i agree no. 2

they did keep us up, but i think its a very short term solution (which we needed then). a couple is fine but 7???
there must be players that are cheaper for wages from the lower divisions which are investments. we even made a profit from a failure like brown.

Posted By: conkers on September 1st 2008 at 20:38:40

Message Thread

i hate loans (NCFC) - conkers, Sep 1, 20:27:13
- hucks was a loan (NCFC) - strap_on sally, Sep 1, 20:30:11
  - i agree but (NCFC) - conkers, Sep 1, 20:33:19
    - 1 or 2 but 7 is taking the piss (n/m) (NCFC) - harry boulders, Sep 1, 20:37:56
    - Yep. At least when permanent signings turn out to be good and leave (NCFC) - Tricky Hawes, Sep 1, 20:34:58
  - loans with a view to perm signing are different (NCFC) - Tricky Hawes, Sep 1, 20:32:10
    - Wonder how much he cost us all in? (NCFC) - Tim Westwood, Sep 1, 20:33:35
      - i agree no. 2 (NCFC) - conkers, Sep 1, 20:38:40
- Sadly it looks like that is the only way to bring in quality (n/m) (NCFC) - Yellalee, Sep 1, 20:30:04
  - You know why that is :-) (n/m) (NCFC) - Tim Westwood, Sep 1, 20:30:46

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.