Harte Signs

[RobRoyal]

We need to stop letting goals in
Kish and Harte should help with that.
We need someone to score free-kicks. Harte should help with that.
We need our 4-4-2-style strikers to play 4-4-2. Job done.

You must be f*cking joking.

er, no I wasn't joking, but I was right

Do you really imagine you make yourself look good with stuff like this? Does it interest you at all to consider the context of some of the quotes you pull out of old threads?

With the sale of Sigurdsson and the signing of Harte, I felt that we had weakened our squad rather than improved it (given that we'd also lost Bertrand). I didn't believe that the strikers at the club could score enough goals to get us into the playoffs - Shane Long proved me wrong on that front, and I hold my hands up (while still being unconvinced by Hunt and Church). The point of the above comment a reaction to your attitude that our squad was already good enough and didn't need strengthening to improve on last season's finish.

Now, do you still hold that opinion? Because IIRC we were outside the playoffs in January and fell to 12th in February, and I think you might be underestimating the impact of the one (loan) signing we did made in the January window.

[Snowball]

Not a case of looking good or looking bad. Just posting a post to
show that I was derided for statements which turned out to be correct.

As for Elwood. I was on his case immediately and saying how important it was.

We were 12th (briefly) but I said then (see the GD thread) that we were in
a false position and that the team was (had been) good enough for automatic
and had the ability to comfortably make the POs.



As for Carlisle, they were top and undefeated when Harte left, I said they were
a much weaker side and would fall to a much lower position and be out of the top
six by the year end. I was right on that too.

[RobRoyal]

Not a case of looking good or looking bad. Just posting a post to
show that I was derided for statements which turned out to be correct.

As for Elwood. I was on his case immediately and saying how important it was.

We were 12th (briefly) but I said then (see the GD thread) that we were in
a false position and that the team was (had been) good enough for automatic
and had the ability to comfortably make the POs.



As for Carlisle, they were top and undefeated when Harte left, I said they were
a much weaker side and would fall to a much lower position and be out of the top
six by the year end. I was right on that too.

I don't give a sh*t about Carlisle - and as you can see I didn't make any comment about how they would do without Harte. If you're going to quote old posts to try to make a point, then try to keep your argument relevant.

As for the rest, my point stands. It's disingenious to say that you were derided (by me) for statements that turned out to be correct. I scoffed at your suggestion that without further signings we would be successful this year. You reckon that we were in a false position in January/ February, agree that Leigertwood was a very important signing, but appear to suggest that we still would have finished in the playoffs without him. You can pat yourself on the back again for noticing how important his signing was, but apparently he wasn't a deciding factor in our eventual playoff place?

You said we didn't need further strengthening - I believed we did. We were off the pace in January, made an additional signing that everyone agrees was a great success, and subsequently finished 5th. Now it's a rather unprovable proposition that this strengthening was necessary for us to succeed (I notice you're doing yourself no favours by saying we were good enough for automatic promotion without him, which seems a real stretch), but there's strong evidence for that.

So all that's really happened is:

"We don't need strengthening" - Reading off the pace in January, strengthen the starting 11. Finish in a playoff place. "See - told you we didn't need strengthening."