Knight - Stay or go time on Monday. Boyata back for another season?

WANDERERS will know by Monday whether Zat Knight will accept a new contract at the Reebok.

Owen Coyle will speak with the defender after his return from holiday in the US to get a firm yes or no on the club’s offer which was made at the end of the season.

Knight has been offered reduced terms to stay on in the Championship and is also reported to be attracting attention from Cardiff City and West Ham.

But Coyle does not want to allow the issue to run on another couple of weeks, as he will be looking to recruit two new centre-backs if the 32-year-old decides to move on.

“With Wheats being injured it’s fair to say we have to add to that department,” Coyle told The Bolton News, “Tim Ream is there, Sam has played there before, but I think we need to add a couple of extra players to that position.”

It is understood that Dedryck Boyata could be brought in for another season from Manchester City, but Coyle wants to add a permanent signing before looking at loan deals.

A holding midfielder remains a priority, and it is thought that Coyle is keen to add some experience lost when Nigel Reo-Coker walked away for free at the end of the campaign.

After Jussi Jaaskelainen’s decision to leave this week, a back-up goalkeeper has also become a requirement, and is likely to be another position in whcih the Whites boss wants an older head to guide young starlet Adam Bogdan.

A replacement goalkeeper will be especially important now that the Football League have voted to reintroduce seven substitutes on a matchday next season.

Managers of the 72 member clubs were only allowed five options from the bench in 2011/12.

Meanwhile, the League Cup has also got a new sponsor and will be known as the Capital One Cup from next season.

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

I'm not being funny but it will be one of the worst moments in the history of Bolton Wanderers if Zat Knight stays on.

the fact he was offered a new contract has seriously dented by faith in Owen Coyles judgement.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:I'm not being funny but it will be one of the worst moments in the history of Bolton Wanderers if Zat Knight stays on.

the fact he was offered a new contract has seriously dented by faith in Owen Coyles judgement.

Totally agree with this. I can accept relegation if we really are going to ditch the deadwood and go with youth. But to offer a new contract to one of our worst performers who is already 32 years old is just madness. Absolute madness.

Is coyle out of his fucking mind, why would he want to bring back the worst 2 defenders we had last season?

Let them go and bring in someone cheaper and younger who doesn't turn like a tank.

It was a mistake to keep SKD but it is madness to keep Knight. At least Davies tried, even if he was crap most of last season.

Davies has done a fantastic job for the club but I think his time has passed. I don't think he will be particularly effective in the Championship.

There's nothing wrong with keeping Davies IMO (though i wouldn't have) he adds a bit of blood and thunder and and gives us the option to go long (I.E our only tactic)

To offer Knight a new deal is basically criminal IMO. Consistently our worst performer, has a sleepy demeanour on the pitch, is gaff prone, has absolutely zero football IQ, his only skill is either heading it straight up into the sky or pumping into the corners without looking.

so so disappointing that Coyle, the man who came in declaring he would "entertain" us has stooped so low as to give this man a lucrative new deal.

Sluffy wrote:
A replacement goalkeeper will be especially important now that the Football League have voted to reintroduce seven substitutes on a matchday next season.

What a stupid piece of journalism.

As if we weren't going to have a keeper on the bench when it was just 5 subs.

largehat wrote:

As if we weren't going to have a keeper on the bench when it was just 5 subs.

7 subs is getting stupid. I'd go back to 3 subs max.

Natasha Whittam wrote:
7 subs is getting stupid. I'd go back to 3 subs max.

Why?

largehat wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:
7 subs is getting stupid. I'd go back to 3 subs max.

Why?

The way we are going we will be having 11 subs within 5 years, a replacement for each position.

There was more skill to management when you only had 3 subs to choose from, one usually a keeper.

Natasha Whittam wrote:
There was more skill to management when you only had 3 subs to choose from, one usually a keeper.

You could argue there was more skill to management when you had 1 sub or no subs, but what you're suggesting will lead to better players being completely left out if they are a bit tired, players having to play on with injuries and an increase in fatigue - I don't see any positives in it personally. It's a squad game these days.

largehat wrote:

You could argue there was more skill to management when you had 1 sub or no subs, but what you're suggesting will lead to better players being completely left out if they are a bit tired, players having to play on with injuries and an increase in fatigue - I don't see any positives in it personally. It's a squad game these days.

If you'd witnessed John McGinlay in goal against Reading you'd change your mind.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

largehat wrote:

You could argue there was more skill to management when you had 1 sub or no subs, but what you're suggesting will lead to better players being completely left out if they are a bit tired, players having to play on with injuries and an increase in fatigue - I don't see any positives in it personally. It's a squad game these days.

If you'd witnessed John McGinlay in goal against Reading you'd change your mind.

I did witness it and clearly it hasn't changed my mind. In fact - it's totally irrelevant.

Seven subs = good.
Re-signing Zat Knight = bad.

largehat wrote:

I did witness it and clearly it hasn't changed my mind. In fact - it's totally irrelevant.

You really are a boring old trout. I can't even be bothered explaining myself anymore.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

largehat wrote:

I did witness it and clearly it hasn't changed my mind. In fact - it's totally irrelevant.

You really are a boring old trout. I can't even be bothered explaining myself anymore.

Another one in the win column for the Hat.

Someone posted (I can't be arsed finding out who) that it's a squad game nowadays. Maybe (and I'm playing devil's thingy here) this is the cause of the demise in the modern game. Not only are players on astronomical wages but clubs have to have almost two teams on astronomical wages.

Ok violins out, 'I can remember when I wer a lad' going to Burnden and paying, oh, I can't remember, I've forgotten, anyway not paying much and equally importantly the entertainment was just as good and usually better. Prem. clubs get payed twice these days; once from Sky and again from the gate money and it's still no where near enough. I blame this new fancy squad system, that and the Russians.




Anyone living within a fifty mile radius of Bolton and other fans who have had the misfortune to actually see Knight play, can see that this man is no profession player yet our highly rated (by the national press) manager who's job it is to select players on their ability, is quite prepared to have him represent our team.

This reduced wages thing, so what, he'll still be on (I'm guessing) about £8000 a week.There has to be better out there that would play for much less.

Just let Zat Knightmare just disappear from the Reebok - the most useless signing, after Mario Jardel!!!

He is so shit and no one else wants him otherwise he would be gone.I once said worse defender since gerard Cid i take it back worse defender ever.Cid was in the team that drew 2-2 with Bayern.I will be so happy if that useless piece of shit fucks off.Is he on twitter everyone should tweet do one we hate you!You are fucking useless and nobody wants you just go.

I don't rate Knight either but some of these anti-Knight posts are a bit over the top. He has put in some good performances in the past. He was a member of the team that was in the top half of the table for most of the season before last. I think the reason people are so anti-Knight is because Megson paid £5m for him. I do think if he is has been offered something like £10k per week and takes it, that's probably what he is worth and he will do an OK job at Championship level, bearing in mind we are after another centre back on top of him.

The post above comparing him unfavourably to Gerard Cid is absolutely ridiculous.