Did Thorn want to sell Turner? (1 Viewer)

CUS Wyken · Feb 28, 2012

I see in the paper you have Gregor Rioch saying Turner will be premiership class one day (Which i agree with) however nothing from Thorn.

Also i’m sure he backed his decision of selling Turner saying he had too many centre halfs etc... and needed a striker.

SISU always get stick but maybe this time Thorn was the instigater

oldskyblue58 · Feb 28, 2012

dont think you can read much into AT not commenting after the League cup final - would rather he concentrated on our players.

I also think he was right we had too many central defenders. However I think who ever made the decision to ship Turner out got it wrong. Maybe he was the one they could get most money for ? But Turner was on a new 3 year contract whereas others are nearer the end of theirs so maybe we have failed to cash in on that again. For me it made more sense to get rid of McPake and/or Wood. The decision to sell Turner so we could get McDonald doesnt seem to have been a great decision so far.

I also wouldnt believe that AT was not involved in that decision though

just my opinion

CUS Wyken · Feb 28, 2012

oldskyblue58 said:
dont think you can read much into AT not commenting after the League cup final - would rather he concentrated on our players.

I also think he was right we had too many central defenders. However I think who ever made the decision to ship Turner out got it wrong. Maybe he was the one they could get most money for ? But Turner was on a new 3 year contract whereas others are nearer the end of theirs so maybe we have failed to cash in on that again. For me it made more sense to get rid of McPake and/or Wood. The decision to sell Turner so we could get McDonald doesnt seem to have been a great decision so far.

I also wouldnt believe that AT was not involved in that decision though

just my opinion

Agree... Cardiff got a steal for 700k. Not many Premership defender have kept that cheat Suarez quiet.

ajsccfc · Feb 28, 2012

Only the white ones really.

Astute · Feb 28, 2012

CUS Wyken said:
I see in the paper you have Gregor Rioch saying Turner will be premiership class one day (Which i agree with) however nothing from Thorn.

Also i’m sure he backed his decision of selling Turner saying he had too many centre halfs etc... and needed a striker.

SISU always get stick but maybe this time Thorn was the instigater

Do you really think he wanted to sell any of our better players?

CUS Wyken · Feb 28, 2012

Astute said:
Do you really think he wanted to sell any of our better players?

Who knows? Some managers don't like certain players and i'm sure Turner never played once under Thorn through injuries. So maybe Thorn thought the best option was to sell an injury prone Turner for a striker?

speedie87 · Feb 28, 2012

i think he thought Keogh and Cranie was his first choice partnership so might aswell cash in to get a striker.

i think he would have played Keogh and Cranie because he thought they were better on the ball for his passing game rather than because they are better defenders which is silly in my book

CUS Wyken · Feb 28, 2012

speedie87 said:
i think he thought Keogh and Cranie was his first choice partnership so might aswell cash in to get a striker.

i think he would have played Keogh and Cranie because he thought they were better on the ball for his passing game rather than because they are better defenders which is silly in my book

Exactly Speedie... he openly came out and said he liked Keogh and Craine as centre halves despite orginally coming in as full backs.

Thorn thought sell Turner and get a striker in as we had Cameron, McPake and Wood as back up.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Feb 28, 2012

I would say it went like this, SISU/club told Thorn he must sell before he can buy anyone and Turner was seen as the most expendable that would attract a worth while fee. I think in hindsight Thorn and the club would admit it was a cock up but at the time most of the fans were saying

"Sold an injury prone centre half 750k-1 mill and got in a great hungry talent in Mcdonald and pocketed some extra cash at the same time, play offs here we come"

Slight over exaggeration but largely the fans backed the deal at the time as it was the only way we could buy and Turner had been out for 9 months before.

CUS Wyken · Feb 28, 2012

CCFC said:
I would say it went like this, SISU/club told Thorn he must sell before he can buy anyone and Turner was seen as the most expendable that would attract a worth while fee. I think in hindsight Thorn and the club would admit it was a cock up but at the time most of the fans were saying

"Sold an injury prone centre half 750k-1 mill and got in a great hungry talent in Mcdonald and pocketed some extra cash at the same time, play offs here we come"

Slight over exaggeration but largely the fans backed the deal at the time as it was the only way we could buy and Turner had been out for 9 months before.

Hindsight a wonderful thing eh but i love how according to many its never Thorn's fault for how certain transfers have panned out.

mark82 · Feb 28, 2012

I said at the time it was a bad move. I'm sure at one point last season he was about our top scorer. We could do with his threat at corners now.

stupot07 · Feb 28, 2012

The truth is we don't know who's decision it was to sell Turner or how much say AT had in it. We know from the past experience (e.g Thomas Liverpool Loan deal) if a club puts forward a half decent offer for one of our players they are usually sold regardless of whether the manager wants to keep them or not. I'm sure AB said he had no say in the Thomas deal.
http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11669_6718259,00.html

CUS Wyken · Feb 28, 2012

stupot07 said:
The truth is we don't know who's decision it was to sell Turner or how much say AT had in it. We know from the past experience (e.g Thomas Liverpool Loan deal) if a club puts forward a half decent offer for one of our players they are usually sold regardless of whether the manager wants to keep them or not. I'm sure AB said he had no say in the Thomas deal.
http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11669_6718259,00.html

Difference is Thorn opnely came out and said his central defensive partnership is Craine and Keogh. What does that tell ya? He didn't rate Turner.

mark82 · Feb 28, 2012

stupot07 said:
The truth is we don't know who's decision it was to sell Turner or how much say AT had in it. We know from the past experience (e.g Thomas Liverpool Loan deal) if a club puts forward a half decent offer for one of our players they are usually sold regardless of whether the manager wants to keep them or not. I'm sure AB said he had no say in the Thomas deal.
http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11669_6718259,00.html

Isn't the Thomas deal the reason Hoffman quit?

stupot07 · Feb 28, 2012

CUS Wyken said:
Difference is Thorn opnely came out and said his central defensive partnership is Craine and Keogh. What does that tell ya? He didn't rate Turner.

No it doesn't, turner was injured an was always going to miss the beginning of the season, what was he supposed to say "I don't really rate keogh and cranie, there my second choice partnership"

stupot07 · Feb 28, 2012

mark82 said:
Isn't the Thomas deal the reason Hoffman quit?

Yep.........

stupot07 · Feb 28, 2012

CUS Wyken said:
Difference is Thorn opnely came out and said his central defensive partnership is Craine and Keogh. What does that tell ya? He didn't rate Turner.

Is this the story? http://www.football.co.uk/coventry_city/thorn_has_faith_in_defenders_rss1656736.shtml

CUS Wyken · Feb 28, 2012

stupot07 said:
No it doesn't, turner was injured an was always going to miss the beginning of the season, what was he supposed to say "I don't really rate keogh and cranie, there my second choice partnership"

Exactly you answered your own question there. Of Course he wouldn't come out and say that but he did say at the fans forum (May 2011) my centre halves for next season will start with Keogh and Craine. This was before we knew Turner wouldn't be avaliable. His words were, i always wanted these 2 as centre halves.

stupot07 · Feb 28, 2012

That doesn't mean that he didn't rate him or that Turner wouldn't have forced himself into the starting line up and become first choice. Keogh and cranie finished the season strongly.

CUS Wyken · Feb 28, 2012

But thorn certainly didn't think he was the bet centre half at the club... Whereas many would disagree. As proved sunday

smileycov · Feb 28, 2012

wouldnt swap keogh for turner!! Turner hadnt played for Thorn, hadn't played at all before he got sold. cant see the issue, great player but 1 of many this club has sold before there due date nothing new there, was gutted keane was sold so quick i remember

DiveDiveWhereverYouMayBe · Feb 28, 2012

Turner played in the position we were over-compensated for and we were crying out for a striker. As you say, hindsight is a wonderful thing, but we could afford to lose a centre back to gain a striker. Even with hindsight (i.e. McDonald hasn't added to our team), Keogh and Cranie have had that position fairly well covered. We have been able to let another centre back go out on loan to get fitness, as we still have more than two players on the books who can fill in there with a fair amount of competence (I thought Wood and McPake a couple of years back looked like a perfectly creditable pairing).

I suspect Turner was one of the more saleable assets within the squad and the decision for him to go was SISU's. I would imagine Thorn rated him as having been our best player for half of last season and injured for the other half. Before then, I felt he was prone to mistakes. However, our need for a striker was above and beyond our need for a centre back. Whether we got the right striker is a side issue, but I genuinely don't think we are in a position to answer that as we haven't seen enough of Cody yet (I know, perhaps that is cos he is crap rather than cos he is injured, but that is a different topic, as I say). Whether we sold the right one (i.e. kept Turner and Keogh and sold Cranie, perhaps) is another side issue... there were bids for Turner and SISU wanted to reduce our wage bill by over half and were looking to sell.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Feb 28, 2012

None of the selling decisions at the club are within Thorn's parish, and to insinuate so is to be either mischievous or unprepared to see where the power lies in that regard.

I do though, believe that after SISU received an offer and elected to cash in their asset, that they agreed to give Thorn a percentage in order to appease fans - hence the McDonald purchase.

The quotes attributable to Thorn are those which any sane individual would make under the circumstances, and shouldn't be picked apart in order to create a conspiracy theory

georgehudson · Feb 28, 2012

c'mon get real,
AB or AT never had any say on who was to be bought / sold,
guess who that might be down to ?
the 'mob' continue to rule on their own agenda,
in my humble opinion they have proven 1 thing only,
& that is that they care only for money / investors,
& certainly not for us,
it's way past time to go,
**** have proven themselves to be utterly inept,
in business circles, i would guess that they are fast becoming NOT worthy of investment,
clock ticking,

time to **** off,

PUSB

dadgad · Feb 28, 2012

The Thomas deal led to the final nail in the coffin as far as Ranson and Sisu. Since then it is absolutely clear that Sisu have handled every single appointment, sale and contract.
When asked about Doolally sitting on the bench he shrugged and said: "The owners can do what they like...."
Selling Turner was about short term gain. Anybody that can tell the difference between football and soccer knows that that was a terrible mistake and that Thorn would have never have sanctioned it.

Grendel · Feb 28, 2012

dadgad said:
The Thomas deal led to the final nail in the coffin as far as Ranson and Sisu. Since then it is absolutely clear that Sisu have handled every single appointment, sale and contract.
When asked about Doolally sitting on the bench he shrugged and said: "The owners can do what they like...."
Selling Turner was about short term gain. Anybody that can tell the difference between football and soccer knows that that was a terrible mistake and that Thorn would have never have sanctioned it.

What is the difference between football and soccer?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Feb 28, 2012

kduffy said:
What is the difference between football and soccer?

3,000 miles?

Grendel · Feb 28, 2012

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
3,000 miles?

Depends if its Red Bulls or Galaxy I guess.

dadgad · Feb 28, 2012

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
3,000 miles?

Haha, brilliant.
So, THAT'S Duffy's problem, he doesn't know.

Grendel · Feb 28, 2012

dadgad said:
Haha, brilliant.
So, THAT'S Duffy's problem, he doesn't know.

I was expecting a cleverer analogy than mere distance which actually makes your sentence senseless. Then again I probably was being ambitious on your behalf.

dadgad · Feb 28, 2012

Arse and elbow springs t mind.

sky blue john · Feb 28, 2012

Also Thorn is responsible for all the current wars in the world !!!!!!

Colonel Mustard · Feb 28, 2012

I suspect AT had at least some say in the matter. He wanted a striker, he has to wheel and deal, so the club dealt from a position where there was a surplus (Wood, Cranie, Keogh, Cameron, McPake).

Even if AT was 100% responsible for the decision, it doesn't mean that it was a bad one. The others wouldn't have attracted a ton of interest at the time, and Turner had spent a considerable length of time being injured.

ajsccfc · Feb 28, 2012

Soccer's an English word.

Grendel · Feb 28, 2012

Colonel Mustard said:
I suspect AT had at least some say in the matter. He wanted a striker, he has to wheel and deal, so the club dealt from a position where there was a surplus (Wood, Cranie, Keogh, Cameron, McPake).

Even if AT was 100% responsible for the decision, it doesn't mean that it was a bad one. The others wouldn't have attracted a ton of interest at the time, and Turner had spent a considerable length of time being injured.

It seems everyone who supports AT gets paranoid and see all comments as critisiscm.

Almost certainly he was told if he wanted a forward someone would have to go and Turner was the man where money was on the table for. He was injured and had experienced other injuries so at the time it seemed the logical course of action.

The issue of course is the subsequent purchase looks questionable. Even if McDonald comes good the signing was curious. He was so lacking in match fitness that it was very apparent he could never be an immediate solution which is what we needed.

So the business done was not great. Similar to selling McSheffery and getting McKenzie and Kyle in return.

Did Thorn want to sell Turner? (1 Viewer)

New Member

CCFC Finance Director

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

New Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Facebook User

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency