by winchester_royal » 27 Sep 2009 16:33
by West Stand Flash » 27 Sep 2009 16:34
winchester_royal Howard is in the team because he is a techninally decent player who is looking to go forward everytime he is on the ball.
Struggled yesterday because he was asked to play in an unfamilar defensive position.
by winchester_royal » 27 Sep 2009 16:38
West Stand Flashwinchester_royal Howard is in the team because he is a techninally decent player who is looking to go forward everytime he is on the ball.
Struggled yesterday because he was asked to play in an unfamilar defensive position.
Can I ask what he has done since he's been at the club, apart from give away possession on numerous occasions & look VERY slow?
by winchester_royal » 27 Sep 2009 16:43
IdealWest Stand Flash Does anyone else have the slightest idea why Howard is in the team? He makes Andy Reid look slim & Keith Scott look quick. He is awfully bad & contributes absolute ziltch to the game. How Brenda the clown see's him as a better player than Matejovsky is beyond me.
+1
I was very concerned when we signed him, because the Sheff U fans said having him in the team was like playing with only 10 men.
Now I understand what they meant, the guy is just not very concerned with making an effort.
I get sad when I think of how we dumped the honest hardworking Harper and brought in this waster Howard, oh how I wish someone would put Rodgers on the spot and demand an explanation!
Seems to me like Rodgers was so intent on assembling his own team that it clouded his judgement and he made a series of tragic ventures into the transfer market. The combined total for Mills, Rasiak and Howard is just outrageous. Nobody in their right mind would claim they have been good value for money. At least if we had bought toilet paper we would have got £3M worth of arsewiping, but when we just flushed it down the drain on these SHIT signings we are left with NOTHING to show for it.
LOL @ Brendan The Clown Rodgers
by brendywendy » 27 Sep 2009 17:19
£3M on Mills, Howard and Rasiak?
by Ian Royal » 27 Sep 2009 17:22
by winchester_royal » 27 Sep 2009 17:24
Ian Royal Cummings - good signing
Mills - good signing
O'Dea - excellent loan signing
Bertrand - good loan signing
McAnuff - good signing
Howard - poor signing
Rasiak - poor signing
Not bad. Bit of a defensive theme going on there. Shame our major problems have been in attack the last year or two.
by PEARCEY » 27 Sep 2009 17:27
Ian Royal Cummings - good signing
Mills - good signing
O'Dea - excellent loan signing
Bertrand - good loan signing
McAnuff - good signing
Howard - poor signing
Rasiak - poor signing
Not bad. Bit of a defensive theme going on there. Shame our major problems have been in attack the last year or two.
by Archie's penalty » 27 Sep 2009 17:27
PEARCEYIan Royal Cummings - good signing
Mills - good signing
O'Dea - excellent loan signing
Bertrand - good loan signing
McAnuff - good signing
Howard - poor signing
Rasiak - poor signing
Not bad. Bit of a defensive theme going on there. Shame our major problems have been in attack the last year or two.
Its a bit early to say whether they are good or bad signings especially McAnuff and Mills who have hardly played for the club yet.
As with Rodgers I'll wait for 20 games before drawing to conclusions.
by Ian Royal » 27 Sep 2009 17:32
PEARCEYIan Royal Cummings - good signing
Mills - good signing
O'Dea - excellent loan signing
Bertrand - good loan signing
McAnuff - good signing
Howard - poor signing
Rasiak - poor signing
Not bad. Bit of a defensive theme going on there. Shame our major problems have been in attack the last year or two.
Its a bit early to say whether they are good or bad signings especially McAnuff and Mills who have hardly played for the club yet.
As with Rodgers I'll wait for 20 games before drawing to conclusions.
by Man Friday » 27 Sep 2009 17:59
by ZacNaloen » 27 Sep 2009 18:01
by Royal Lady » 27 Sep 2009 18:04
ZacNaloen Muted boo's until they realised most people weren't that upset.
by brendywendy » 27 Sep 2009 18:05
Man Friday Can people advise on the following:
1. Was there any anti-Rodgers chants?
2. Was there any booing at the end?
3. If "no" to 1, above, what's the feeling regarding the possibility of anti-Rodgers chants this Saturday if we're struggling?
by Ian Royal » 27 Sep 2009 18:05
Man Friday Can people advise on the following:
1. Was there any anti-Rodgers chants?
2. Was there any booing at the end?
3. If "no" to 1, above, what's the feeling regarding the possibility of anti-Rodgers chants this Saturday if we're struggling?
by ZacNaloen » 27 Sep 2009 18:06
by Ian Royal » 27 Sep 2009 18:08
ZacNaloen Watford fans were terrible and celebrated a draw as if they'd just beat us 6-0. I won't be taking them seriously if you don't mind.
by loyalroyal4life » 27 Sep 2009 19:10
Ian RoyalZacNaloen Watford fans were terrible and celebrated a draw as if they'd just beat us 6-0. I won't be taking them seriously if you don't mind.
They were acting like they'd won a cup final on the way home as well. Bit pathetic really.
by LoyalRoyalFan » 27 Sep 2009 19:24
by John Madejski's Wallet » 27 Sep 2009 19:34
LoyalRoyalFan The people around me booed, myself included.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 219 guests