Fletcher is a good player and a good signing for them. Daft to say otherwise. As ‘proven’ at this level as McBurnie.
I'm not sure how your explanation fits. Unless you think we went higher in meeting wages than Sunderland did, for McBurnie? Yet Sunderland, who obviously must have wanted McBurnie more than Fletcher, end up paying more for Fletcher? Or am I missing the obvious truth?
I was asking a question no need to get narky. I’ve no idea about him beyond his league goals record. I hope he makes a difference for us. What don’t you agree with me on?
No, the chat was that whoever paid the wages for McBurnie got him, we got him, then they decided on Fletcher - one suspects for less wages - otherwise why pay more for someone who wasn't your first choice - and if they;ve done that then that's even funnier.
8 in 53 over 4 seasons, according to Wikipedia, and all those goals have been with Newport and Chester. He might be the business like, but just not seeing how his senior career stats are getting people so excited. Not seeing how they're better stats than Fletch.
If he'd signed for Sunderland we'd have had strops on here - same old Barnsley, etc, etc getting outdone by Sunderland,blah, blah. Its clear from the chat that we have scooped him ahead of Rangers and Sunderland - I'm not sure how anyone can't be happy with that?
And yet Sunderland and Rangers were all over him, until he signed for us and then Sunderland went for Fletcher - I guess the scouts and management at Rangers, Barnsley and Sunderland got it wrong.
if you're trying to judge goal record, should never look at games to goals, if you come on for last five to ten minutes ten times it's still less than one full game, always go off goals per minute