Not sure. I assume neither Lambert or Hughton

were cheap options, Adams I guess was - so of the three since McNally's been here 2/3rds not 'cheap options'. Plus they're only cheap if they work out well - replacing manager, their coaches and missing out on promotion certainly won't be the cheaper option.

Posted By: Mozzer on January 6th 2015 at 21:42:54

Message Thread

we all know it will be the cheap option (NCFC) - yellows2011, Jan 6, 21:34:34
- Were Lambert and Hughton cheap then? Are they the same old appointments? (n/m) (NCFC) - Yellalee, Jan 6, 21:43:18
  - (Bucks?) (n/m) (NCFC) - Arizona Bay, Jan 6, 21:56:53
    - No chance (NCFC) - Yellalee, Jan 6, 22:02:01
      - Oh, OK. (NCFC) - Arizona Bay, Jan 6, 22:02:56
        
        Yeah. (NCFC) - Yellalee, Jan 6, 22:04:29
        
        blimey, I got that one wrong then (n/m) (NCFC) - Worzel Scrimmage, Jan 6, 22:09:15
    - I suspect so (n/m) (NCFC) - Worzel Scrimmage, Jan 6, 22:01:19
  - lambert was great but the hughton appointment was cheap and we could have done so much (NCFC) - yellows2011, Jan 6, 21:56:10
    - Hughton was an obvious (for us) and cheap option (NCFC) - Brandonio, Jan 6, 22:14:48
      - *wasn't a cheap option (n/m) (NCFC) - Brandonio, Jan 6, 22:15:09
    - Rubbish. (NCFC) - Yellalee, Jan 6, 22:03:09
    - I would have thought Hughton was more expensive than Lambert. (n/m) (NCFC) - Men without hats, Jan 6, 22:00:55
- Not sure. I assume neither Lambert or Hughton (NCFC) - Mozzer, Jan 6, 21:42:54

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.