| Shouldnt have sold the big players. 17:50 - Aug 25 with 1898 views | TheTrueBlue1878 |
If we had kept our championship quality players, signed just Nolan/Edwards and Chalobah on loan, we would be competing top 10 instead of rock bottom.
PH is a good manager who made poor recruitment decisions. |  |
| |  |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 17:52 - Aug 25 with 1881 views | tiptreeblue |
THEY DIDN`T WANT TO BE HERE YOU IDIOT. why can`t some people grasp this? |  | | |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 17:53 - Aug 25 with 1865 views | bluehook |
 |  | | |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 17:53 - Aug 25 with 1859 views | ITFCBlues |
What money do we use to sign them then?
Not to mention that NONE of those players wanted to be here |  |
| |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 17:53 - Aug 25 with 1861 views | pointofblue |
They wanted to go. And we couldn't afford Nolan or Nsiala without Waghorn's departure.
The question is should we have spent money on loans to replace them rather than taking gambles of Harrison and Jackson? I still back Hurst in his decision making there as I prefer bringing and, and bringing through, players of our own rather than bulking the squad out with loans. But is the money there if we need to change tack? He has no more games left before he has to decide what we need and try and sign new players. | |
| |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 17:53 - Aug 25 with 1860 views | Johnny_Boy |
Waghorn wanted to leave. |  | | |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 17:54 - Aug 25 with 1856 views | TheTrueBlue1878 |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 17:52 - Aug 25 by tiptreeblue |
THEY DIDN`T WANT TO BE HERE YOU IDIOT. why can`t some people grasp this? |
They never said otherwise other than Garner, modern ay footballers follow the pound signs. If we had put a new improved contract in front of Waghorn/Webster they would of stayed. Waghorn is a bench player at Derby who hasn't even come off the bench in the last 2 games. | |
| |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 17:55 - Aug 25 with 1825 views | Superblue95 |
Was one stupid, attention seeking post not enough for you? |  |
| |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 17:55 - Aug 25 with 1822 views | ITFCBlues |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 17:53 - Aug 25 by pointofblue |
They wanted to go. And we couldn't afford Nolan or Nsiala without Waghorn's departure.
The question is should we have spent money on loans to replace them rather than taking gambles of Harrison and Jackson? I still back Hurst in his decision making there as I prefer bringing and, and bringing through, players of our own rather than bulking the squad out with loans. But is the money there if we need to change tack? He has no more games left before he has to decide what we need and try and sign new players. |
We’re trying to sign players. It sounds like he’s known the ones he’s wanted for some time now but just waiting for things to fall into place. Either way, we need three players for me. Need a proper wide player, striker & CB. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 17:56 - Aug 25 with 1817 views | Trequartista |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 17:53 - Aug 25 by pointofblue |
They wanted to go. And we couldn't afford Nolan or Nsiala without Waghorn's departure.
The question is should we have spent money on loans to replace them rather than taking gambles of Harrison and Jackson? I still back Hurst in his decision making there as I prefer bringing and, and bringing through, players of our own rather than bulking the squad out with loans. But is the money there if we need to change tack? He has no more games left before he has to decide what we need and try and sign new players. |
Why couldn't we afford Nolan and Nsiala without Waghorn's departure? The owner can easily afford it if he wants to. |  |
| |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 17:57 - Aug 25 with 1804 views | TheTrueBlue1878 |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 17:55 - Aug 25 by Superblue95 |
Was one stupid, attention seeking post not enough for you? |
Shush please. | |
| |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 17:58 - Aug 25 with 1792 views | pointofblue |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 17:55 - Aug 25 by ITFCBlues |
We’re trying to sign players. It sounds like he’s known the ones he’s wanted for some time now but just waiting for things to fall into place. Either way, we need three players for me. Need a proper wide player, striker & CB. |
The question is who we (try to) bring in though - do we stick to the current method of signing players from the lower leagues and developing them or do we add an seasoned professional, or two, or three to the squad? | |
| |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 18:02 - Aug 25 with 1764 views | Superblue95 |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 17:57 - Aug 25 by TheTrueBlue1878 |
Shush please. |
I will when you do | |
| |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 18:34 - Aug 25 with 1700 views | Guthrum |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 17:54 - Aug 25 by TheTrueBlue1878 |
They never said otherwise other than Garner, modern ay footballers follow the pound signs. If we had put a new improved contract in front of Waghorn/Webster they would of stayed. Waghorn is a bench player at Derby who hasn't even come off the bench in the last 2 games. |
Blimey. So we've got to find the money for big new contracts for existing players as well as that needed to hire new ones, all without realising any of our more saleable assets?
Whose magic money tree were you planning to harvest? |  |
| |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 18:36 - Aug 25 with 1690 views | GlasgowBlue |
Don't think he had a choice with either Webster or Waghorn. |  |
| |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 18:38 - Aug 25 with 1677 views | Guthrum |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 17:56 - Aug 25 by Trequartista |
Why couldn't we afford Nolan and Nsiala without Waghorn's departure? The owner can easily afford it if he wants to. |
Can people stop looking at the Sunday Times Rich List and casually assuming it means cash lying around in the bank available to spend. It doesn't. Assets, such as shares and property, have to be sold to raise cash. Evans is not going to sell his business (or his house) to fund ITFC. | |
| |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 18:41 - Aug 25 with 1659 views | Benters2 |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 17:52 - Aug 25 by tiptreeblue |
THEY DIDN`T WANT TO BE HERE YOU IDIOT. why can`t some people grasp this? |
Steady on Jamhead  | | | |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 18:43 - Aug 25 with 1644 views | TheTrueBlue1878 |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 18:34 - Aug 25 by Guthrum |
Blimey. So we've got to find the money for big new contracts for existing players as well as that needed to hire new ones, all without realising any of our more saleable assets?
Whose magic money tree were you planning to harvest? |
Sell Garner, McGoldrick, Hyam, Gleeson, Carayol, MM and TC all off wages. Frees up a lot of cash indeed. | |
| |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 18:43 - Aug 25 with 1644 views | BlueAllOver |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 17:53 - Aug 25 by pointofblue |
They wanted to go. And we couldn't afford Nolan or Nsiala without Waghorn's departure.
The question is should we have spent money on loans to replace them rather than taking gambles of Harrison and Jackson? I still back Hurst in his decision making there as I prefer bringing and, and bringing through, players of our own rather than bulking the squad out with loans. But is the money there if we need to change tack? He has no more games left before he has to decide what we need and try and sign new players. |
Would they have wanted to go if they hadn't seen the pattern of recruitment if the old manager was still here? |  | | |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 18:51 - Aug 25 with 1609 views | Guthrum |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 18:43 - Aug 25 by TheTrueBlue1878 |
Sell Garner, McGoldrick, Hyam, Gleeson, Carayol, MM and TC all off wages. Frees up a lot of cash indeed. |
Nowhere near enough. Garner raised about a £800k profit, McGoldrick was on a fair bit but the other players weren't. Were McCarthy and Connor on so much more than Hurst and Doig (plus all the new fitness people, the new gym and the trip to Spain)? The new players all have to be paid, plus transfer/signing on fees, plus your big new contracts for (the injury hit) Webster, Waghorn and the one we'd already given to Bialkowski. | |
| |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 18:53 - Aug 25 with 1591 views | Guthrum |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 17:54 - Aug 25 by TheTrueBlue1878 |
They never said otherwise other than Garner, modern ay footballers follow the pound signs. If we had put a new improved contract in front of Waghorn/Webster they would of stayed. Waghorn is a bench player at Derby who hasn't even come off the bench in the last 2 games. |
Hurst said in a recent press conference that Waghorn asked to leave. | |
| |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 19:49 - Aug 25 with 1506 views | tiptreeblue |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 18:41 - Aug 25 by Benters2 |
Steady on Jamhead |
Sorry Benters but there are some stupid people on here sometimes, and i bit. i know i know, i should know better | | | |
| Shouldnt have sold the big players. on 19:56 - Aug 25 with 1484 views | J4ck22 |
Why do you keep making threads about the SAME thing? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
