Not good enough for us apparently. Will probably go to Wimbledon with Jacko……
Oh wait what’s that, he’s scoring goals in the league above in a team that’s won 4-0 today..?
Washington would have done jack shit today for us.
No no no no no. Playing this system requires a striker who can beat the offside trap and get behind the defence. He might not be the most prolific of finishers but that's what Washington excelled at.
Washington suits a direct team that is fast in transition and doesn't care about possession. He would be utterly redundant in this system up top on his own and just cause us to cede possession. He scored 9 open play goals per season for us, really don't get why people are clamouring for him. Clamouring for another striker I get but not Washington.
He scored 1 goal today in a mauling, fine, but his overall game was poor. He completed 3 passes in his match today before he was subbed in fact, truly not what we need in a lone striker.
I am not sure if a lot of us, want Washington back (bit 'tongue in cheek ,surely) Its just that in the predicament we're in, selling him before a replacement was lined up, is sheer madness This is the main issure
Basically we should never have sold Davison
In no scenario would keeping Davison have been right
Not good enough for us apparently. Will probably go to Wimbledon with Jacko……
Oh wait what’s that, he’s scoring goals in the league above in a team that’s won 4-0 today..?
Washington would have done jack shit today for us.
No no no no no. Playing this system requires a striker who can beat the offside trap and get behind the defence. He might not be the most prolific of finishers but that's what Washington excelled at.
Washington suits a direct team that is fast in transition and doesn't care about possession. He would be utterly redundant in this system up top on his own and just cause us to cede possession. He scored 9 open play goals per season for us, really don't get why people are clamouring for him. Clamouring for another striker I get but not Washington.
He scored 1 goal today in a mauling, fine, but his overall game was poor. He completed 3 passes in his match today before he was subbed in fact, truly not what we need in a lone striker.
I am not sure if a lot of us, want Washington back (bit 'tongue in cheek ,surely) Its just that in the predicament we're in, selling him before a replacement was lined up, is sheer madness This is the main issure
Basically we should never have sold Davison
In no scenario would keeping Davison have been right
I take it you would have welcomed us signing Tyreece Simpson even though Davison did slightly better in the same system as him last season under Garner?
Not good enough for us apparently. Will probably go to Wimbledon with Jacko……
Oh wait what’s that, he’s scoring goals in the league above in a team that’s won 4-0 today..?
Washington would have done jack shit today for us.
No no no no no. Playing this system requires a striker who can beat the offside trap and get behind the defence. He might not be the most prolific of finishers but that's what Washington excelled at.
Washington suits a direct team that is fast in transition and doesn't care about possession. He would be utterly redundant in this system up top on his own and just cause us to cede possession. He scored 9 open play goals per season for us, really don't get why people are clamouring for him. Clamouring for another striker I get but not Washington.
He scored 1 goal today in a mauling, fine, but his overall game was poor. He completed 3 passes in his match today before he was subbed in fact, truly not what we need in a lone striker.
I am not sure if a lot of us, want Washington back (bit 'tongue in cheek ,surely) Its just that in the predicament we're in, selling him before a replacement was lined up, is sheer madness This is the main issure
Basically we should never have sold Davison
In no scenario would keeping Davison have been right
I take it you would have welcomed us signing Tyreece Simpson even though Davison did slightly better in the same system as him last season under Garner?
Got no idea about Tyreece Simpson but the conclusion from the Swindon fans i know is that if they had a better striker than Davison in the last few months of the season, they would probably have gone up - which reinforces what i saw of him whilst he was at Charlton and in the Swindon play off game i watched.
Not good enough for us apparently. Will probably go to Wimbledon with Jacko……
Oh wait what’s that, he’s scoring goals in the league above in a team that’s won 4-0 today..?
Washington would have done jack shit today for us.
No no no no no. Playing this system requires a striker who can beat the offside trap and get behind the defence. He might not be the most prolific of finishers but that's what Washington excelled at.
Washington suits a direct team that is fast in transition and doesn't care about possession. He would be utterly redundant in this system up top on his own and just cause us to cede possession. He scored 9 open play goals per season for us, really don't get why people are clamouring for him. Clamouring for another striker I get but not Washington.
He scored 1 goal today in a mauling, fine, but his overall game was poor. He completed 3 passes in his match today before he was subbed in fact, truly not what we need in a lone striker.
I am not sure if a lot of us, want Washington back (bit 'tongue in cheek ,surely) Its just that in the predicament we're in, selling him before a replacement was lined up, is sheer madness This is the main issure
Basically we should never have sold Davison
In no scenario would keeping Davison have been right
I take it you would have welcomed us signing Tyreece Simpson even though Davison did slightly better in the same system as him last season under Garner?
Got no idea about Tyreece Simpson but the conclusion from the Swindon fans i know is that if they had a better striker than Davison in the last few months of the season, they would probably have gone up - which reinforces what i saw of him whilst he was at Charlton and in the Swindon play off game i watched.
Funny. The Swindon fans I know reckon they would have gone up if they had a better striker in the first few months of the season.
Simpson 9 goals in 25 games (239mins per goal) Davison 9 goals in 21 games (199mins per goal)
Not good enough for us apparently. Will probably go to Wimbledon with Jacko……
Oh wait what’s that, he’s scoring goals in the league above in a team that’s won 4-0 today..?
Washington would have done jack shit today for us.
No no no no no. Playing this system requires a striker who can beat the offside trap and get behind the defence. He might not be the most prolific of finishers but that's what Washington excelled at.
Washington suits a direct team that is fast in transition and doesn't care about possession. He would be utterly redundant in this system up top on his own and just cause us to cede possession. He scored 9 open play goals per season for us, really don't get why people are clamouring for him. Clamouring for another striker I get but not Washington.
He scored 1 goal today in a mauling, fine, but his overall game was poor. He completed 3 passes in his match today before he was subbed in fact, truly not what we need in a lone striker.
I am not sure if a lot of us, want Washington back (bit 'tongue in cheek ,surely) Its just that in the predicament we're in, selling him before a replacement was lined up, is sheer madness This is the main issure
Basically we should never have sold Davison
In no scenario would keeping Davison have been right
I take it you would have welcomed us signing Tyreece Simpson even though Davison did slightly better in the same system as him last season under Garner?
Got no idea about Tyreece Simpson but the conclusion from the Swindon fans i know is that if they had a better striker than Davison in the last few months of the season, they would probably have gone up - which reinforces what i saw of him whilst he was at Charlton and in the Swindon play off game i watched.
Funny. The Swindon fans I know reckon they would have gone up if they had a better striker in the first few months of the season.
Simpson 9 goals in 25 games (239mins per goal) Davison 9 goals in 21 games (199mins per goal)
no point quoting me simpson stats - as i've said, i know bugger all about him - i've seen enougyh of Davison to know that he is hard working and not a lot else
Not good enough for us apparently. Will probably go to Wimbledon with Jacko……
Oh wait what’s that, he’s scoring goals in the league above in a team that’s won 4-0 today..?
Washington would have done jack shit today for us.
No no no no no. Playing this system requires a striker who can beat the offside trap and get behind the defence. He might not be the most prolific of finishers but that's what Washington excelled at.
Washington suits a direct team that is fast in transition and doesn't care about possession. He would be utterly redundant in this system up top on his own and just cause us to cede possession. He scored 9 open play goals per season for us, really don't get why people are clamouring for him. Clamouring for another striker I get but not Washington.
He scored 1 goal today in a mauling, fine, but his overall game was poor. He completed 3 passes in his match today before he was subbed in fact, truly not what we need in a lone striker.
I am not sure if a lot of us, want Washington back (bit 'tongue in cheek ,surely) Its just that in the predicament we're in, selling him before a replacement was lined up, is sheer madness This is the main issure
Basically we should never have sold Davison
In no scenario would keeping Davison have been right
I take it you would have welcomed us signing Tyreece Simpson even though Davison did slightly better in the same system as him last season under Garner?
Got no idea about Tyreece Simpson but the conclusion from the Swindon fans i know is that if they had a better striker than Davison in the last few months of the season, they would probably have gone up - which reinforces what i saw of him whilst he was at Charlton and in the Swindon play off game i watched.
Funny. The Swindon fans I know reckon they would have gone up if they had a better striker in the first few months of the season.
Simpson 9 goals in 25 games (239mins per goal) Davison 9 goals in 21 games (199mins per goal)
no point quoting me simpson stats - as i've said, i know bugger all about him - i've seen enougyh of Davison to know that he is hard working and not a lot else
So you'll only be happy if we sign a striker you've heard of that isn't Davison. Righto
Not good enough for us apparently. Will probably go to Wimbledon with Jacko……
Oh wait what’s that, he’s scoring goals in the league above in a team that’s won 4-0 today..?
Washington would have done jack shit today for us.
No no no no no. Playing this system requires a striker who can beat the offside trap and get behind the defence. He might not be the most prolific of finishers but that's what Washington excelled at.
Washington suits a direct team that is fast in transition and doesn't care about possession. He would be utterly redundant in this system up top on his own and just cause us to cede possession. He scored 9 open play goals per season for us, really don't get why people are clamouring for him. Clamouring for another striker I get but not Washington.
He scored 1 goal today in a mauling, fine, but his overall game was poor. He completed 3 passes in his match today before he was subbed in fact, truly not what we need in a lone striker.
I am not sure if a lot of us, want Washington back (bit 'tongue in cheek ,surely) Its just that in the predicament we're in, selling him before a replacement was lined up, is sheer madness This is the main issure
Basically we should never have sold Davison
In no scenario would keeping Davison have been right
I take it you would have welcomed us signing Tyreece Simpson even though Davison did slightly better in the same system as him last season under Garner?
Got no idea about Tyreece Simpson but the conclusion from the Swindon fans i know is that if they had a better striker than Davison in the last few months of the season, they would probably have gone up - which reinforces what i saw of him whilst he was at Charlton and in the Swindon play off game i watched.
Funny. The Swindon fans I know reckon they would have gone up if they had a better striker in the first few months of the season.
Simpson 9 goals in 25 games (239mins per goal) Davison 9 goals in 21 games (199mins per goal)
no point quoting me simpson stats - as i've said, i know bugger all about him - i've seen enougyh of Davison to know that he is hard working and not a lot else
So you'll only be happy if we sign a striker you've heard of that isn't Davison. Righto
You are trying to put words into my mouth for some bizzarre reason - i'm allowed not to rate Davison i believe - as to who we sign - well, i'm a construction consultant so whilst i like to think i can judge a player's ability having watched him play quite a few times, i'll be happy if we sign a striker that garner is happy with - after all, thats his job (and i currently have faith in him having watched the start of this season) and he and the support team will know a lot more about who is out there than i do - whether i know their names or not isn't massively important to me believe it or not.
Not good enough for us apparently. Will probably go to Wimbledon with Jacko……
Oh wait what’s that, he’s scoring goals in the league above in a team that’s won 4-0 today..?
Washington would have done jack shit today for us.
No no no no no. Playing this system requires a striker who can beat the offside trap and get behind the defence. He might not be the most prolific of finishers but that's what Washington excelled at.
Washington suits a direct team that is fast in transition and doesn't care about possession. He would be utterly redundant in this system up top on his own and just cause us to cede possession. He scored 9 open play goals per season for us, really don't get why people are clamouring for him. Clamouring for another striker I get but not Washington.
He scored 1 goal today in a mauling, fine, but his overall game was poor. He completed 3 passes in his match today before he was subbed in fact, truly not what we need in a lone striker.
I am not sure if a lot of us, want Washington back (bit 'tongue in cheek ,surely) Its just that in the predicament we're in, selling him before a replacement was lined up, is sheer madness This is the main issure
Basically we should never have sold Davison
In no scenario would keeping Davison have been right
I take it you would have welcomed us signing Tyreece Simpson even though Davison did slightly better in the same system as him last season under Garner?
Got no idea about Tyreece Simpson but the conclusion from the Swindon fans i know is that if they had a better striker than Davison in the last few months of the season, they would probably have gone up - which reinforces what i saw of him whilst he was at Charlton and in the Swindon play off game i watched.
Funny. The Swindon fans I know reckon they would have gone up if they had a better striker in the first few months of the season.
Simpson 9 goals in 25 games (239mins per goal) Davison 9 goals in 21 games (199mins per goal)
no point quoting me simpson stats - as i've said, i know bugger all about him - i've seen enougyh of Davison to know that he is hard working and not a lot else
So you'll only be happy if we sign a striker you've heard of that isn't Davison. Righto
You are trying to put words into my mouth for some bizzarre reason - i'm allowed not to rate Davison i believe - as to who we sign - well, i'm a construction consultant so whilst i like to think i can judge a player's ability having watched him play quite a few times, i'll be happy if we sign a striker that garner is happy with - after all, thats his job (and i currently have faith in him having watched the start of this season) and he and the support team will know a lot more about who is out there than i do - whether i know their names or not isn't massively important to me believe it or not.
Just pointing out that I'm sure you would have been happy with us signing Simpson despite Davison performing better than him in this system last year. You are of course entitled not to rate him but I still think he'd be an ideal backup option for Stockley at this moment in time were he still here. Obviously I hope we sign better / anyone but if we don't it was silly to let Davison go, which you disagree with. All good
Not good enough for us apparently. Will probably go to Wimbledon with Jacko……
Oh wait what’s that, he’s scoring goals in the league above in a team that’s won 4-0 today..?
Washington would have done jack shit today for us.
No no no no no. Playing this system requires a striker who can beat the offside trap and get behind the defence. He might not be the most prolific of finishers but that's what Washington excelled at.
Washington suits a direct team that is fast in transition and doesn't care about possession. He would be utterly redundant in this system up top on his own and just cause us to cede possession. He scored 9 open play goals per season for us, really don't get why people are clamouring for him. Clamouring for another striker I get but not Washington.
He scored 1 goal today in a mauling, fine, but his overall game was poor. He completed 3 passes in his match today before he was subbed in fact, truly not what we need in a lone striker.
I am not sure if a lot of us, want Washington back (bit 'tongue in cheek ,surely) Its just that in the predicament we're in, selling him before a replacement was lined up, is sheer madness This is the main issure
Basically we should never have sold Davison
In no scenario would keeping Davison have been right
I take it you would have welcomed us signing Tyreece Simpson even though Davison did slightly better in the same system as him last season under Garner?
Got no idea about Tyreece Simpson but the conclusion from the Swindon fans i know is that if they had a better striker than Davison in the last few months of the season, they would probably have gone up - which reinforces what i saw of him whilst he was at Charlton and in the Swindon play off game i watched.
Funny. The Swindon fans I know reckon they would have gone up if they had a better striker in the first few months of the season.
Simpson 9 goals in 25 games (239mins per goal) Davison 9 goals in 21 games (199mins per goal)
no point quoting me simpson stats - as i've said, i know bugger all about him - i've seen enougyh of Davison to know that he is hard working and not a lot else
So you'll only be happy if we sign a striker you've heard of that isn't Davison. Righto
You are trying to put words into my mouth for some bizzarre reason - i'm allowed not to rate Davison i believe - as to who we sign - well, i'm a construction consultant so whilst i like to think i can judge a player's ability having watched him play quite a few times, i'll be happy if we sign a striker that garner is happy with - after all, thats his job (and i currently have faith in him having watched the start of this season) and he and the support team will know a lot more about who is out there than i do - whether i know their names or not isn't massively important to me believe it or not.
Just pointing out that I'm sure you would have been happy with us signing Simpson despite Davison performing better than him in this system last year. You are of course entitled not to rate him but I still think he'd be an ideal backup option for Stockley at this moment in time were he still here. Obviously I hope we sign better / anyone but if we don't it was silly to let Davison go, which you disagree with. All good
I don't want a back up to Stockley - i want an improvement and a player more suited to the system - if we don't bring at least one in, we won't be going up. Davison is more suited to the system but isn't good enough. I'd sooner we tooka gamble on a few others that might come off than keep ghold of somebody that we know isn't good enough. I'll be amazed if we don't sign a more suited striker and having offloaded the likes of Davison can only help in that respect. This is why keeping Davison would never have been right - its wasting his and our time and resources. And btw i'm sorry to piss on your data chips but stats don't always tell the full story and its quite feasible that Tyreece is much better than Davison - the fact he's gone to Huddersfield and Davison to Wimbledon kind of backs that up don't you think?
Not good enough for us apparently. Will probably go to Wimbledon with Jacko……
Oh wait what’s that, he’s scoring goals in the league above in a team that’s won 4-0 today..?
Washington would have done jack shit today for us.
No no no no no. Playing this system requires a striker who can beat the offside trap and get behind the defence. He might not be the most prolific of finishers but that's what Washington excelled at.
Washington suits a direct team that is fast in transition and doesn't care about possession. He would be utterly redundant in this system up top on his own and just cause us to cede possession. He scored 9 open play goals per season for us, really don't get why people are clamouring for him. Clamouring for another striker I get but not Washington.
He scored 1 goal today in a mauling, fine, but his overall game was poor. He completed 3 passes in his match today before he was subbed in fact, truly not what we need in a lone striker.
I am not sure if a lot of us, want Washington back (bit 'tongue in cheek ,surely) Its just that in the predicament we're in, selling him before a replacement was lined up, is sheer madness This is the main issure
Basically we should never have sold Davison
In no scenario would keeping Davison have been right
I take it you would have welcomed us signing Tyreece Simpson even though Davison did slightly better in the same system as him last season under Garner?
Got no idea about Tyreece Simpson but the conclusion from the Swindon fans i know is that if they had a better striker than Davison in the last few months of the season, they would probably have gone up - which reinforces what i saw of him whilst he was at Charlton and in the Swindon play off game i watched.
Funny. The Swindon fans I know reckon they would have gone up if they had a better striker in the first few months of the season.
Simpson 9 goals in 25 games (239mins per goal) Davison 9 goals in 21 games (199mins per goal)
no point quoting me simpson stats - as i've said, i know bugger all about him - i've seen enougyh of Davison to know that he is hard working and not a lot else
So you'll only be happy if we sign a striker you've heard of that isn't Davison. Righto
You are trying to put words into my mouth for some bizzarre reason - i'm allowed not to rate Davison i believe - as to who we sign - well, i'm a construction consultant so whilst i like to think i can judge a player's ability having watched him play quite a few times, i'll be happy if we sign a striker that garner is happy with - after all, thats his job (and i currently have faith in him having watched the start of this season) and he and the support team will know a lot more about who is out there than i do - whether i know their names or not isn't massively important to me believe it or not.
Just pointing out that I'm sure you would have been happy with us signing Simpson despite Davison performing better than him in this system last year. You are of course entitled not to rate him but I still think he'd be an ideal backup option for Stockley at this moment in time were he still here. Obviously I hope we sign better / anyone but if we don't it was silly to let Davison go, which you disagree with. All good
I don't want a back up to Stockley - i want an improvement and a player more suited to the system - if we don't bring at least one in, we won't be going up. Davison is more suited to the system but isn't good enough. I'd sooner we tooka gamble on a few others that might come off than keep ghold of somebody that we know isn't good enough. I'll be amazed if we don't sign a more suited striker and having offloaded the likes of Davison can only help in that respect. This is why keeping Davison would never have been right - its wasting his and our time and resources. And btw i'm sorry to piss on your data chips but stats don't always tell the full story and its quite feasible that Tyreece is much better than Davison - the fact he's gone to Huddersfield and Davison to Wimbledon kind of backs that up don't you think?
Yeah but if we don't sign anyone it would have been right to keep him, but you said under no circumstances would it be.
Also it's not my data chips you seem to think you're pissing on it's my fact chips.
But yeah I hope we sign better as well but christ knows who that would possibly be right now. If anything we'll probably end up with some loanee we've never heard of.
Not good enough for us apparently. Will probably go to Wimbledon with Jacko……
Oh wait what’s that, he’s scoring goals in the league above in a team that’s won 4-0 today..?
Washington would have done jack shit today for us.
No no no no no. Playing this system requires a striker who can beat the offside trap and get behind the defence. He might not be the most prolific of finishers but that's what Washington excelled at.
Washington suits a direct team that is fast in transition and doesn't care about possession. He would be utterly redundant in this system up top on his own and just cause us to cede possession. He scored 9 open play goals per season for us, really don't get why people are clamouring for him. Clamouring for another striker I get but not Washington.
He scored 1 goal today in a mauling, fine, but his overall game was poor. He completed 3 passes in his match today before he was subbed in fact, truly not what we need in a lone striker.
I am not sure if a lot of us, want Washington back (bit 'tongue in cheek ,surely) Its just that in the predicament we're in, selling him before a replacement was lined up, is sheer madness This is the main issure
Basically we should never have sold Davison
In no scenario would keeping Davison have been right
I take it you would have welcomed us signing Tyreece Simpson even though Davison did slightly better in the same system as him last season under Garner?
Got no idea about Tyreece Simpson but the conclusion from the Swindon fans i know is that if they had a better striker than Davison in the last few months of the season, they would probably have gone up - which reinforces what i saw of him whilst he was at Charlton and in the Swindon play off game i watched.
Funny. The Swindon fans I know reckon they would have gone up if they had a better striker in the first few months of the season.
Simpson 9 goals in 25 games (239mins per goal) Davison 9 goals in 21 games (199mins per goal)
no point quoting me simpson stats - as i've said, i know bugger all about him - i've seen enougyh of Davison to know that he is hard working and not a lot else
So you'll only be happy if we sign a striker you've heard of that isn't Davison. Righto
You are trying to put words into my mouth for some bizzarre reason - i'm allowed not to rate Davison i believe - as to who we sign - well, i'm a construction consultant so whilst i like to think i can judge a player's ability having watched him play quite a few times, i'll be happy if we sign a striker that garner is happy with - after all, thats his job (and i currently have faith in him having watched the start of this season) and he and the support team will know a lot more about who is out there than i do - whether i know their names or not isn't massively important to me believe it or not.
Just pointing out that I'm sure you would have been happy with us signing Simpson despite Davison performing better than him in this system last year. You are of course entitled not to rate him but I still think he'd be an ideal backup option for Stockley at this moment in time were he still here. Obviously I hope we sign better / anyone but if we don't it was silly to let Davison go, which you disagree with. All good
I don't want a back up to Stockley - i want an improvement and a player more suited to the system - if we don't bring at least one in, we won't be going up. Davison is more suited to the system but isn't good enough. I'd sooner we tooka gamble on a few others that might come off than keep ghold of somebody that we know isn't good enough. I'll be amazed if we don't sign a more suited striker and having offloaded the likes of Davison can only help in that respect. This is why keeping Davison would never have been right - its wasting his and our time and resources. And btw i'm sorry to piss on your data chips but stats don't always tell the full story and its quite feasible that Tyreece is much better than Davison - the fact he's gone to Huddersfield and Davison to Wimbledon kind of backs that up don't you think?
Yeah but if we don't sign anyone it would have been right to keep him, but you said under no circumstances would it be.
Also it's not my data chips you seem to think you're pissing on it's my fact chips.
But yeah I hope we sign better as well but christ knows who that would possibly be right now. If anything we'll probably end up with some loanee we've never heard of.
without getting into a pedantathon contest here - it wouldn't matter a jot whether we had retained davison because if we don't sign better than him, we won't be going up anyway
looks like free agent it is. Gary Hooper, nick blackman, jerome sinclair, Nathan Delfouneso, sam winnall, Marc McNulty most viable out of the bunch, grim
The cynic in me says to put money on Stockley getting a straight red on Saturday 🙄
Why?
Because if we don’t sign a striker it will be typical Charlton that Stockley gets himself either suspended or injured, leaving us with just an 18 year old Miles Leaburn who is not ready yet, albeit done very well given circumstances. It will sum us up that we usually don’t help ourselves and get hurt badly in turn from it.
I desperately hope this time it is different and a new striker is in the building next week.
looks like free agent it is. Gary Hooper, nick blackman, jerome sinclair, Nathan Delfouneso, sam winnall, Marc McNulty most viable out of the bunch, grim
Rudy Gestede and Wilfred Bony are also free agents but who knows how desperate they are to still play.
But yeah having looked at the list of free agents I regretfully agree that McNulty looks the most viable for us.
Comments
If Sandgaard moves forward with the status quo it will be akin to having Mark Bright and Steve Jones as the main striking pair in 97/98.
And where would we be now if that was the case?
I take it you would have welcomed us signing Tyreece Simpson even though Davison did slightly better in the same system as him last season under Garner?
Funny. The Swindon fans I know reckon they would have gone up if they had a better striker in the first few months of the season.
Simpson 9 goals in 25 games (239mins per goal)
Davison 9 goals in 21 games (199mins per goal)
So you'll only be happy if we sign a striker you've heard of that isn't Davison. Righto
Just pointing out that I'm sure you would have been happy with us signing Simpson despite Davison performing better than him in this system last year. You are of course entitled not to rate him but I still think he'd be an ideal backup option for Stockley at this moment in time were he still here. Obviously I hope we sign better / anyone but if we don't it was silly to let Davison go, which you disagree with. All good
Yeah but if we don't sign anyone it would have been right to keep him, but you said under no circumstances would it be.
Also it's not my data chips you seem to think you're pissing on it's my fact chips.
But yeah I hope we sign better as well but christ knows who that would possibly be right now. If anything we'll probably end up with some loanee we've never heard of.
Can't be both
Waste of money better spent on someone that can be available all the time.
Rudy Gestede and Wilfred Bony are also free agents but who knows how desperate they are to still play.
But yeah having looked at the list of free agents I regretfully agree that McNulty looks the most viable for us.