lambert was great but the hughton appointment was cheap and we could have done so much
better at the time if the board were bold enough and showed more ambition
Posted By: yellows2011 on January 6th 2015 at 21:56:10
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
- Yeah. (NCFC) - Yellalee, Jan 6, 22:04:29
- Oh, OK. (NCFC) - Arizona Bay, Jan 6, 22:02:56
- I suspect so (n/m) (NCFC) - Worzel Scrimmage, Jan 6, 22:01:19
- No chance (NCFC) - Yellalee, Jan 6, 22:02:01
- 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
- Hughton was an obvious (for us) and cheap option (NCFC) - Brandonio, Jan 6, 22:14:48
- (Bucks?) (n/m) (NCFC) - Arizona Bay, Jan 6, 21:56:53
- Not sure. I assume neither Lambert or Hughton (NCFC) - Mozzer, Jan 6, 21:42:54
- Were Lambert and Hughton cheap then? Are they the same old appointments? (n/m) (NCFC) - Yellalee, Jan 6, 21:43:18
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.