Vergini

Status
Not open for further replies.


He's another player we had last season that wasn't good enough. Pointless keeping him because players like that play for struggling sides, of which I hope we are not this year.
 
The Exile said:
He's been good enough in both positions often enough to warrant keeping him on, otherwise he'd have been away at the end of last season. Converting him would save us money in a position we need to cover (assuming Bridcutt will be away) due to Cattermole's usual absences, and also put him in a position on the pitch where his lapses wouldn't be so costly.

As bad as our 'brilliant or shite and no middle ground' attitude is the complete failure to make the best of what we have.
Click to expand...

No he hasn't. The only reason he was kept on was because Poyet rated him. Nobody else did. Not the players who wouldn't pass to him, not the fans, and not the manager who replaced Poyet. The only reason he was kept on was because of an appearance clause and because we didn't cater for Poyet leaving.

And lapses from a holding midfielder - even if he had ever played there in his life - are among the most costly on the pitch. It's why dependable players are selected there. Not clowns who aren't good enough to get a game in defence.
 
Euro Plums said:
Under contract. Stuck with him unless a buyer can be found.
Click to expand...
What's all this nonsense? Where does it say that Vergini is under contract at Sunderland? Sounds like bollocks to me. If he'd got a contract then we'd have heard about it by now. There was no doubt an option to sign him, but to say we HAVE to sign him sounds ludicrous. If he was discussing a deal with an Argentinian side then that's enough proof that we are not obliged to buy him.
 
PeruzziWatch said:
What's all this nonsense? Where does it say that Vergini is under contract at Sunderland? Sounds like bollocks to me. If he'd got a contract then we'd have heard about it by now. There was no doubt an option to sign him, but to say we HAVE to sign him sounds ludicrous. If he was discussing a deal with an Argentinian side then that's enough proof that we are not obliged to buy him.
Click to expand...
"The Black Cats are duty-bound to sign Vergini in a £2million deal from Costa Rican outfit Sport Uruguay de Coronado this summer after he made more than 20 appearances in a red and white shirt during last season’s loan spell at the Stadium of Light."

Say it in the article mate if you'd care to read it.

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/sport...r-sunderland-over-defender-s-future-1-7344664
 
PeruzziWatch said:
What's all this nonsense? Where does it say that Vergini is under contract at Sunderland? Sounds like bollocks to me. If he'd got a contract then we'd have heard about it by now. There was no doubt an option to sign him, but to say we HAVE to sign him sounds ludicrous. If he was discussing a deal with an Argentinian side then that's enough proof that we are not obliged to buy him.
Click to expand...

No - it's proof that we are trying to dig ourselves out of the hole that we have got ourselves into, and are hoping we can do so before we have to announce that we have signed him.
 
Lanchesterredandwhite said:
No - it's proof that we are trying to dig ourselves out of the hole that we have got ourselves into, and are hoping we can do so before we have to announce that we have signed him.
Click to expand...
Bollocks, he is currently an Estudiantes de la Plata player or a free agent, one or the other.
 
PeruzziWatch said:
Bollocks, he is currently an Estudiantes de la Plata player or a free agent, one or the other.
Click to expand...
Face it mate, he's a Sunderland player and the club are actively trying to get rid. Just because you don't like the fact does not make it the reality.
 
So, we are potentially going to have two players signed permanently this summer, who SAFC have made clear they don't want.

That'll make for two happy campers and good team spirit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top