Well of course it's not down to purely footballing ability. That's plainly daft.

He's too expensive for the product we're going to get, in Roeder's judgement.

Posted By: Arganth on May 6th 2008 at 15:58:47

Message Thread

And another thing re:Hux (NCFC) - BINMEN8R, May 6, 15:57:10
- Well of course it's not down to purely footballing ability. That's plainly daft. (NCFC) - Arganth, May 6, 15:58:47
  - Hucks said yesterday (NCFC) - Jim, May 6, 16:10:29
    - When the feeble Eagle is your only contracted left side option (NCFC) - Tim Westwood, May 6, 16:11:51
  - So you clearly have visibility as to what his demands were then? (NCFC) - Tim Westwood, May 6, 16:08:12
  - HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? (NCFC) - DiscoDaleGordon, May 6, 16:08:11
    - A lot of stuff we probably dont know. (NCFC) - usacanary, May 6, 16:13:02
    - Because he's 32 and hasn't been as good as he can be for a while now (NCFC) - pants, May 6, 16:10:17
      - But he has recently shown that he still has it! (NCFC) - BINMEN8R, May 6, 16:20:41
        
        If that was so, he'd have been in contention for the player of the year debates (NCFC) - pants, May 6, 16:27:34
      - but how does Arganth know what his demands were was the question? (n/m) (NCFC) - DiscoDaleGordon, May 6, 16:13:13
      - and so it goes on a loop, round and round and round (n/m) (NCFC) - pants, May 6, 16:12:06
      - well then we could have given him a decent send off! (n/m) (NCFC) - SCC 28, May 6, 16:11:10
        
        Is the right answer. (NCFC) - Tim Westwood, May 6, 16:12:50
  - Well if we've any thoughts of challenging next (NCFC) - BINMEN8R, May 6, 16:01:31
  - so he doesn't deserve a send off? (n/m) (NCFC) - SCC 28, May 6, 15:59:53
  - Whi9ch means its down to football ability (n/m) (NCFC) - DiscoDaleGordon, May 6, 15:59:50

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.