Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I must say, going after Brands was a fascinating and unexpected choice from Dave.
The thread's already abuzz and it's not November yet. Enormous potential here.
Surely it was aboutgetting wages off the books not about getting big fees for them? Or I thought it was??...and now we have the same problem to shift them again this summer...but we have less time on their contracts and will practically have to hire a skip to take them away.
Well in Marcel.
Just about anyone in football administration could send out on loan a ton of players.
Surely it was aboutgetting wages off the books not about getting big fees for them? Or I thought it was??
Getting wages down was the consolation prize. We don't want those players and so a good result was selling them. Nextvsummer will be even harder to get cash for them.Surely it was aboutgetting wages off the books not about getting big fees for them? Or I thought it was??
Here's a thought maybe no one wanted to buy them players he never signed because there rubbish so you moan because there out on loan and I would bet my last pound you would moan if they were still at the club not playingThey cost big money and would fetch decent cash. Brands just wanted half their wages off the books. That was just a quick fix that leaves us still owning them and needing to sell them next summer. But Brands is supposed to get plaudits for it.
As said: the feller is not untouchable by any manner of means. He got some things right, he got some things wrong. Stop worshipping false Gods.
Are you acquainted with the transfer market of this decade? It's where any old tat gets a price of about £20M slapped on it minimum.Here's a thought maybe no one wanted to buy them players he never signed because there rubbish so you moan because there out on loan and I would bet my last pound you would moan if they were still at the club not playing
If that is true, then why didn't Silva spend £40m on a striker?Two crocks he signed. Richarlison is Silva's signing. Digne and Bernard probably down to him as they fit the bill in terms of taking talent being wasted by CL clubs.
4/10, maybe 5/10 for the summer work he did.
Why cant he have both?If that is true, then why didn't Silva spend £40m on a striker?
Maybe will will have both by next season. However,If you identified our urgent need of a striker, then surely the manager should see it.Why cant he have both?
The process is that Silva identifies the player, Brands signs them. I think we can see by the way the season has gone so far that Silva wouldn't have been shy at letting Brands know we were short there in attack.Maybe will will have both by next season. However,If you identified our urgent need of a striker, then surely the manager should see it.
You told us all summer we had no money unless we sold one of our big players.Why cant he have both?
The process is that Silva identifies the player, Brands signs them. I think we can see by the way the season has gone so far that Silva wouldn't have been shy at letting Brands know we were short there in attack.
You told us all summer we had no money unless we sold one of our big players.
So maybe the pot ran dry from the carpet blagger.
So back up your theory!
Sorry, where did I say it'd cost masses of money to get a striker in? Dont we do loan deals too? I think we do, dont we?You were the one telling us all summer we were skint. Now you're criticising a guy for not dropping another 70 odd million that would have been needed for an elite striker.
Make your mind up David lol
Sorry, where did I say it'd cost masses of money to get a striker in? Dont we do loan deals too? I think we do, dont we?
Oh dear.
Back to the drawing board lads.