dinner aer kid > > -- > Pig's pudding - it's a mon's dinner aer kid > -- Pig's pudding - it's a mon's dinner aer kid
