i would not have chopra here at all the bloke has more baggage than anyone else out there, and coming to London would not be advisable for that young man there may be people still wanting to talk to him
Who are people honestly wanting us to sign? Any decent striker will be in a contract, and by the slim chance they were without a club then they'll be snapped up now anyway. We havent got money for big wages and certainly not for a fee.
.
that then makes our decision to let 2 of our strikers to leave even more idiotic. Haynes, at least, should have been given a deal to keep him here.
I suppose you are now going to say that CP had been told that he was going to have funds to spend from a takeover........even if that was the case then still keep Haynes and then ditch him later if you find better. Our transfer policy this season has gone beyond stupid.
i would not have chopra here at all the bloke has more baggage than anyone else out there, and coming to London would not be advisable for that young man there may be people still wanting to talk to him
Who are people honestly wanting us to sign? Any decent striker will be in a contract, and by the slim chance they were without a club then they'll be snapped up now anyway. We havent got money for big wages and certainly not for a fee.
.
that then makes our decision to let 2 of our strikers to leave even more idiotic. Haynes, at least, should have been given a deal to keep him here.
I suppose you are now going to say that CP had been told that he was going to have funds to spend from a takeover........even if that was the case then still keep Haynes and then ditch him later if you find better. Our transfer policy this season has gone beyond stupid.
Who are people honestly wanting us to sign? Any decent striker will be in a contract, and by the slim chance they were without a club then they'll be snapped up now anyway. We havent got money for big wages and certainly not for a fee.
.
that then makes our decision to let 2 of our strikers to leave even more idiotic. Haynes, at least, should have been given a deal to keep him here.
I suppose you are now going to say that CP had been told that he was going to have funds to spend from a takeover........even if that was the case then still keep Haynes and then ditch him later if you find better. Our transfer policy this season has gone beyond stupid.
You suppose I'm going to say that? Based on what, I've never mentioned a takeover or what I think CP is thinking. I'm basing my argument on what people are saying, and the constant moaning that Obika/Church aren't good enough. Who else should we get was my question! The takeover comment was made up in your head mate!
Who are people honestly wanting us to sign? Any decent striker will be in a contract, and by the slim chance they were without a club then they'll be snapped up now anyway. We havent got money for big wages and certainly not for a fee.
.
that then makes our decision to let 2 of our strikers to leave even more idiotic. Haynes, at least, should have been given a deal to keep him here.
I suppose you are now going to say that CP had been told that he was going to have funds to spend from a takeover........even if that was the case then still keep Haynes and then ditch him later if you find better. Our transfer policy this season has gone beyond stupid.
But we couldn't keep Haynes without offering him a new contract (and signing on fee)
Who are people honestly wanting us to sign? Any decent striker will be in a contract, and by the slim chance they were without a club then they'll be snapped up now anyway. We havent got money for big wages and certainly not for a fee.
.
that then makes our decision to let 2 of our strikers to leave even more idiotic. Haynes, at least, should have been given a deal to keep him here.
I suppose you are now going to say that CP had been told that he was going to have funds to spend from a takeover........even if that was the case then still keep Haynes and then ditch him later if you find better. Our transfer policy this season has gone beyond stupid.
we got rid of haynes because of long standing issues with his hamstrings. to give a player who's fitness we have significant doubts about would be more stupid IMHO
Who are people honestly wanting us to sign? Any decent striker will be in a contract, and by the slim chance they were without a club then they'll be snapped up now anyway. We havent got money for big wages and certainly not for a fee.
.
that then makes our decision to let 2 of our strikers to leave even more idiotic. Haynes, at least, should have been given a deal to keep him here.
I suppose you are now going to say that CP had been told that he was going to have funds to spend from a takeover........even if that was the case then still keep Haynes and then ditch him later if you find better. Our transfer policy this season has gone beyond stupid.
Hard to make that call without knowing what Haynes' wage/term demands were but having only 1 or 2 senior strikers is not a good place to be.
we got rid of haynes because of long standing issues with his hamstrings. to give a player who's fitness we have significant doubts about would be more stupid IMHO
We didn't get rid of him at all. he was offered a year long contract on reduced money - decided to look elsewhere - as ya do...
we got rid of haynes because of long standing issues with his hamstrings. to give a player who's fitness we have significant doubts about would be more stupid IMHO
We didn't get rid of him at all. he was offered a year long contract on reduced money - decided to look elsewhere - as ya do...
I don't believe thats true. I'm certain we let him go because of his hamstrings. Happy to grovel if wrong ;0)
we got rid of haynes because of long standing issues with his hamstrings. to give a player who's fitness we have significant doubts about would be more stupid IMHO
We didn't get rid of him at all. he was offered a year long contract on reduced money - decided to look elsewhere - as ya do...
I don't believe thats true. I'm certain we let him go because of his hamstrings. Happy to grovel if wrong ;0)
we got rid of haynes because of long standing issues with his hamstrings. to give a player who's fitness we have significant doubts about would be more stupid IMHO
We didn't get rid of him at all. he was offered a year long contract on reduced money - decided to look elsewhere - as ya do...
I don't believe thats true. I'm certain we let him go because of his hamstrings. Happy to grovel if wrong ;0)
i think it might be worth leaving the change in sofa for now,would like to be proved wrong should he sign,but the prospect does not really warm the cockles!!!!
We have to take what we can get given the situation. Playing off Kermy many strikers can be made to look good because he wins everything in the air and feeds his striking partners so I think Church would do well with him.
i agree- i mean look at all the people talking about how good the likes of fuller and hulse were
Spoke to a Reading fan about him. She said that he was a decent player but was unfortunate to be behind some very good players in the likes of Long and Kitson etc. Reckons he'd do a job for us.
Comments
I f*cking hope not. He was absolutely pathetic in the U20 world cup
I suppose you are now going to say that CP had been told that he was going to have funds to spend from a takeover........even if that was the case then still keep Haynes and then ditch him later if you find better. Our transfer policy this season has gone beyond stupid.
Harriott stepped up no problem, don't see why Smith and/or Pigott can't.
We offered less money because of his hamstrings.
Lovely bit of fence sitting! ;0)
What with his hamstrings ?
Church - Haynes - Hamstrings
:P
explosive innocent virtue (goals scored B.C.) superb player
Injured cant get a game sinner (goals scored A.D) feck all
Genesis - Sir Chris Powell
church admonished and reformed by the holy trinity? Goals galore
hope.dies.last
COYR