bowlingcrofty

It's a statistic that backs up what you saw with numbers. Does shots, shots on target or possession also piss you off?

Is 'Leazers' some sort of running forum joke that I've missed or do we have that many people on here who don't know what it's called?

Magnificent tonight. I fucking love this guy and always will.

Nor is it supposed to change it..it's supposed to explain it with statistics Why are you so angry against a statistic that just helps to paint a picture?

I'm actually not 100% certain on when this was signed, I think it may have been early in the 93/94 season...as it looks suspiciously like that P.Bxxxxx above the E is actually Peter Beardsley, looking at the way the P is written and comparing to his autographs online.

Tremendous - cheers. And ditto. Two more crossed off!

This is my kit from when I was a bairn, signed by the promotion squad. Few on there I still haven't identified. But it's worth a fortune I reckon. Up on the boy's wall in his bedroom currently. Bought an adult sized version of it about 10 years ago for £40 and it's still pristine. Couldn't ever part with it.

There's probably some mileage in that because it would incentivise them to actually play their academy players as well.

There’s no sponsors on the training gear so it won’t end up old with an old sponsor, it’s not tied to a particular season really - it’s just nice adidas x NUFC gear. I’ve no clue how it can be described as a money grab. Nobody buys it to have the ‘latest’ gear.

So what they do to make it fair, is they say - OK, we can all spend a percentage of what our own Scalextrics sets are worth to keep upgrading it. That's a fair system, isn't it? In reality the six rich kids get to spend a lot more on their already-expensive sets, and we get to spend far less on a set that wasn't worth as much to start with.

I believe the earlier batch of those asics kits came with the embroidered asics logo, and latter batches had the rubberised/flock version.

Really enjoyed yesterday lads and lasses, was a good few games, tight matches as well. Up the B&Ws

Looking forward to this!

Aye fair enough - I'm in.

Who are we going to loan? As soon as we're involved, there'll be outrageous loan fees no doubt.

Sad thing is that essentially the Anderson and Minteh stuff is almost like a previous transfer window. They bear no significance to this one, because they were sold to solve a PSR Issue for last year, not this one. Such are the stupid fucking rules we have to play by.

If an apology is the "least we deserve" then what the fuck is the most we deserve?!

Birmingham are signing a £10m striker in League One. I'm not sure between 500k and 5 million is gonna get you much in that climate sadly. Stupid thing about all of this is that I don't disagree that it's been a poor window - I just disagree with chucking toys out of the pram like petulant bairns when we've been on a steady improvement path for 3 years and we're impeded by the rules designed to impede us.

I'm saying that signing the first team players we need to sign now, to improve the first team, having bought a couple of cheaper players, isn't easy and anything below that is a gamble we can't really afford to make at the prices that those gambles would now be...

Other clubs can improve their first team with cheaper signings, and pay them lower wages because they're not the 'richest club in the world' and therefore having agents try to gouge their fucking eyeballs out. They can then get them moved on easier for the same reason. Man City can do what the fuck they want because they're Man City and the rules either don't apply to them, or were written partially for their benefit.

What changed is that we now have a good first team so signing improvements is much more difficult. The post-takeover equivalents would be better players, obviously, but still would potentially leave us with the same problem. I don't think it's a difficult concept, is it?

They are three perfect examples of players who were signed because they were 'decent signings'. In the situation we're in, where we need to improve our first team, not just fill up the squad, and where we have limited room for manoeuvre because of arbitrary financial rules, signing nobody is preferable to blobbing money on a gamble that backfires and has you bogged down financially for years afterwards.

We should've went for lower targets if we couldn't get our first choices in, imo. We should've been looking at Ryan Fraser, Isaac Hayden and Matt Targett for example. If we'd signed those three, they'd would've done a great job for us as second choices and definitely wouldn't have ended up hanging around too long costing us money on long-term contracts and stopping us from pursuing higher quality players later.

Yeah I just thought the situation should make us realise that strides have been made in this department, big time.