He’s not really a DM either. He’s got the legs for it but not the defensive awareness. He wouldn’t improve our current squad so it would be a pointless signing as M. Smith and Alfie are better DMs. He’s more agile and mobile than Smallwood but I think even Smallwood has better defensive awareness and attributes. He was average last season.
Aye, good point. We’ve never signed anyone who turned out to be injury prone following a successful medical, so nothing to worry about…
Signing an injury prone player who is fit at his medical is completely different to signing a player who is injured at the time of his medical and just completely missing / ignoring it. The club pulled out a deal a few years due to findings during a medical and was absolutely slated for it by people and those same people slate the club for signing players who have injury records or make comments like you just did..... It's hilarious
I remeber that one but can't remember his name. Next time we played a team with him in he scored and pretended to limp as his goal celebration. ****. edit: Thanks TC, Charlie ****ing Austin. ****
Boyd did it to Forest when he scored against them, because they failed his medical on account of an eye problem.
Charlie Austin's was too. The club dropped an expensive bollock there. Signed Bullard yet didn't sign Austin. Anyway, history. Not relevant to today.
No problem with him coming in per se, but in the context of this season, It doesn't seem to be a priority area for reinforcement.
It was a light hearted question. No one on here would know what Blunts view of his injuries is so I wasn’t expecting anyone to respond with any knowledge. Lighten up.
It's is ironic that the club get slated for Bullard, then become cautious with Austin and get slated for pulling out of that too. I guess that's the point he was making.
Fascinating, but not relevant to my question at all. What I’d queried was whether the Blunts might be more likely to let him go due to his injury. There was no need to answer that by jumping to a defence of our medical team as their performance was irrelevant to my query. But some people can’t read anything without feeling the need to rush to the defence of the club (and yes I know others do the reverse, but if you moan about them doing that, which HT2 does, you shouldn’t automatically do the same thing from a different viewpoint)
They ****ed both deals then didn't they. Bullards knees went undetected and Austin was just fine. So what exactly is your point here?
By the same token, some replies can be more general in nature than a direct response to an individual post.
We didn't know Bullards knee would break down the same way we didn't know Austin would be fine. It's all hindsight isn't it? Before the fact it's just a question of what kind of risk you're willing to take and it's hardly surprising that following Bullard they would be more cautious of taking a similar risk. Yeah its frustrating as he was the striker that would have kept us up I feel.
They're letting him go because they aren't sure that he's good enough to feature long term and would rather cash in than let him go on a free in the Summer.
