Poll - Our Current Malaise

[Dick_Turpin]

4 hours ago, daveyboy66 said:

Well...we've played well against the top few teams...have scored more goals away than most of the other teams...up until Blackburn no team has outplayed us and most of the draws, defeats in he last minutes have been down to us. We are where we are and until Monk gets the chance to put his own team out we're in limbo. One thing for sure Monk has made it clear that we won't be carrying anyone in this squad so if you don't hack it you'll be gone which is a step in the right direction

BTW...the picture is a bot generated one...stops me getting banned by posting

gutlessbedwettingmotherfuckers  

chairmanrimmingheadinsandcocksuckers

[bobness]

On 29/01/2020 at 10:41, Beholder said:

Winnal was a terrible signing

 

Can't agree. He was a proven striker, and already had a number of Championship goals under his belt. Bizarre signing, only because we signed Rhodes afterwards. In contrast to the Rhodes deal, we got Winnall for just over half a million, and at his age we should've made money on this deal.

 

The terrible bit of business was the swap for Butterfield, not only because Butterfield was pants, but because Winnall got injured during that loan spell, and hasn't recovered since.

 

On paper, Sam was an excellent signing, and I don't think the club treated him fairly. Had he been given a proper chance instead of Rhodes, things may have turned out differently. As luck had it, Winnall got injured. No way to predict that.

[Guest Ash76]

31 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

A lot of ST holders won't go even though it's effectively free.

 

 

[Guest Ash76]

29 minutes ago, bobness said:

 

Can't agree. He was a proven striker, and already had a number of Championship goals under his belt. Bizarre signing, only because we signed Rhodes afterwards. In contrast to the Rhodes deal, we got Winnall for just over half a million, and at his age we should've made money on this deal.

 

The terrible bit of business was the swap for Butterfield, not only because Butterfield was pants, but because Winnall got injured during that loan spell, and hasn't recovered since.

 

On paper, Sam was an excellent signing, and I don't think the club treated him fairly. Had he been given a proper chance instead of Rhodes, things may have turned out differently. As luck had it, Winnall got injured. No way to predict that.

 

Proven? For 6 months? TBH I was happy at the time, thought it may be an opportunity to make some £ on him 

[bobness]

9 minutes ago, Ash76 said:

 

Proven? For 6 months? TBH I was happy at the time, thought it may be an opportunity to make some £ on him 

 

Fair enough, but it did look like he could keep up. Should've made a good squad player. Until he got injured, I think we all expected Derby to table an offer once his loan was done.

[Mr Farrell]

4 hours ago, bobness said:

 

But he is desperate to put more money in, only because of FFP he cannot...

 

Not buying it anymore.

 

 

[bobness]

5 minutes ago, Mr Farrell said:

 

Not buying it anymore.

 

 

 

What gives it away? The fact we've replaced Bruce and his two experienced assistants with just one person?

[Dick_Turpin]

4 hours ago, bobness said:

 

What gives it away? The fact we've replaced Bruce and his two experienced assistants with just one person?

Plus a scheme designed to get cash in quick but negatively affect FFP. 

[Itchy]

DC

 

im afraid he appoints the manager who buys the players , so it has to him , I’m not saying he has to leave but at the moment he has to take responsibility for our current situation , hopefully Gary Monk is the one to turn it around , but it ain’t go going to be a quick fix  because of players contracts . A clear out is needed