Macca 0 Posted August 2, 2004 Name circulated today, he was never good enough anyway, we aint demanding a fee either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nolegs 0 Posted August 2, 2004 we seem to be a lot better at getting rid of players than getting them ,mmmm? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0Amarillo<P><FONT color=#cccc00 size=4><EM> º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ Amarillo ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°<EM><FONT><P>ddMMyyyy0Falseen-US<P><FONT color=#cccc00 size=4><EM> º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ Amarillo ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°<EM><FONT><P>True 0 Posted August 2, 2004 Actually in the 5 (!) appeareances he made for City I thought he looked like he could do a job. I guess its as simple as the fact that Helveg has come in in that position and working on the usual principle of 2 players per position he made it 3 at RB. Now I would have kept Briggs ''for the future'' but I guess Worthy thinks a) he doesn''t need a 3rd RB as Holt can fill in there in an emergency and b) he could get a better player than Briggs when one of Helveg or Edworthy stops playing for us.NCFC has moved onwards and upwards and we''re looking at a better class of player now, that''s all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
moobag 0 Posted August 2, 2004 What annoys me is that we throw away money.We could of got a token payment for Rivers & probably some for Briggs.Can anybody explain why we rejected an offer from Crewe 6 weeks ago for Rivers then let him go on a free Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FatMan Fat 0 Posted August 2, 2004 Dont ask awkward questions, moobag. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DumbleDelia is Magic 0 Posted August 2, 2004 Is our squad now smaller than last year? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pete Raven 276 Posted August 3, 2004 Squad size for start of last season: 22Current squad size (excluding Briggs): 23 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Temp the Revelator 0 Posted August 3, 2004 We didn''t reject an offer from Crewe, they weren''t interested (except when they wanted him on loan) until he was available on a free. I think you''re referring to Burnley...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AJ 1,227 Posted August 3, 2004 still, we could of got some money! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0Amarillo<P><FONT color=#cccc00 size=4><EM> º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ Amarillo ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°<EM><FONT><P>ddMMyyyy0Falseen-US<P><FONT color=#cccc00 size=4><EM> º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ Amarillo ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°<EM><FONT><P>True 0 Posted August 3, 2004 I think by putting Briggs on the list rather than paying up his contract, the hope is that he will go for a small fee, so at the moment we''re not throwing any money away. (Mind you, he will probably earn in 10 weeks what we would get for him as a fee!).Crewe were interesetd in loaning Rivers in about March weren''t they? But I guess at that time Worthy felt he needed him as cover for our run in... you never know. Water under the bridge now though.Ama Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DumbleDelia is Magic 0 Posted August 3, 2004 Cheers Pete. I don''t really see much point in keeping players on our wage bill who blatently aren''t going to cut it in the Prem. I would like us to have a slightly bigger squad though! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
