Richardson and Chamakh

[thehumblegringo]

I don't understand why i so often read that Warnock has had a 50% success rate in the transfer market cos these two players have been failures.

Let's remember that Warnock brought in all 4 players when the transfer window was shut so his options were severely limited.

Secondly these 2 players were given two month contracts so they are basically trialists.

Hoilett was given a contract til the end of the season and Bamba til the end of next season.

Chamakh and Richardson were given a chance by Warnock to prove himself and in my opinion can only be called bad signings if Warnock decides to extend they contracts in January which i very much doubt he will.

[MacAdder]

I don't understand why i so often read that Warnock has had a 50% success rate in the transfer market cos these two players have been failures.

Let's remember that Warnock brought in all 4 players when the transfer window was shut so his options were severely limited.

Secondly these 2 players were given two month contracts so they are basically trialists.

Hoilett was given a contract til the end of the season and Bamba til the end of next season.

Chamakh and Richardson were given a chance by Warnock to prove himself and in my opinion can only be called bad signings if Warnock decides to extend they contracts in January which i very much doubt he will.

I doubt they will be extended.
At the time of arrival he needed allies and I suspect these were comparatively cheap options.

[DubaiDai]

I doubt they will be extended.
At the time of arrival he needed allies and I suspect these were comparatively cheap options.

I am a little surprised that given our problems with scoring (when NW came here) Chamakh was never really given a run out to prove himself. He must have been total crap in training

[TH63]

We don't get to see what happens on the training pitch. I'd rather NE finds out they're not up to it on a Thursday morning than on Saturday afternoon

[the other bob wilson]

I don't understand why i so often read that Warnock has had a 50% success rate in the transfer market cos these two players have been failures.

Let's remember that Warnock brought in all 4 players when the transfer window was shut so his options were severely limited.

Secondly these 2 players were given two month contracts so they are basically trialists.

Hoilett was given a contract til the end of the season and Bamba til the end of next season.

Chamakh and Richardson were given a chance by Warnock to prove himself and in my opinion can only be called bad signings if Warnock decides to extend they contracts in January which i very much doubt he will.

Four players signed, two have done well and would be selections in our current strongest starting eleven and two have struggled - Chamakh to the extent that, having come in as second or third choice striker, he has dropped to fifth choice (possibly sixth, given the way Warnock has talked about Mark Harris lately) in that area within a couple of months, while Richardson was taken off at half time when given a starting chance last week and, in my opinion, has not done enough to show why he was signed in the first place, so I'd say that's a 50% success rate (which wouldn't be bad at all for a manager who stayed at one club for a few seasons or by the standards set by recent managers at City).

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Warnock had to take his chances by searching the scrapheap and it was bound to be a bit risky. It's just a pity that Hoillett seems to have a lot of skill but rarely produces anything with an end result.

[surge]

A 50% success rate is far better than what we've had in the recent memory transfer windows.

[WJ99mobile]

Four players signed, two have done well and would be selections in our current strongest starting eleven and two have struggled - Chamakh to the extent that, having come in as second or third choice striker, he has dropped to fifth choice (possibly sixth, given the way Warnock has talked about Mark Harris lately) in that area within a couple of months, while Richardson was taken off at half time when given a starting chance last week and, in my opinion, has not done enough to show why he was signed in the first place, so I'd say that's a 50% success rate (which wouldn't be bad at all for a manager who stayed at one club for a few seasons or by the standards set by recent managers at City).

Why is Chamakh so bad. When he played for Arsenal he wasn't that bad. You don't lose it that much

Perhaps a fallout