diamondgirl wrote:
Gloster, You might be happy with a "Georgeous long leggy blond" hanging on your arm but, to be honest, I would prefer a night in, in front of the telly with my "Georgeous, not very leggy dark haired HUSBAND" Words with Marion are afoot. :whip:
CHRISTINE
I just hope that either the leggy blonde or the not very leggy dark haired husband know how to spell "gorgeous"
Interesting to see part of the money made from this will also be re-invested in a training ground... Good move I think. I'd rather our players train in an environment that isn't 'soul destroying'.
I see we have yet more evidence (as if Gazzanega were not proof enough) that we got **** ing robbed, YET AGAIN, in the Olejnik transfer.
See here >>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19992734 some arsehole from Plymouth, never kicked a ball in his life, only got one leg and blind in his left eye and the Gargs turn down what we managed to get for the best 'keeper in the country. Getting **** ing bored with this now, Torquay.
At the risk of getting shot down in flames, i agree. I said at the time that we were totally robbed regarding the Olejnik transfer given his proven performances in league football and his scope for potential too. It's like the deal that took Jordan Bowery, Chesterfield striker to Villa out of the blue. He'll never get a Premier game for them if he played until he was 80 but Chesterfield still got half a mill at least. If Bowery was a Gull we'd have got about £100k. It always happens, will continue to happen and it always seems like other clubs get good deals and we get ripped off.
Strangely enough it was Pope Gregory the 9th inviting me for drinks aboard his steam yacht, the saucy sue currently wintering in montego bay with the England cricket team and the Balanese Goddess of plenty.
Whoops, my addled brain added the word 'to' into the headline. Sorry Plymouth. Still, if it's got to this stage, it's going to happen. Even if they accept the bid, it's still either far too much for the aforementioned invalid with no experience, or we got robbed for Bobby. I know which I think it is.
Thing is with goalkeepers you can't even say this youngster will get better than Bobby in a quicker timeframe. What I mean is that in goalkeeping terms it's probably accepted that a custodian would generally peak and enjoy their best footballing years when they're about 30.
A goalkeeper probably isn't ready for full football until they're 20+ anyway. Even longer for a Premier League keeper. So in theory Fulham would be paying this money for a keeper that isn't likely to see their first team for around 10 years.
And we've let a keeper, who was in terrific form, still has potential to improve and will be able to play to this standard for the next 10 years go for the same figure. Madness.
Gullscorer wrote:Perhaps it's madness for Fulham to consider offering that much for a sixteen year old...?
The problem is that they now have the restrictions in place on their squads. They need to sign good young players under 18 so that they can do their 3 years before turning 21 and qualify as 'home grown at the club'.
Gary Johnson's Yellow Army! Yellow Army! Yellow Army!
