› Forums › Latics Crazy Forum › this time next week
- This topic has 37 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by jimmyc.
-
AuthorPosts
-
10 April 2017 at 8:01 pm #157834
The puppet has admitted dropping Gilks was nowt to do with him.
PUPPET OUT
Apparenty, he dropped Gilks because it would have been Gilks’ 10th game and we’d have had to pay Rangers a fee for him.
But aside from that, you still reckon Sharpe is picking the team?[/quote]
Gilks 10th start was against Ipswich last week, he came on as sub against Fulham back in February, so 11 appearances altogether!
Fuck the EFL
10 April 2017 at 9:49 pm #157835The puppet has admitted dropping Gilks was nowt to do with him.
PUPPET OUT
Apparenty, he dropped Gilks because it would have been Gilks’ 10th game and we’d have had to pay Rangers a fee for him.
But aside from that, you still reckon Sharpe is picking the team?[/quote]
What do you mean ‘aside from that’?
Barrow didn’t drop Gilks,he was told he couldnt play him,hence he wasn’t allowed to select the team he wanted too.
Its not that difficult is it?
Hence,puppet.
10 April 2017 at 10:24 pm #157836The puppet has admitted dropping Gilks was nowt to do with him.
PUPPET OUT
Apparenty, he dropped Gilks because it would have been Gilks’ 10th game and we’d have had to pay Rangers a fee for him.
But aside from that, you still reckon Sharpe is picking the team?[/quote]
What do you mean ‘aside from that’?
Barrow didn’t drop Gilks,he was told he couldnt play him,hence he wasn’t allowed to select the team he wanted too.
Its not that difficult is it?
Hence,puppet.[/quote]
ONE FOR TRUELATIC4EVA
11 April 2017 at 1:26 pm #157843The puppet has admitted dropping Gilks was nowt to do with him.
PUPPET OUT
Apparenty, he dropped Gilks because it would have been Gilks’ 10th game and we’d have had to pay Rangers a fee for him.
But aside from that, you still reckon Sharpe is picking the team?[/quote]
What do you mean ‘aside from that’?
Barrow didn’t drop Gilks,he was told he couldnt play him,hence he wasn’t allowed to select the team he wanted too.
Its not that difficult is it?
Hence,puppet.[/quote]
‘Sorry Graham, you can’t play Gilks because it will cost the club money’ is your definition of Sharpe picking the team is it?Never happens at any club that, does it?
11 April 2017 at 2:58 pm #157844Why sign him on those terms then?
11 April 2017 at 3:20 pm #157845Why sign him on those terms then?Who says we did?
11 April 2017 at 3:30 pm #157847The puppet has admitted dropping Gilks was nowt to do with him.
PUPPET OUT
Apparenty, he dropped Gilks because it would have been Gilks’ 10th game and we’d have had to pay Rangers a fee for him.
But aside from that, you still reckon Sharpe is picking the team?[/quote]
What do you mean ‘aside from that’?
Barrow didn’t drop Gilks,he was told he couldnt play him,hence he wasn’t allowed to select the team he wanted too.
Its not that difficult is it?
[/quote]Oh, I don’t know. You seem to be struggling with it.
11 April 2017 at 5:58 pm #157850The puppet has admitted dropping Gilks was nowt to do with him.
PUPPET OUT
Apparenty, he dropped Gilks because it would have been Gilks’ 10th game and we’d have had to pay Rangers a fee for him.
But aside from that, you still reckon Sharpe is picking the team?[/quote]
What do you mean ‘aside from that’?
Barrow didn’t drop Gilks,he was told he couldnt play him,hence he wasn’t allowed to select the team he wanted too.
Its not that difficult is it?
Hence,puppet.[/quote]
Does it really matter who was in goal, we won ffs.
Okay, the keeper buggered up for their 2nd goal, but he certainly made up for it with two cracking saves a few minutes later which would have had us dead and buried had they gone in.
It not the first time and certainly won’t be the last that a player has been frozen out because of contractual arrangements.
I personally think we should had saved all the cash spent on Bogdan, Gilks and the Stoke keeper, and just played Jussi with the youngster as back up. We wouldn’t have been in any worse a position.
11 April 2017 at 6:07 pm #157851Why sign him on those terms then?Because it cost nothing to sign him as a backup keeper.
11 April 2017 at 9:06 pm #157852Why sign him on those terms then?
Because it cost nothing to sign him as a backup keeper.[/quote]
Yeah I get that Standish but with more than 10 games remaining when he signed it was always likely he could play enough games to trigger the fee. I’m surprised the club agreed to the terms if they didn’t want to pay anything. Just seems a bit daft when you’re in a relegation scrap and need the best players available to you.
11 April 2017 at 9:25 pm #157853What is the problem here? For once we have taken the opportunity of not wasting money. We have thrown plenty away on crap loan signings in the last few years and also wasted a fortune on signing players then not playing them then letting them go. Also wasted a bob or two on manager compensation.
11 April 2017 at 10:28 pm #157854Im sick to the back teeth of Whelan’s penny pinching.
If he had invested a few million last summer and built on our title win and feel good factor then we wouldnt be in the shit we are now in.12 April 2017 at 2:25 am #157855Im sick to the back teeth of Whelan’s penny pinching.
If he had invested a few million last summer and built on our title win and feel good factor then we wouldnt be in the shit we are now in.Can’t agree marrer,this seasons disaster is purely down to bad management. Mr Whelan didn’t break up a title winning squad and bring in bad signings. We are not going down because millions were not spent we had a squad who should have been more than good enough to compete. Strange decisions by 2 poor managers have done for us.YAMS
12 April 2017 at 10:53 am #157856Yeah, but who appointed those managers?
Whelans time is done. By installing David Sharpe, it allowed him, selfishly, to keep a foot in the door, so to speak. Rather than selling us and cutting all ties.
Make no mistake, the selling of Yanic will have been engineered. It was made out like he had slapped a transfer request in. Maybe he did. But there was more to it than that. Once the club learned of interest in him, and the money being talked, they decided to take the coin.
A great decision, financially. 7 million was literally a steal, for a player worth no more than 3. (In my opinion)
A bad decision, football wise. As we lost our main attacking threat.12 April 2017 at 11:21 am #157859Yeah, but who appointed those managers?Whelans time is done. By installing David Sharpe, it allowed him, selfishly, to keep a foot in the door, so to speak. Rather than selling us and cutting all ties.
Make no mistake, the selling of Yanic will have been engineered. It was made out like he had slapped a transfer request in. Maybe he did. But there was more to it than that. Once the club learned of interest in him, and the money being talked, they decided to take the coin.
A great decision, financially. 7 million was literally a steal, for a player worth no more than 3. (In my opinion)
A bad decision, football wise. As we lost our main attacking threat.Is this supposition or do know all that for a fact?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
› Forums › Latics Crazy Forum › this time next week