Distin

Guest Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:15 pm

We seem to have been linked with him on and off for about six years so what are the chances/will he be any good now?

ADRIAN_1976 Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:32 pm

Lion this is what the Pompey fans think of him..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A54563547

Would be a decent singing esp if we can still get another CB in..

Also we couldve had him on a free transfer but we chose to pay 3.5M for Knight instead confused

Guest Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:38 pm

Wouldn´t have needed to sign either of them if we'd kept Cahill

villanfromluton Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:50 pm

You getting more senile by the day Lion, if Cahill had wanted to stay he would still be there today.

As for Distin, think he would be a good signing for the club, can play centre back or left back. Would still want another centre half in though, Upson would be a good signing, think the Fulham lad will end up at Arsenal.

ADRIAN_1976 Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:53 pm

Lutes u keep saying he can play LB.. but wouldnt it be to the same affect as Cuellar at RB.. dont think he can play LB anywhere near as effectively as CB..

Would be a good addition thou..

Guest Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:03 pm

villanfromluton wrote:You getting more senile by the day Lion, if Cahill had wanted to stay he would still be there today.

As for Distin, think he would be a good signing for the club, can play centre back or left back. Would still want another centre half in though, Upson would be a good signing, think the Fulham lad will end up at Arsenal.

Perhaps seeing the club sign Knight and put him straight into the first team might just have had a little bit to do with convincing Cahill to move on

How signing Knight and selling Cahill can be seen as anything other than catastrophic transfer dealing is beyond me - if DOL had done that he would have been torched alive

villanfromluton Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:08 pm

Lionheart wrote:
villanfromluton wrote:You getting more senile by the day Lion, if Cahill had wanted to stay he would still be there today.

As for Distin, think he would be a good signing for the club, can play centre back or left back. Would still want another centre half in though, Upson would be a good signing, think the Fulham lad will end up at Arsenal.

Perhaps seeing the club sign Knight and put him straight into the first team might just have had a little bit to do with convincing Cahill to move on

How signing Knight and selling Cahill can be seen as anything other than catastrophic transfer dealing is beyond me - if DOL had done that he would have been torched alive

No, he was pist off before that Lion.

Adrian, I dont think Cuellar had ever played right back whereas Distin has played at left back quite a bit.

roadoftrinity Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:10 pm

ADRIAN_1976 wrote:Lion this is what the Pompey fans think of him..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A54563547

Would be a decent singing esp if we can still get another CB in..

Also we couldve had him on a free transfer but we chose to pay 3.5M for Knight instead

When he joined Pompy they were paying everyone ridiculous wages, hence they are in so much shite. Why would you sign a centre back and break your wage structure? According to reports, he is willing to take a pay cut to join us now which is good.

Anyway, I like what the Pompy fans are saying about him, think he is a good player and would make a good value signing.

Guest Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:14 pm

villanfromluton wrote:
Lionheart wrote:
villanfromluton wrote:You getting more senile by the day Lion, if Cahill had wanted to stay he would still be there today.

As for Distin, think he would be a good signing for the club, can play centre back or left back. Would still want another centre half in though, Upson would be a good signing, think the Fulham lad will end up at Arsenal.

Perhaps seeing the club sign Knight and put him straight into the first team might just have had a little bit to do with convincing Cahill to move on

How signing Knight and selling Cahill can be seen as anything other than catastrophic transfer dealing is beyond me - if DOL had done that he would have been torched alive

No, he was pist off before that Lion.

Luton

As to when he first became pissed off is irrelevant - it is shockingly bad management to buy someone like Knight and sell an obvious future England defender like Cahill

Adrian, I dont think Cuellar had ever played right back whereas Distin has played at left back quite a bit.

roadoftrinity Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:15 pm

Lionheart wrote:
How signing Knight and selling Cahill can be seen as anything other than catastrophic transfer dealing is beyond me - if DOL had done that he would have been torched alive

It's nowt to do with Knight, he was always going to be a back up. It's whether Curtis Davies will become a better defender then Cahill which will show whether that was a good descision.

Personally I think Davies will, but time will tell on that one.

Cahill is a good player, but certainly not as good as some Villa fans would have you believe. He had a decent season last season, in a well organised Bolton side, no way near as much presure there as at a club like Villa or another big club though.

Guest Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:18 pm

roadoftrinity wrote:
Lionheart wrote:
How signing Knight and selling Cahill can be seen as anything other than catastrophic transfer dealing is beyond me - if DOL had done that he would have been torched alive

It's nowt to do with Knight, he was always going to be a back up. It's whether Curtis Davies will become a better defender then Cahill which will show whether that was a good descision.

Personally I think Davies will, but time will tell on that one.

Cahill is a good player, but certainly not as good as some Villa fans would have you believe. He had a decent season last season, in a well organised Bolton side, no way near as much presure there as at a club like Villa or another big club though.

Davies cost double what we got for Cahill

roadoftrinity Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:21 pm

Lionheart wrote:
Davies cost double what we got for Cahill

It was 5 million for Cahill and we paid 8.5 million for Davies.

However, you could never have the pair of them as your main partnership as they were both young.

I'm just saying the proof will be who's the best.

Guest Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:25 pm

roadoftrinity wrote:
Lionheart wrote:
Davies cost double what we got for Cahill

It was 5 million for Cahill and we paid 8.5 million for Davies.

However, you could never have the pair of them as your main partnership as they were both young.

I'm just saying the proof will be who's the best.

You buy on the rumour - you sell on the fact - until you know that Cahill wouldn´t do it you keep him

roadoftrinity Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:29 pm

Lionheart wrote:

You buy on the rumour - you sell on the fact - until you know that Cahill wouldn´t do it you keep him

I dont really understand what you mean?

Anyway, my point is, i never really rated Cahill, I know a lot of people really rate him so I could be wrong.

However, when Davies was available, it was Arsenal, Spurs and us that was after him. When Cahill was available it was Blues and Bolton.

Cahill could have stayed, MON wanted him to stay but he was going to behind Davies in the pecking order.

QBVILLA Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:42 pm

Lionheart wrote:
villanfromluton wrote:You getting more senile by the day Lion, if Cahill had wanted to stay he would still be there today.

As for Distin, think he would be a good signing for the club, can play centre back or left back. Would still want another centre half in though, Upson would be a good signing, think the Fulham lad will end up at Arsenal.

Perhaps seeing the club sign Knight and put him straight into the first team might just have had a little bit to do with convincing Cahill to move on

How signing Knight and selling Cahill can be seen as anything other than catastrophic transfer dealing is beyond me - if DOL had done that he would have been torched alive

Lion, i think i'm correct in saying that Cahill was out on a lengthy injury at the time we signed Knight.At the age he was at the time (22 i think) Cahill wanted regular first team football, something which he wasn't going to get at Villa.He made the decision to leave and with a year left on his contract there wasn't a great deal the club could do.I'm in agreement with you that I rate Cahill very highly, in fact i'd go as far as saying he'll be John Terry's long term successor for England should he move to a bigger club within the next two seasons.Yes he's a loss from Aston Villa but these things happen.IMO it was more to do with timing than anything else.

Guest Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:53 pm

QBVILLA wrote:
Lionheart wrote:
villanfromluton wrote:You getting more senile by the day Lion, if Cahill had wanted to stay he would still be there today.

As for Distin, think he would be a good signing for the club, can play centre back or left back. Would still want another centre half in though, Upson would be a good signing, think the Fulham lad will end up at Arsenal.

Perhaps seeing the club sign Knight and put him straight into the first team might just have had a little bit to do with convincing Cahill to move on

How signing Knight and selling Cahill can be seen as anything other than catastrophic transfer dealing is beyond me - if DOL had done that he would have been torched alive

Lion, i think i'm correct in saying that Cahill was out on a lengthy injury at the time we signed Knight.At the age he was at the time (22 i think) Cahill wanted regular first team football, something which he wasn't going to get at Villa.He made the decision to leave and with a year left on his contract there wasn't a great deal the club could do.I'm in agreement with you that I rate Cahill very highly, in fact i'd go as far as saying he'll be John Terry's long term successor for England should he move to a bigger club within the next two seasons.Yes he's a loss from Aston Villa but these things happen.IMO it was more to do with timing than anything else.

QB we signed Knight and then immediately shipped Cahill out on loan to Sheff Utd - if that didn´t tell him he wasn´t wanted I don´t know what would

ADRIAN_1976 Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:01 pm

QBVILLA wrote:
Lionheart wrote:
villanfromluton wrote:You getting more senile by the day Lion, if Cahill had wanted to stay he would still be there today.

As for Distin, think he would be a good signing for the club, can play centre back or left back. Would still want another centre half in though, Upson would be a good signing, think the Fulham lad will end up at Arsenal.

Perhaps seeing the club sign Knight and put him straight into the first team might just have had a little bit to do with convincing Cahill to move on

How signing Knight and selling Cahill can be seen as anything other than catastrophic transfer dealing is beyond me - if DOL had done that he would have been torched alive

Lion, i think i'm correct in saying that Cahill was out on a lengthy injury at the time we signed Knight.At the age he was at the time (22 i think) Cahill wanted regular first team football, something which he wasn't going to get at Villa.He made the decision to leave and with a year left on his contract there wasn't a great deal the club could do.I'm in agreement with you that I rate Cahill very highly, in fact i'd go as far as saying he'll be John Terry's long term successor for England should he move to a bigger club within the next two seasons.Yes he's a loss from Aston Villa but these things happen.IMO it was more to do with timing than anything else.

in that case it would be bad judgement on Oneils part dont you think not giving him a new contract and offering a first team start

QBVILLA Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:43 pm

ADRIAN_1976 wrote:
QBVILLA wrote:
Lionheart wrote:
villanfromluton wrote:You getting more senile by the day Lion, if Cahill had wanted to stay he would still be there today.

As for Distin, think he would be a good signing for the club, can play centre back or left back. Would still want another centre half in though, Upson would be a good signing, think the Fulham lad will end up at Arsenal.

Perhaps seeing the club sign Knight and put him straight into the first team might just have had a little bit to do with convincing Cahill to move on

How signing Knight and selling Cahill can be seen as anything other than catastrophic transfer dealing is beyond me - if DOL had done that he would have been torched alive

Lion, i think i'm correct in saying that Cahill was out on a lengthy injury at the time we signed Knight.At the age he was at the time (22 i think) Cahill wanted regular first team football, something which he wasn't going to get at Villa.He made the decision to leave and with a year left on his contract there wasn't a great deal the club could do.I'm in agreement with you that I rate Cahill very highly, in fact i'd go as far as saying he'll be John Terry's long term successor for England should he move to a bigger club within the next two seasons.Yes he's a loss from Aston Villa but these things happen.IMO it was more to do with timing than anything else.

in that case it would be bad judgement on Oneils part dont you think not giving him a new contract and offering a first team start

Erm, no to be honest.He was offered a new deal but was behind Mellberg and Laursen in the pecking order at the time and he wanted first team football.Shit happens

Jay.P.A Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:17 pm

Lol, I don't even think I've seen Distin play at left back! So wouldn't know much about him playing there. As a CB, he's decent.

villanfromluton Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:21 pm

Lion, what is the point in keeping a player who wants to leave, for whatever reason. Was it shockingly bad management of Ron Saunders to get rid of Andy Gray and John Gidman, two of our star players at the time?

Guest Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:40 pm

villanfromluton wrote:Lion, what is the point in keeping a player who wants to leave, for whatever reason. Was it shockingly bad management of Ron Saunders to get rid of Andy Gray and John Gidman, two of our star players at the time?

Totally different - they were players who had played loads of games for the club and won us trophies - Cahill who a blind man could see was going to be an England player was allowed to leave before giving us anything (apart from the goal of the century)

villanfromluton Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:45 pm

Lionheart wrote:
villanfromluton wrote:Lion, what is the point in keeping a player who wants to leave, for whatever reason. Was it shockingly bad management of Ron Saunders to get rid of Andy Gray and John Gidman, two of our star players at the time?

Totally different - they were players who had played loads of games for the club and won us trophies - Cahill who a blind man could see was going to be an England player was allowed to leave before giving us anything (apart from the goal of the century)

How is it different, they all wanted to leave the club. As for playing for England, maybe he will, but I am not sure he is as good as you are making out. As ROT pointed out, it was only Bolton and the noses who were interested in him, does that make everyone else blind as well?

Guest Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:54 pm

villanfromluton wrote:
Lionheart wrote:
villanfromluton wrote:Lion, what is the point in keeping a player who wants to leave, for whatever reason. Was it shockingly bad management of Ron Saunders to get rid of Andy Gray and John Gidman, two of our star players at the time?

Totally different - they were players who had played loads of games for the club and won us trophies - Cahill who a blind man could see was going to be an England player was allowed to leave before giving us anything (apart from the goal of the century)

How is it different, they all wanted to leave the club. As for playing for England, maybe he will, but I am not sure he is as good as you are making out. As ROT pointed out, it was only Bolton and the noses who were interested in him, does that make everyone else blind as well?

I strongly suspect that when Bolton come to sell him there will be a very sizeable profit in it for them which even the blind man could have predicted at the time

villanfromluton Fri Jul 17, 2009 9:48 pm

Very likely Lion, just like there was a sizeable profit when David Bentley left Blackburn compared to when he left Arsenal and many others besides.

roadoftrinity Sat Jul 18, 2009 6:33 pm

Lionheart wrote:

Totally different - they were players who had played loads of games for the club and won us trophies - Cahill who a blind man could see was going to be an England player was allowed to leave before giving us anything (apart from the goal of the century)

He hasn't been an England player yet so you could be a blind man.

Personally, I think that if he does become an England player, it will be as a squad member and nothing more. However Curtis Davies could be an England regular.

Sponsored content

Distin

Distin

Re: Distin

Re: Distin

Re: Distin

Re: Distin

Re: Distin

Re: Distin

Re: Distin

Re: Distin

Re: Distin

Re: Distin

Re: Distin

Re: Distin

Re: Distin

Re: Distin

Re: Distin

Re: Distin

Re: Distin

Re: Distin

Re: Distin

Re: Distin

Re: Distin

Re: Distin

Re: Distin

Re: Distin

Re: Distin