SSN - Fulham in Konchesky talks

[RidgeRider]

Konch formed part of one of the best defences going last season, and I for one would be happy to see him back.

Sure he left the club. But translating this to the commercial world, if a big employer with a reputable brand offered you the promised land, of course your head would be turned by that.

He found out that the grass isn't always greener. You live, you learn.

And its not as if he burnt his bridges on leaving. He wasn't bitter or Bullardish at all.

Couldn't agree more with this and what Dave said and Rich and a few others. Konch did not make a public display or say anything disparaging about Fulham upon leaving. He is much better than anything we have right now and will help us score more goals when he is back in the lineup. God please let this be true!

[HatterDon]

I don't think Konch is a pedophile or a wife-beater or even French. I also don't believe he's a better LB than a healthy Salcido. I agree that he was part of an amazing defensive combination last season, but I submit that more often than not he was the weak link. He's not nearly as supportive an attacker as a healthy Salcido, and he does has this habit of turning towards trouble in his own penalty area a couple of disastrous times a season. Frankly, Chris Baird is a better LB than Konch, and LB is Bairds 4th best position.

What I'm hoping is that we're linked so heavily with him because we're his Obi Wan Kenobe and, without us, he has to sit around with Uncle Owen for another season until he can go to the academy. It perturbs me that just because Liverpool would like us to sign Konch, that WE MUST DO SO. If we're going to sign someone, let's get someone who solves a problem for us. Let's not sign someone to solve a problem for Liverpool.

Move along, PLEASE.

[RidgeRider]

I don't think Konch is a pedophile or a wife-beater or even French. I also don't believe he's a better LB than a healthy Salcido. I agree that he was part of an amazing defensive combination last season, but I submit that more often than not he was the weak link. He's not nearly as supportive an attacker as a healthy Salcido, and he does has this habit of turning towards trouble in his own penalty area a couple of disastrous times a season. Frankly, Chris Baird is a better LB than Konch, and LB is Bairds 4th best position.

What I'm hoping is that we're linked so heavily with him because we're his Obi Wan Kenobe and, without us, he has to sit around with Uncle Owen for another season until he can go to the academy. It perturbs me that just because Liverpool would like us to sign Konch, that WE MUST DO SO. If we're going to sign someone, let's get someone who solves a problem for us. Let's not sign someone to solve a problem for Liverpool.

Move along, PLEASE.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Konch made the offense go last year as evidenced by the fact that when he went down, we were in a tailspin and lacked goals. Salcido's only strength's are his crossing ability. Konch is much better with a dead ball, at disrupting, can cross and positional defense.

[Ag]

Agree with everything Don said, save the tinfoil hat stuff at the end.

[AlFayedsChequebook]

I don't think Konch is a pedophile or a wife-beater or even French. I also don't believe he's a better LB than a healthy Salcido. I agree that he was part of an amazing defensive combination last season, but I submit that more often than not he was the weak link. He's not nearly as supportive an attacker as a healthy Salcido, and he does has this habit of turning towards trouble in his own penalty area a couple of disastrous times a season. Frankly, Chris Baird is a better LB than Konch, and LB is Bairds 4th best position.

What I'm hoping is that we're linked so heavily with him because we're his Obi Wan Kenobe and, without us, he has to sit around with Uncle Owen for another season until he can go to the academy. It perturbs me that just because Liverpool would like us to sign Konch, that WE MUST DO SO. If we're going to sign someone, let's get someone who solves a problem for us. Let's not sign someone to solve a problem for Liverpool.

Move along, PLEASE.

Sorry Don, but that is complete codswallop. Konch was a great LB for us. He has scored and provided assists (unlike JP) and is a much better option than Baird at LB because he adds width to our relatively narrow team.

All this 'Konch was the weak link' stuff is so predictable, can someone come up with an original argument about why he is so terrible?

[CorkedHat]

It would be typically Fulham to bring this bloke back. Tell him to go and stick his head up a dead bear's bum and let's move on. We don't need him! :drums:

[Bilet]

My view of this is pretty easy. Loyalty in football almost doesn't exist. Konchesky was given a chance to move to one of the biggest clubs in Europe. Of course he wouldn't pass on that?

Konchesky is better than our options for time being. If we can bring him in we can improve our team and we are given a stronger chance of moving up the table. The team is bigger than every single individual and in a 'football-manner' Konchesky have done nothing wrong, either in his comments about the club or in his performances for us.

[Nick the Swede]

My view of this is pretty easy. Loyalty in football almost doesn't exist. Konchesky was given a chance to move to one of the biggest clubs in Europe. Of course he wouldn't pass on that?

Konchesky is better than our options for time being. If we can bring him in we can improve our team and we are given a stronger chance of moving up the table. The team is bigger than every single individual and in a 'football-manner' Konchesky have done nothing wrong, either in his comments about the club or in his performances for us.

+1

Konch made the misstake of think the grass was greener in Scouseland (how anyone could think that) but it didn't work out. If he's willing to come back (as I feel we really need him in order to get Baird to replace Pantsil) I'd welcome him back!

[Tonywa]

When will people realise that the only constant at any football club is the fans.  Players, managers, staff and board members are merely transitory.  If we need a left back and Konch is available at a decent price let's have him.  He's probably better than what we have currently.

[BalDrick]

When will people realise that the only constant at any football club is the fans.  Players, managers, staff and board members are merely transitory.  If we need a left back and Konch is available at a decent price let's have him.  He's probably better than what we have currently.

Nail - head. Spot on IMO.

'...but I submit that more often than not he was the weak link'

Really? Personally always thought, had RH stayed, that his first move to strengthen the defence would have been to replace Pants. If Baird can play at right back as well as he has at left, then frankly bring Konch down asap and drop (your) Pants.

[AlFayedsChequebook]

When will people realise that the only constant at any football club is the fans.  Players, managers, staff and board members are merely transitory.  If we need a left back and Konch is available at a decent price let's have him.  He's probably better than what we have currently.

A very good point. I guess the only defensive position to take would be that fans expend lots of emotional energy and then react badly when they get spurned. That said, it is really the fans fault for doing so in the first place.

[ImperialWhite]

When will people realise that the only constant at any football club is the fans.  Players, managers, staff and board members are merely transitory.  If we need a left back and Konch is available at a decent price let's have him.  He's probably better than what we have currently.

And we fans are only loyal to the club, of course. We don't show players loyalty (just ask EJ, Zamora, AJ...), so why should they show us loyalty?

[Jimpav]

Fans will support their team from the cradle to the grave - literally. We've seen many pictures of sons/daughters and grandchildren in their Fulham baby gro's on here and sadly our fair share of obituaries.

Players on the other hand will rarely (even more so these days) stay at the same club from the youth team through to their testimonial and it is rarer still for them to be a fan of the club they play for (Unless of course they are Robbie Keane).

Being a fan is a hobby, lifestyle, a religion, an addiction but it is not a career.

[Mr Fulham]

We don't need him! :drums:

I think we do need him.

[BalDrick]

We don't need him! :drums:

I think we do need him.

I think we could do with him, not sure I'd go so far as to say we 'need' him. We 'need' a striker.

[Abbotsbury White]

It's abit of a no brainer isn't it?,we sold to liverpool for i think 4 mill and got 2 of their young prospects as part of the deal,we will probably buy back for say 2 mill good business!
Also I dont think Konch threw his toys out the pram like some who have left in the past,remember Saha threatening to go on strike?Steed sulking around,Jim Bullard'I'm going to a bigger club'etc etc even when he knew he was off he was still putting in 100% and thats basically what he is a steady eddie left back who whatever else you think of him did always appear to give his all.

[cebu]

When will people realise that the only constant at any football club is the fans.  Players, managers, staff and board members are merely transitory.  If we need a left back and Konch is available at a decent price let's have him.  He's probably better than what we have currently.

Nail - head. Spot on IMO.

'...but I submit that more often than not he was the weak link'

Really? Personally always thought, had RH stayed, that his first move to strengthen the defence would have been to replace Pants. If Baird can play at right back as well as he has at left, then frankly bring Konch down asap and drop (your) Pants.

+1

I couldn't agree more. Pantsil may be a great guy, but his success under Hodgson was attributable to Roy's tactics of always trying to have 2 players attacking the opponent on the ball. Sparky's more adventurous style means the individual defenders have to take more responsibility. That's exposed Pantsil far more frequently than under RH. Duff spent a lot of time covering JP at Anfield.

[FulhamRob]

I have absolutely no interest in seeing him back at the Cottage. He wanted to leave, so he left.  Testes to him.  :red:

Am in agreement. We need to move on and Baird is doing a fine job in my opinion. Separately, Konch made his feelings clear in his post-departure interviews during which he hardly went out of his way to be complementary about Fulham. A good servant for us...but that was in the past.

[Mr Fulham]

When will people realise that the only constant at any football club is the fans.  Players, managers, staff and board members are merely transitory.  If we need a left back and Konch is available at a decent price let's have him.  He's probably better than what we have currently.

Nail - head. Spot on IMO.

'...but I submit that more often than not he was the weak link'

Really? Personally always thought, had RH stayed, that his first move to strengthen the defence would have been to replace Pants. If Baird can play at right back as well as he has at left, then frankly bring Konch down asap and drop (your) Pants.

+1

I couldn't agree more. Pantsil may be a great guy, but his success under Hodgson was attributable to Roy's tactics of always trying to have 2 players attacking the opponent on the ball. Sparky's more adventurous style means the individual defenders have to take more responsibility. That's exposed Pantsil far more frequently than under RH. Duff spent a lot of time covering JP at Anfield.

Again, +1

[Bilet]

...seems a bit unlikely now:

Hughes on Konch: There was interest. It's something we may re-visit but it's unlikely to be concluded during this transfer window.