Do you have insider knowledge as to which battles he picked? I don't. I imagine that the owners were a lot more willing to bring in an highly rated 20 year old who would be relatively cheap and fitted the club's narrative of buy young and sell for a profit than they were to bring in an experienced defender who went against their philosophy. I'd also say it's easier to sign a cheap inexperienced 26 year old goalkeeper knowing that goalkeepers peak a lot later in their career
What I’m saying is that you all claim the board didn’t back him but he set out on a mission to get a experienced goalie (not a very good one) so that to May says the board did back him......why didn’t he make it his wish to get a CB seeing as our own had shown a desire to leave???
In the process he has completely ruined our best striker to achieve exactly the same position in the league as when he arrived. Better then Stendel no not imho.
We attacked the opposition without any consideration of how that might impact on us. We were so naive we picked up few points. Yes we signed players in January. But the previous manager signed players in the Summer. It feels like we're trying to be difficult to beat at the detriment of being a team that can win. That was the opposite before. There's a discussion, not argument, over which is the better approach.
So I'm being short sighted now and nothing from my original point still stands? Yet I'm the one attacking you?
I remember once begging my mum for a pair of Nike trainers. She said no. Oddly none of my friends blamed me and told me it was my fault for letting her buy me socks from George the sock man on barnsley market.
But at the same time did you get some other really good Nike Trainers? Because if you did, that's a genuine example
I never said that. You said he broke his contract. I'm just interested that's all, because I wasn't so sure he had. I just presumed that you had a link or a source to back your statement up. Seeing as your being a smart arse, I'll just presume that you don't.