Charlie-Brown Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 You are beyond help Charlie. Why? because I disagree with your points? Why did Csaba agree to some players being signed but not others if you think he had no say? Csaba actually played Witteveen, Kucharski, Cinikas, Mrowiec, Kello, Tullberg etc ahead of players already at the club and young players got sent away on loan but Csaba would rather have had more experienced players in his squad than younger players - it's as simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted August 3, 2010 Author Share Posted August 3, 2010 Why? because I disagree with your points? Why did Csaba agree to some players being signed but not others if you think he had no say? Csaba actually played Witteveen, Kucharski, Cinikas, Mrowiec, Kello, Tullberg etc ahead of players already at the club and young players got sent away on loan but Csaba would rather have had more experienced players in his squad than younger players - it's as simple as that. Because Csaba didn't want Cinikas. He turned him down twice. It was the untouchable VR who signed Cinikas (and most of the fringe players in the last 5 years) which will not have aided the progress of many youngsters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnjl Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 Because Csaba didn't want Cinikas. He turned him down twice. It was the untouchable VR who signed Cinikas (and most of the fringe players in the last 5 years) which will not have aided the progress of many youngsters. If csaba thought the youngsters were good enough and ready to be in the first team they would have been. He didn't and they weren't. It's as simple as that. If he would rather play cinikas than one of the young guys then that speaks volumes for what he thought at the time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 because i heard him with my own ears! was this in the ticket office? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted August 3, 2010 Author Share Posted August 3, 2010 If csaba thought the youngsters were good enough and ready to be in the first team they would have been. He didn't and they weren't. It's as simple as that. If he would rather play cinikas than one of the young guys then that speaks volumes for what he thought at the time Cinikas was at Hearts for 4 months before he even got a game - in fact.....I don't even recall him being on the bench prior to that. He was a VR signing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 Because Csaba didn't want Cinikas. He turned him down twice. It was the untouchable VR who signed Cinikas (and most of the fringe players in the last 5 years) which will not have aided the progress of many youngsters. I see - so some fringe players who rarely played somehow prevented young players from playing more even though the owner stated he wanted the managers to use the young players more and even though the manager stated he would rather have had more experienced players instead of having to use youngsters and barring an injury crisis this is what he did anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnjl Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 Cinikas was at Hearts for 4 months before he even got a game - in fact.....I don't even recall him being on the bench prior to that. He was a VR signing. Never said he wasn't. my post was regarding your point of hindering youngsters progress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted August 3, 2010 Author Share Posted August 3, 2010 I see - so some fringe players who rarely played somehow prevented young players from playing more even though the owner stated he wanted the managers to use the young players more and even though the manager stated he would rather have had more experienced players instead of having to use youngsters and barring an injury crisis this is what he did anyway? I got bored reading that. Still........ Kucharski was a VR signing as was Cinikas. Deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 drylaw seems to want his cake and scoff it. complaining about a player being forced on lolszlo (good 'un) who didn't feature for months on end... AND complaining about the same player's presence having an adverse effect on the development of young players? my super bat-sense cobblers alarm is going haywire here. come on DH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted August 3, 2010 Author Share Posted August 3, 2010 Never said he wasn't. my post was regarding your point of hindering youngsters progress What youngster should he have played ? IIRC...Craig Thomson was injured and McGowan and Stewart were at other clubs on loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnjl Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 drylaw seems to want his cake and scoff it. complaining about a player being forced on lolszlo (good 'un) who didn't feature for months on end... AND complaining about the same player's presence having an adverse effect on the development of young players? my super bat-sense cobblers alarm is going haywire here. come on DH. If said youngsters had been allowed to come in and made mistakes which costs us points I think I know who one of the first to vent there criticism on here would have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 I got bored reading that. Still........ Kucharski was a VR signing as was Cinikas. Deal with it. What is there to deal with? Csaba wanted experienced players as back up instead of youngsters so that is what he got. You seem to have more of a problem with it than me/others. Iam sure Romanov would have preferred Csaba used McGowan, Brown, Thomsons etc as back up but if he wasn't then why complain about the quality of fringe players if they are nothing more than back up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnjl Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 What youngster should he have played ? IIRC...Craig Thomson was injured and McGowan and Stewart were at other clubs on loan. I have no idea it was you who suggested bringing the likes of ciniskas in hampered the young guys chances Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted August 3, 2010 Author Share Posted August 3, 2010 drylaw seems to want his cake and scoff it. complaining about a player being forced on lolszlo (good 'un) who didn't feature for months on end... AND complaining about the same player's presence having an adverse effect on the development of young players? my super bat-sense cobblers alarm is going haywire here. come on DH. This isn't just about Cinikas - it is about the meaningless, worthless signings like Cinikas, Witteveen and One Brow Kucharski. If Kucharski hadn't signed then maybe McGowan would have stayed and taken his place on the bench or in the squad. Comprende Vic ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted August 3, 2010 Author Share Posted August 3, 2010 I have no idea it was you who suggested bringing the likes of ciniskas in hampered the young guys chances If we hadn't signed Cinkas we may have kept Stewart instead and he could have taken Cinikas's place within the squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 This isn't just about Cinikas - it is about the meaningless, worthless signings like Cinikas, Witteveen and One Brow Kucharski. If Kucharski hadn't signed then maybe McGowan would have stayed and taken his place on the bench or in the squad. Comprende Vic ? aaaah but would lolszlo have been happy to promote inexperienced youngsters rather than him being given the opportunity to sign anyone? i think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnjl Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 Because Csaba didn't want Cinikas. He turned him down twice. It was the untouchable VR who signed Cinikas (and most of the fringe players in the last 5 years) which will not have aided the progress of many youngsters. Here is your post in case you are getting mixed up. My point is that having these fringe players in does not hamper the opportunities of the youngsters in an unjust way. They should always expect there to be competition for places and should win there place in the side not just be thrown in because there is nobody else available Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 This isn't just about Cinikas - it is about the meaningless, worthless signings like Cinikas, Witteveen and One Brow Kucharski. If Kucharski hadn't signed then maybe McGowan would have stayed and taken his place on the bench or in the squad. Comprende Vic ? This of course will be the reason why McGowan wasn't used at all during Csaba's first season even from the bench or why he was berated, blamed and dropped by Csaba after a pre-season friendly defeat last season and subsequently sent on loan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnjl Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 If we hadn't signed Cinkas we may have kept Stewart instead and he could have taken Cinikas's place within the squad. Aye maybe and if we hadn't signed nade we might have signed Joe cole. Am I doing this right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Wiseau Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 drylaw seems to want his cake and scoff it. complaining about a player being forced on lolszlo (good 'un) who didn't feature for months on end... AND complaining about the same player's presence having an adverse effect on the development of young players? my super bat-sense cobblers alarm is going haywire here. come on DH. I would like to claim ownership of the "Lolszlo" patent, as I'm loving how it's taking off. Does anyone have any legitimate claim that they came up with it first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 Johnny Stewart and Matty Park were both injured for the majority of last season, Brown, McGowan and Husband got sent away on loan because Csaba didn't have room for them or plans to use them. He did eventually have to use C.Thomson, Robinson, Templeton, Novikovas, G.Smith etc but this was mainly through an extensive injury crisis rather than first choice and he chose to use and play all of DH's unwanted list of fringe players first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 I would like to claim ownership of the "Lolszlo" patent, as I'm loving how it's taking off. Does anyone have any legitimate claim that they came up with it first? i would say it's yours. a welcome addition to the kickback lexicon of lols. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3,608
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.