where daley wasn't involved

so when you said "the fact that Daley made the bench instead of Henry rather disproves the theory that Roeder had an obligation to play the premiership kids", you were talking a lot of old guff.

More generally, agree with you that Henry appears not to have been good enough. But that's vindication of DoY's criticism of us getting a load of prem youngsters in on loan, surely? ie more evidence Duke was right, and you (whoever you are, but presumably you disagreed with him) were wrong. (Don't suppose having Henry was free, either.)

Which regular are you, hiding behind the name, anyway?

Posted By: Tricky Hawes, Mar 18, 13:11:11