Blake to the Zulu's?

About bloody time this clown was off our wage bill - imo.



According to reports Birmingham City are interested in Bolton Wanderers striker Robbie Blake.

The People says Birmingham boss Chris Hughton is eyeing the veteran marksman.

It is understood he is hoping to take Blake on-loan for the remainder of the season.

Wanderers have made Blake available since the loan transfer window reopened.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Never understood why Coyle bought him. He never started him apart from a couple of cup games and virtually never used him as a sub. Definitely past it now and I hope Birmingham take him on loan.

On what grounds are you basing that Blake is a 'clown' Sluffy?

It's been widely reported that Blake as been kept on at the club because he's a big influence in the dressingroom (by making people laugh!).

For a club like ours which is over £100 million in debt, I'm sure that we could have employed a real circus clown for a lot less than we have paid Robbie over the last couple of years!

I know he's a bit of a legend at your club but we've paid him a small fortune in wages for what - throw custard pies at Knight or tie Kevin Davies shoelaces together or other such jolly japes?

Not his fault I know but wtf are we paying him for - it certainly isn't for him to play football!

Copper Dragon - Sluffy is very relaxed about using insulting language about our manager and players. I don't know why, most of his articles are well thought out.

Blake should never have been signed and should never have been given a new contract. Sending him out on loan is a win/win situation for all concerned. I think it's insulting to Blake and to Coyle to say that he has been signed and given a contract to act as the squad entertainer, I'm sorry but he's not going to pay someone £10k per week to be crack off one liners and hide people's boots on top of the shower stalls.

It was clearly thought that there was use for him as a squad player, but this has not materialised.

As Sluffy said to me when I was cynical about the player who was supposed to be posting on here ever existing, people will believe what they want.

So the 'clown' isn't Blake but his boss and employers?

Robbie Blake will always be one of the most technically gifted, skillful, great passing and dead ball specialists that I've seen at t'Turf.

The thing that Blake has always lacked is pace and that's why he's played so many times for us and not so many times in the Premier League for anyone.

Although I wasn't quite happy how he left or for who he left for (manager not club) I can understand why he did leave. Most fans and players did not buy into the Laws appointment (I've seen Brian Laws, Trevor Steven and Lee Dixon in the same team for Burnley ) and I think that goes for Blake as well.

He may be the class clown but he's been no clown on the field.

Il Padrino wrote:Copper Dragon - Sluffy is very relaxed about using insulting language about our manager and players. I don't know why, most of his articles are well thought out.

Not sure where this bit as come from but let me flesh out a bit on the Robbie Blake facts.

Blake aged thirty-four was signed by us on a 1 year contract in July 2010.

He went on to play 8 league games the following season all from the subs bench. -

02 minutes v West Ham

23 minutes v Brum

09 minutes v Arsenal

01 minute v United

03 minutes v Liverpool

01 minute v Spurs

01 minute v Wigan

and

03 minutes v Chelsea.

For a total of 43 minutes football (not even half of one game!).

Despite Coyle saying that players had to EARN new contracts, Blake was given another one year contract (now at the age of 35) despite not playing since January the previous season.

To date Blake as made one further substitute appearance in the league of just 4 minutes in the first match of the season v QPR.

So if we say just for argument’s sake Blake is on £10,000 per week (Kevin Davies is reportedly to be on £40,000 per week - as a comparison), then we have paid him roughly £750,000 for half a game of football!

Now Coyle has said that Blake was brought in and kept on for his presence behind the scenes.

For £750,000 you could hire the wholE bloody circus for the same amount if time, to keep the 'lads' amused!

Would I try to make the lads laugh for £10,000 per week - yes I would - is that money well spent - is it bollocks!

I've called Blake a 'clown' in reference to what he as been doing at the club - raising moral - not as a disparaging remark about the man or how he plays.

A million pounds (probably much more if the truth about what he really is paid ever comes out) for two years work - just to have a craic with the boys - I think I would be happy to be called much worse than 'clown' for that sort of money!

I don't know why you went to the effort of posting every minute he has played, I already said he shouldn't have been signed or offered a new contract.

For what it's worth though your 43 minutes isn't correct. He played at least another 45 against Macclesfield in the league cup this season, including running at least 20 yards to save a free kick and putting it out for a corner instead. He also started at Burnley in the league cup last season, so this "not even half a game of football" is bollocks.

I think you have deliberately misunderstood the bit about Blake behind the scenes. If he was signed purely for those purposes he wouldn't have a place in our 25 man squad. As I said, people believe what they want to believe.

If you re-read my post you will see that I was talking specifically about league games - the strongest team is usually selected for each league game - that can not always be said for Cup games - hence why league appearances stats are more meaningful - imo.

Blake was named in the squad of 25 in his first year - not least because we couldn't fill the full 25 places anyway!

Blake again was named in the 25 this season - again for a similar reason - the injures to Holden and Lee in the first part of the season - and Gardner's knee op for the second part of the season - meant that ALL fit players could be accommodated within the 25 places.

Coyle as stated on a number of interviews about Blake’s value 'off the pitch' - which is just as well because clearly he hasn't be brought here for his value on it - because as the stats show he's hardly ever out there.

I don't need to re-read your original post, I realised you were only talking about league games, and making selective use of the facts. You're saying there's no value in having squad players who can play in the league cup while you rest first choice players?

I realise that Coyle believes Blake adds something 'off the pitch' too. But that's just it - he adds something off the pitch, that's not the reason he signed him. He signed him to play football, which he has done, for both the first team and the reserves. He played 90 minutes against Liverpool reserves the other week for example. Why are we keeping him match fit if we have absolutely no intention of playing him under any circumstances? He is in the squad as a footballer. I wouldn't have signed him and I wouldn't have renewed his contract, but that doesn't mean I feel the need to denigrate him because I don't see him play.

It's the same with all the forum geniuses who describe Coyle's backroom staff as incompetent of yes men and all the other uninformed tosh.

It's just another way of having a go at Coyle.

This is turning into a storm in a teacup. All Sluffy said was "About bloody time this clown was off our wage bill - imo". It was a light hearted remark about the value that Blake has actually been to us, not a comment on his career as a player. We all agree that it was a mistake to sign and then keep him. None of us are saying he wasn't a quality player earlier in his career and it's not his fault he hasn't played (anymore than it's Kavies's fault that he has been picked to play).

So yes it is a criticism of Coyle but even BSA made mistakes like Cid and as fans on a fan forum we are going to do a fair bit of moaning equipped as we all are with 20:20 hindsight.

I can't see this story being true, a story about Blake seems to come out every few weeks but sod all happens.

There isn't anything much else going on at the moment, so: Robbie Blake has been a very good player in his time and I remember that goal against Manchester United with fondness. He has great stories about him as well such as the Burnley couple who named their son Robbie-Blake! I'm not sure why he was bought and scarcely used and the few times I've seen him he was not used as an out-and-out striker. He doesn't have the pace for a midfielder (I know Carlos Valderrama hardly seemed to move as a midfield general, by the way!) but it is not his fault. I have no issue with him that is his fault but I don't think Sluffy was trying to diss him by saying 'clown'. Relax, kids.