We don't deserve Owen's compensation money.

[Howaythelads]

The circumstances surrounding Owen's injury, i.e. that we've had nigh on no return for our £17M outlay to date, do somewhat explain why the Chairman is pursuing this compensation with such vigour.

 

Aye, but he's fat and eats pies so he deserves criticism no matter what he does.

[matta]

Because if Chelsea lost Drogba for the whole season they wouldnt have suffered a hell of a lot!!?

 

1. not even mourinho would whine so much about it, the way freddie whined over owen.

2. chelsea would still be title contenders with or without drogba.

 

no way

 

he has bagged so many crucial firstclass goals, that no other in chelseas squad, atleast theire strikers, couldnt have done this season.

[Cajun]

Because we didn't have £5m to spend on a left winger when there were so many important roles in the team that needed sorting first.

 

You won't ever agree to this though so there is no point getting into a debate. Everyone else can see it and you yourself probably can but won't admit to it.

 

You're basing an opinion on supposition, not fact.

 

Ok we had £50m to spend but Roeder decided he just needed one striker, one lanky old midfielder a left winger and a young stirker on loan.

 

You got me.

 

wtf are you on about?

 

The signing of Duff is not the reason why we didn't sign a LB or CB. As this is seemingly the reason you and others believe Duff was a poor signing, I'd say your conclusion is flawed because your logic is incorrect.

 

Well we should have spent time and money trying to sign a left back or centre back. No flawed logic in that (awaits the excuse that it was Campbells life long dream to play for Harry at Pompey etc etc... then the "just because Roeder didnt want to sign x,y and z doesnt mean he is wrong" s****!")

 

FACT is we signed a left winger and we didn't sign players in more vital positions. As much as you wish to excuse this the signing of Duff was a poor decision when as said the time and money could have been better spent elsewhere!

 

If my sister had just got run over by a car and I ran in the house to get her a plaster instead of calling an ambulance would my decision still be correct because at least I managed to stop the cut on her finger from getting infected?

 

I don't give a s**** about whether or not Campbell wanted to play for Portsmouth.

 

You don't grasp the unavoidable fact that ....

 

1. The manager chooses who he wants to buy and if that's not who you want the club to buy doesn't make the signing s****.

2. You can only sign a player who is available and who wants to join your club.

 

Signing Duff was a good signing because it is a good thing not to rely on a young player who has only had one decent season. You and others can bang on all you like about this but a good player became available at a good price for a position that is notoriously difficult to fill with any quality.

 

I would be unhappy with this signing if it was fact the signing was made instead of signing a striker, a LB or a decent CB, but that is simply not a known fact no matter how much you may want it to be. It's pretty common knowledge the club had bids in for various other players that for one reason or another did not happen. Those reasons are f*** all to do with the signing of Duff.

 

If hypothetically everyone on this forum agreed that this summer we need to sign (in this order) a LB, CB, CM, and a forward it does not mean that if we only get the CM and the striker that these signings are s*** because we didn't get the LB and CB as well.

 

The quality you want has to be available and has to want to join your club and that's the bottom line. It's not an excuse, it's a fact.

 

 

There it is, your apparent get out clause "just because the manager didn't sign the player you wanted doesn't mean it was a shit signing" no but the fact he hasn't signed any quality defenders in 2 transfer windows means that he has failed. You can witter on about how hard it is to get players but players for positions we want have moved and some have for very reasonable prices to very modest clubs. I expect you to carry on hiding behind the "we don't know this, that and the other" but everyone else can see where we have failed.

[GM]

The circumstances surrounding Owen's injury, i.e. that we've had nigh on no return for our £17M outlay to date, do somewhat explain why the Chairman is pursuing this compensation with such vigour.

 

Aye, but he's fat and eats pies so he deserves criticism no matter what he does.

 

Not bothered by him being fat.

 

Am bothered by his general incompetence, deceitfulness and stupidity.

[Howaythelads]

Because we didn't have £5m to spend on a left winger when there were so many important roles in the team that needed sorting first.

 

You won't ever agree to this though so there is no point getting into a debate. Everyone else can see it and you yourself probably can but won't admit to it.

 

You're basing an opinion on supposition, not fact.

 

Ok we had £50m to spend but Roeder decided he just needed one striker, one lanky old midfielder a left winger and a young stirker on loan.

 

You got me.

 

wtf are you on about?

 

The signing of Duff is not the reason why we didn't sign a LB or CB. As this is seemingly the reason you and others believe Duff was a poor signing, I'd say your conclusion is flawed because your logic is incorrect.

 

Well we should have spent time and money trying to sign a left back or centre back. No flawed logic in that (awaits the excuse that it was Campbells life long dream to play for Harry at Pompey etc etc... then the "just because Roeder didnt want to sign x,y and z doesnt mean he is wrong" s****!")

 

FACT is we signed a left winger and we didn't sign players in more vital positions. As much as you wish to excuse this the signing of Duff was a poor decision when as said the time and money could have been better spent elsewhere!

 

If my sister had just got run over by a car and I ran in the house to get her a plaster instead of calling an ambulance would my decision still be correct because at least I managed to stop the cut on her finger from getting infected?

 

I don't give a s**** about whether or not Campbell wanted to play for Portsmouth.

 

You don't grasp the unavoidable fact that ....

 

1. The manager chooses who he wants to buy and if that's not who you want the club to buy doesn't make the signing s****.

2. You can only sign a player who is available and who wants to join your club.

 

Signing Duff was a good signing because it is a good thing not to rely on a young player who has only had one decent season. You and others can bang on all you like about this but a good player became available at a good price for a position that is notoriously difficult to fill with any quality.

 

I would be unhappy with this signing if it was fact the signing was made instead of signing a striker, a LB or a decent CB, but that is simply not a known fact no matter how much you may want it to be. It's pretty common knowledge the club had bids in for various other players that for one reason or another did not happen. Those reasons are f*** all to do with the signing of Duff.

 

If hypothetically everyone on this forum agreed that this summer we need to sign (in this order) a LB, CB, CM, and a forward it does not mean that if we only get the CM and the striker that these signings are s*** because we didn't get the LB and CB as well.

 

The quality you want has to be available and has to want to join your club and that's the bottom line. It's not an excuse, it's a fact.

 

 

There it is, your apparent get out clause "just because the manager didn't sign the player you wanted doesn't mean it was a s*** signing" no but the fact he hasn't signed any quality defenders in 2 transfer windows means that he has failed. You can witter on about how hard it is to get players but players for positions we want have moved and some have for very reasonable prices to very modest clubs. I expect you to carry on hiding behind the "we don't know this, that and the other" but everyone else can see where we have failed.

 

 

It's not a "get out" clause and I knew you'd latch onto that, given your limited ability to debate a point or even to understand the point someone is making.

 

You can say Roeder failed in the transfer market because he didn't bring in defenders but that is another topic, this does not make the signing of Duff a shite signing.

[Howaythelads]

The circumstances surrounding Owen's injury, i.e. that we've had nigh on no return for our £17M outlay to date, do somewhat explain why the Chairman is pursuing this compensation with such vigour.

 

Aye, but he's fat and eats pies so he deserves criticism no matter what he does.

 

Not bothered by him being fat.

 

Am bothered by his general incompetence, deceitfulness and stupidity.

 

Err, it was more a general comment.

 

BTW I guess it's Fred who has loads of cash stashed due to being a successful bloke. I imagine he's more successful than you or I, for example. I doubt he would be at all concerned at your assessement of his intelligence and character, which given his level of success I'd say is another incorrect conclusion posted in this thread.

 

 

[Guest redmayne]

Because if Chelsea lost Drogba for the whole season they wouldnt have suffered a hell of a lot!!?

 

1. not even mourinho would whine so much about it, the way freddie whined over owen.

2. chelsea would still be title contenders with or without drogba.

Hmm, sure I read mourinho having a whinge just after our Carling Cup match against them, when Chelsea had loads of Injuries - basically saying he was envious of Roeder being able to bring the kids in to do a job??!!!

 

However, Perhaps chelsea/drogba was a bad comparison, as they have a more forwards they could bring in to do the job.

 

A better example would be if Rooney had gotten as badly injured as Owen did at the World Cup (i.e miss a whole season) - I bet Fergie would have had something to say. You could also look at Arsenal without Henry - he didn't get injured for France, but they have missed him.

 

 

 

Owen isn't anywhere near as good as drogba or Owen - i don't know why when he comes back we are suddenly going to be a good team - we still can't pass and look at Martins when the service is as it has been mot of the season - shite - he's out of the game - so will Owen be..... thats why its shocking we are moaning about owen being out - because when he is back we will still be shite

 

[Cajun]

Because we didn't have £5m to spend on a left winger when there were so many important roles in the team that needed sorting first.

 

You won't ever agree to this though so there is no point getting into a debate. Everyone else can see it and you yourself probably can but won't admit to it.

 

You're basing an opinion on supposition, not fact.

 

Ok we had £50m to spend but Roeder decided he just needed one striker, one lanky old midfielder a left winger and a young stirker on loan.

 

You got me.

 

wtf are you on about?

 

The signing of Duff is not the reason why we didn't sign a LB or CB. As this is seemingly the reason you and others believe Duff was a poor signing, I'd say your conclusion is flawed because your logic is incorrect.

 

Well we should have spent time and money trying to sign a left back or centre back. No flawed logic in that (awaits the excuse that it was Campbells life long dream to play for Harry at Pompey etc etc... then the "just because Roeder didnt want to sign x,y and z doesnt mean he is wrong" s****!")

 

FACT is we signed a left winger and we didn't sign players in more vital positions. As much as you wish to excuse this the signing of Duff was a poor decision when as said the time and money could have been better spent elsewhere!

 

If my sister had just got run over by a car and I ran in the house to get her a plaster instead of calling an ambulance would my decision still be correct because at least I managed to stop the cut on her finger from getting infected?

 

I don't give a s**** about whether or not Campbell wanted to play for Portsmouth.

 

You don't grasp the unavoidable fact that ....

 

1. The manager chooses who he wants to buy and if that's not who you want the club to buy doesn't make the signing s****.

2. You can only sign a player who is available and who wants to join your club.

 

Signing Duff was a good signing because it is a good thing not to rely on a young player who has only had one decent season. You and others can bang on all you like about this but a good player became available at a good price for a position that is notoriously difficult to fill with any quality.

 

I would be unhappy with this signing if it was fact the signing was made instead of signing a striker, a LB or a decent CB, but that is simply not a known fact no matter how much you may want it to be. It's pretty common knowledge the club had bids in for various other players that for one reason or another did not happen. Those reasons are f*** all to do with the signing of Duff.

 

If hypothetically everyone on this forum agreed that this summer we need to sign (in this order) a LB, CB, CM, and a forward it does not mean that if we only get the CM and the striker that these signings are s*** because we didn't get the LB and CB as well.

 

The quality you want has to be available and has to want to join your club and that's the bottom line. It's not an excuse, it's a fact.

 

 

There it is, your apparent get out clause "just because the manager didn't sign the player you wanted doesn't mean it was a s*** signing" no but the fact he hasn't signed any quality defenders in 2 transfer windows means that he has failed. You can witter on about how hard it is to get players but players for positions we want have moved and some have for very reasonable prices to very modest clubs. I expect you to carry on hiding behind the "we don't know this, that and the other" but everyone else can see where we have failed.

 

 

It's not a "get out" clause and I knew you'd latch onto that, given your limited ability to debate a point or even to understand the point someone is making.

 

You can say Roeder failed in the transfer market because he didn't bring in defenders but that is another topic, this does not make the signing of Duff a shite signing.

 

Do you not understand that the time wasted signing Duff could have been better spent on trying to find a defender? Roeder himself said it is only possible to deal with one transfer at a time and the Duff signing took up at least a week.

[GM]

The circumstances surrounding Owen's injury, i.e. that we've had nigh on no return for our £17M outlay to date, do somewhat explain why the Chairman is pursuing this compensation with such vigour.

 

Aye, but he's fat and eats pies so he deserves criticism no matter what he does.

 

Not bothered by him being fat.

 

Am bothered by his general incompetence, deceitfulness and stupidity.

 

Err, it was more a general comment.

 

BTW I guess it's Fred who has loads of cash stashed due to being a successful bloke. I imagine he's more successful than you or I, for example. I doubt he would be at all concerned at your assessement of his intelligence and character, which given his level of success I'd say is another incorrect conclusion posted in this thread.

 

I'm plenty successful, thanks. Although I do so enjoy your ill-informed speculation. As bad as me sometimes.

[Howaythelads]

The circumstances surrounding Owen's injury, i.e. that we've had nigh on no return for our £17M outlay to date, do somewhat explain why the Chairman is pursuing this compensation with such vigour.

 

Aye, but he's fat and eats pies so he deserves criticism no matter what he does.

 

Not bothered by him being fat.

 

Am bothered by his general incompetence, deceitfulness and stupidity.

 

Err, it was more a general comment.

 

BTW I guess it's Fred who has loads of cash stashed due to being a successful bloke. I imagine he's more successful than you or I, for example. I doubt he would be at all concerned at your assessement of his intelligence and character, which given his level of success I'd say is another incorrect conclusion posted in this thread.

 

I'm plenty successful, thanks. Although I do so enjoy your ill-informed speculation. As bad as me sometimes.

 

Didn't say you weren't, nor did I say I wasn't.

[Dragon55544]

Because we didn't have £5m to spend on a left winger when there were so many important roles in the team that needed sorting first.

 

You won't ever agree to this though so there is no point getting into a debate. Everyone else can see it and you yourself probably can but won't admit to it.

 

You're basing an opinion on supposition, not fact.

 

Ok we had £50m to spend but Roeder decided he just needed one striker, one lanky old midfielder a left winger and a young stirker on loan.

 

You got me.

 

wtf are you on about?

 

The signing of Duff is not the reason why we didn't sign a LB or CB. As this is seemingly the reason you and others believe Duff was a poor signing, I'd say your conclusion is flawed because your logic is incorrect.

 

Well we should have spent time and money trying to sign a left back or centre back. No flawed logic in that (awaits the excuse that it was Campbells life long dream to play for Harry at Pompey etc etc... then the "just because Roeder didnt want to sign x,y and z doesnt mean he is wrong" s****!")

 

FACT is we signed a left winger and we didn't sign players in more vital positions. As much as you wish to excuse this the signing of Duff was a poor decision when as said the time and money could have been better spent elsewhere!

 

If my sister had just got run over by a car and I ran in the house to get her a plaster instead of calling an ambulance would my decision still be correct because at least I managed to stop the cut on her finger from getting infected?

 

I don't give a s**** about whether or not Campbell wanted to play for Portsmouth.

 

You don't grasp the unavoidable fact that ....

 

1. The manager chooses who he wants to buy and if that's not who you want the club to buy doesn't make the signing s****.

2. You can only sign a player who is available and who wants to join your club.

 

Signing Duff was a good signing because it is a good thing not to rely on a young player who has only had one decent season. You and others can bang on all you like about this but a good player became available at a good price for a position that is notoriously difficult to fill with any quality.

 

I would be unhappy with this signing if it was fact the signing was made instead of signing a striker, a LB or a decent CB, but that is simply not a known fact no matter how much you may want it to be. It's pretty common knowledge the club had bids in for various other players that for one reason or another did not happen. Those reasons are f*** all to do with the signing of Duff.

 

If hypothetically everyone on this forum agreed that this summer we need to sign (in this order) a LB, CB, CM, and a forward it does not mean that if we only get the CM and the striker that these signings are s*** because we didn't get the LB and CB as well.

 

The quality you want has to be available and has to want to join your club and that's the bottom line. It's not an excuse, it's a fact.

 

 

There it is, your apparent get out clause "just because the manager didn't sign the player you wanted doesn't mean it was a s*** signing" no but the fact he hasn't signed any quality defenders in 2 transfer windows means that he has failed. You can witter on about how hard it is to get players but players for positions we want have moved and some have for very reasonable prices to very modest clubs. I expect you to carry on hiding behind the "we don't know this, that and the other" but everyone else can see where we have failed.

 

 

It's not a "get out" clause and I knew you'd latch onto that, given your limited ability to debate a point or even to understand the point someone is making.

 

You can say Roeder failed in the transfer market because he didn't bring in defenders but that is another topic, this does not make the signing of Duff a s**** signing.

 

Do you not understand that the time wasted signing Duff could have been better spent on trying to find a defender? Roeder himself said it is only possible to deal with one transfer at a time and the Duff signing took up at least a week.

 

Yea but that doesnt make Duff a shit signing. Just imagine we signed Robben instead of Duff would that mean Robben was a shit signing because we didnt get a defender? Fact is we needed a LW aswell as a Defender

[Cajun]

Because we didn't have £5m to spend on a left winger when there were so many important roles in the team that needed sorting first.

 

You won't ever agree to this though so there is no point getting into a debate. Everyone else can see it and you yourself probably can but won't admit to it.

 

You're basing an opinion on supposition, not fact.

 

Ok we had £50m to spend but Roeder decided he just needed one striker, one lanky old midfielder a left winger and a young stirker on loan.

 

You got me.

 

wtf are you on about?

 

The signing of Duff is not the reason why we didn't sign a LB or CB. As this is seemingly the reason you and others believe Duff was a poor signing, I'd say your conclusion is flawed because your logic is incorrect.

 

Well we should have spent time and money trying to sign a left back or centre back. No flawed logic in that (awaits the excuse that it was Campbells life long dream to play for Harry at Pompey etc etc... then the "just because Roeder didnt want to sign x,y and z doesnt mean he is wrong" s****!")

 

FACT is we signed a left winger and we didn't sign players in more vital positions. As much as you wish to excuse this the signing of Duff was a poor decision when as said the time and money could have been better spent elsewhere!

 

If my sister had just got run over by a car and I ran in the house to get her a plaster instead of calling an ambulance would my decision still be correct because at least I managed to stop the cut on her finger from getting infected?

 

I don't give a s**** about whether or not Campbell wanted to play for Portsmouth.

 

You don't grasp the unavoidable fact that ....

 

1. The manager chooses who he wants to buy and if that's not who you want the club to buy doesn't make the signing s****.

2. You can only sign a player who is available and who wants to join your club.

 

Signing Duff was a good signing because it is a good thing not to rely on a young player who has only had one decent season. You and others can bang on all you like about this but a good player became available at a good price for a position that is notoriously difficult to fill with any quality.

 

I would be unhappy with this signing if it was fact the signing was made instead of signing a striker, a LB or a decent CB, but that is simply not a known fact no matter how much you may want it to be. It's pretty common knowledge the club had bids in for various other players that for one reason or another did not happen. Those reasons are f*** all to do with the signing of Duff.

 

If hypothetically everyone on this forum agreed that this summer we need to sign (in this order) a LB, CB, CM, and a forward it does not mean that if we only get the CM and the striker that these signings are s*** because we didn't get the LB and CB as well.

 

The quality you want has to be available and has to want to join your club and that's the bottom line. It's not an excuse, it's a fact.

 

 

There it is, your apparent get out clause "just because the manager didn't sign the player you wanted doesn't mean it was a s*** signing" no but the fact he hasn't signed any quality defenders in 2 transfer windows means that he has failed. You can witter on about how hard it is to get players but players for positions we want have moved and some have for very reasonable prices to very modest clubs. I expect you to carry on hiding behind the "we don't know this, that and the other" but everyone else can see where we have failed.

 

 

It's not a "get out" clause and I knew you'd latch onto that, given your limited ability to debate a point or even to understand the point someone is making.

 

You can say Roeder failed in the transfer market because he didn't bring in defenders but that is another topic, this does not make the signing of Duff a s**** signing.

 

Do you not understand that the time wasted signing Duff could have been better spent on trying to find a defender? Roeder himself said it is only possible to deal with one transfer at a time and the Duff signing took up at least a week.

 

Yea but that doesnt make Duff a shit signing. Just imagine we signed Robben instead of Duff would that mean Robben was a shit signing because we didnt get a defender? Fact is we needed a LW aswell as a Defender

 

Still living up HTL's arse I see then, whats the view like?

 

We need a player for pretty much every position on the field, there are things called priorities and LW was far far down that list!

 

When you manage to convince me that there was no way we could have signed a left back, centre back or striker in the time we wasted signing Duff then I will agree it wasn't a shit signing.

[Dragon55544]

Because we didn't have £5m to spend on a left winger when there were so many important roles in the team that needed sorting first.

 

You won't ever agree to this though so there is no point getting into a debate. Everyone else can see it and you yourself probably can but won't admit to it.

 

You're basing an opinion on supposition, not fact.

 

Ok we had £50m to spend but Roeder decided he just needed one striker, one lanky old midfielder a left winger and a young stirker on loan.

 

You got me.

 

wtf are you on about?

 

The signing of Duff is not the reason why we didn't sign a LB or CB. As this is seemingly the reason you and others believe Duff was a poor signing, I'd say your conclusion is flawed because your logic is incorrect.

 

Well we should have spent time and money trying to sign a left back or centre back. No flawed logic in that (awaits the excuse that it was Campbells life long dream to play for Harry at Pompey etc etc... then the "just because Roeder didnt want to sign x,y and z doesnt mean he is wrong" s****!")

 

FACT is we signed a left winger and we didn't sign players in more vital positions. As much as you wish to excuse this the signing of Duff was a poor decision when as said the time and money could have been better spent elsewhere!

 

If my sister had just got run over by a car and I ran in the house to get her a plaster instead of calling an ambulance would my decision still be correct because at least I managed to stop the cut on her finger from getting infected?

 

I don't give a s**** about whether or not Campbell wanted to play for Portsmouth.

 

You don't grasp the unavoidable fact that ....

 

1. The manager chooses who he wants to buy and if that's not who you want the club to buy doesn't make the signing s****.

2. You can only sign a player who is available and who wants to join your club.

 

Signing Duff was a good signing because it is a good thing not to rely on a young player who has only had one decent season. You and others can bang on all you like about this but a good player became available at a good price for a position that is notoriously difficult to fill with any quality.

 

I would be unhappy with this signing if it was fact the signing was made instead of signing a striker, a LB or a decent CB, but that is simply not a known fact no matter how much you may want it to be. It's pretty common knowledge the club had bids in for various other players that for one reason or another did not happen. Those reasons are f*** all to do with the signing of Duff.

 

If hypothetically everyone on this forum agreed that this summer we need to sign (in this order) a LB, CB, CM, and a forward it does not mean that if we only get the CM and the striker that these signings are s*** because we didn't get the LB and CB as well.

 

The quality you want has to be available and has to want to join your club and that's the bottom line. It's not an excuse, it's a fact.

 

 

There it is, your apparent get out clause "just because the manager didn't sign the player you wanted doesn't mean it was a s*** signing" no but the fact he hasn't signed any quality defenders in 2 transfer windows means that he has failed. You can witter on about how hard it is to get players but players for positions we want have moved and some have for very reasonable prices to very modest clubs. I expect you to carry on hiding behind the "we don't know this, that and the other" but everyone else can see where we have failed.

 

 

It's not a "get out" clause and I knew you'd latch onto that, given your limited ability to debate a point or even to understand the point someone is making.

 

You can say Roeder failed in the transfer market because he didn't bring in defenders but that is another topic, this does not make the signing of Duff a s**** signing.

 

Do you not understand that the time wasted signing Duff could have been better spent on trying to find a defender? Roeder himself said it is only possible to deal with one transfer at a time and the Duff signing took up at least a week.

 

Yea but that doesnt make Duff a s*** signing. Just imagine we signed Robben instead of Duff would that mean Robben was a s*** signing because we didnt get a defender? Fact is we needed a LW aswell as a Defender

 

Still living up HTL's arse I see then, whats the view like?

 

We need a player for pretty much every position on the field, there are things called priorities and LW was far far down that list!

 

So because i agree with him im up his arse?

[Cajun]

You have always been his little bum boy tbf.

 

See you aren't going to comment on the rest of the post.

[Dragon55544]

You have always been his little bum boy tbf.

 

See you aren't going to comment on the rest of the post.

 

and what is that based on? because i agreed with him once? And that was months ago about FS.

[Cajun]

You have always been his little bum boy tbf.

 

See you aren't going to comment on the rest of the post.

 

and what is that based on? because i agreed with him once? And that was months ago about FS.

 

Still avoiding it then

[Dragon55544]

Yea i agree LW wasnt highest priority but it was a position that had to be filled, Just because we didnt get a defender it doesnt automactically mean that the Duff signing was shit.

[Dragon55544]

You have always been his little bum boy tbf.

 

See you aren't going to comment on the rest of the post.

 

and what is that based on? because i agreed with him once? And that was months ago about FS.

 

Still avoiding it then

 

Your theory is because a defender is higher priority, Any other player we buy is a s*** signing because we need a defender. We had 1 LW on the books who was 18 years old and Duff became available at a cheapish price. Your making out FS gave Roeder a choice between Duff or a defender.

[Cajun]

Ok the signing of Duff was a shit decision by Roeder because the time it took could have been better used getting a player in who would have filled a position that was higher priority.

 

Although it is turning out to be a bit of a shit signing at the moment all the same.

[GM]

Duff was neither a good/bad signing. Just an irrelevant one.

[Dragon55544]

Ok the signing of Duff was a s*** decision by Roeder because the time it took could have been better used getting a player in who would have filled a position that was higher priority.

 

Although it is turning out to be a bit of a s*** signing at the moment all the same.

 

Tbh Roeder had plenty of time to get a defender, The reason we didnt get a defender is because Roeder took to long to decide which defender he wanted and in the end ended up with nothing. I dont think the Duff deal took up to much time.

[Cajun]

As said earlier we spent £5m (which is quite a lot of money) on a player that was soo far down the priority list you could barely see it. Ok we could have had more money, ok he could have had enough time to bring in a defender but I doubt we had enough money to cover all the positions with this £5m and maybe if Roeder had spent the week looking at defenders then maybe he could have got a deal for a defender in motion before the last day of the window.

[Dragon55544]

As said earlier we spent £5m (which is quite a lot of money) on a player that was soo far down the priority list you could barely see it. Ok we could have had more money, ok he could have had enough time to bring in a defender but I doubt we had enough money to cover all the positions with this £5m and maybe if Roeder had spent the week looking at defenders then maybe he could have got a deal for a defender in motion before the last day of the window.

 

Yea but thats all ifs and buts, Theres no way we'll ever know.

[Cajun]

I don't think its an if/but that we couldn't really afford to spend £5m on a seemingly luxury position to be fair.

 

Yes I am assuming we didn't have £40m odd to spare but I think its a fair assumption.

[Cajun]

Now I completely agree, we don't have anyone who can do a job down the left