Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jezzard

Why didn't we just keep RVW..

Recommended Posts

...as an insurance in the unlikely (huh) scenario that we didn''t sign enough strikers? Rather than a) Lafferty, or b) scraping the barrel around non-contracted players? Okay so he would have cost slightly more in wages (counter that we''ve saved by not signed anyone) but it could have well worked out at this level when Lafferty or Chamakh almost certainly won''t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be honest, much as I wanted Ricky to work out, he just didn''t. I think Chamakh brings more to the table in the brand of football we play than Ricky does/would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Odd post. Chamakh a completely different option to RvW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We didn''t need him any more as we''ve got Naismith, who looks completely out of his depth, couldn''t hit a barn door with a nail gun and offers practically nothing to the team. If we''d have kept RVW as well it would only have been as cover, so it was in his best interests to move on and invest the money in a young player the manager had no intention of playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hilarious how some of the happy clappers having mocked those down the road for the signing of Leon Best are now making out Chamakh has a role to play .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="CanaryOne"]Hilarious how some of the happy clappers having mocked those down the road for the signing of Leon Best are now making out Chamakh has a role to play . [/quote]Nappy crapper uses scum as a stick to beat our club with. New low even for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From what I''ve seen, I''d rather have RVW on the wage bill than Naismith. Unfortunately we couldn''t offload the latter (cos we''re paying him far too much) and we could the former.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="CanaryOne"]Hilarious how some of the happy clappers having mocked those down the road for the signing of Leon Best are now making out Chamakh has a role to play . [/quote]
Best is older, and most recent clubs include Rotherham and a loan spell at Brighton.
Chamakh is younger and his most recent clubs include Palace, West Ham & Arsenal.
Now, if you need me to explain the immediate difference between the two (before even taking into account type of player, suitability etc) then may I suggest you follow this link http://piv.pivpiv.dk/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chamakh isn''t Messi but he looks like it compared to RVW

and, no, I don''t care that he''s scored some goals since he''s left. He''s awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please stop mentioning RvW. It sets off an alarm in Indy Bones'' cage, then he wakes up and starts rattling it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What you need to remember about RvW....J/K, thought I''d better show up and make an effort at rattling at least a small part of my cage [;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP proposed keeping RVW as insurance if we ended up in this very situation instead of Lafferty who demonstratively doesn’t want to be here, or b) keep both and avoid having to barrel scrape and probably not even get Chamakh who we’ll lose out on to a Prem club or injury. What we know about RVW was it didn’t work out for a struggling club in the prem, 1 goal in 25 games. Jerome for contrast scored 3 in 34 last year, including that one that Joe Hart had moreorless thrown in to the back of the net. Not significantly different I wouldn’t say, but we’ve seen Jerome can do it at a lower level when playing for about the best team in the division. Early signs are that RVW can do it at a lower level in the Eredivisie and has previously done it at a higher level when playing for Sporting. Lafferty is not very good. Neither will be whoever we end up with, if anyone. I’d just rather have RVW third choice than Lafferty. I’d rather have Loza than Lafferty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Katie Borkins wrote the following post at 05/09/2016 4:43 AM:

"I''d rather have Cat AIDS than Lafferty"

So you woke up in the middle of the night and decided to post that👍

Must be living the dream Katie👌

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VanWink, your self indulgent wankery mimics your avatars self indulgent jazz rock noodling. And like his music, nobody is listening.

Now go and compose a witty post in 5/8 time, there''s a good bellend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting that both VW and Katie posted at the same time, be it 12 hours difference, serendipitous perhaps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Felixfan"]Cannot believe that anyone thinks we should have kept one of the worst players to have worn the shirt.[/quote]

Least effective, certainly. Worst, I wouldn''t say that. Here he was a square peg when we had a round hole, but he might fit other holes better.

I''d probably still have him though as I''m not sure anyone else we have or likely to have is capable of filling our round hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...