Talking about getting rid of how many players? 6-7? Pay them off or keep paying their wages? That would bankrupt us. Catts, Bardo, JoS, Graham, Fletcher, Wickham, AJ... All of whom have been speculated to be bad lads. That's over 250 grand a week on wages. We couldn't have got rid of them if we'd wanted to. No club outside the top four could afford to just pay them off or send them out on loan while paying that kind of money while bringing in new players. Madness mate.
Of course there's no proof Di Canio would have succeeded, just my opinion. He had "Catts" pegged as trouble from the start, regardless of ability. And this is the point I'm trying to make, perhaps some of your players are simply bad eggs, every manager seems to have an issue getting the best out of them for a prolonged period. No idea. As I've said, you brought 14 in that summer. If you could have condensed that to 5 or 6 it would have been easily affordable, even if you only got rid of 20% of the wages of the players you've named.
We wouldn't have had enough players to get through the season mate. Bizarrely 14 players in and we still had a relatively small squad.
Can't quite figure out how that's possible? How many were let go? Surely your squad can't have been smaller than the season before...
But ........... "The telegraph have been twisting about the Vieira news ever since sky broke it because it contradicted their article about an hour previously that NUFC were "set to offer McClaren a 3rd chance to accept them". They won't admit SS were right until they have to, even if they know they are."
Are you going senile or something? Notice the operational word "IF". Honestly, so cringeworthy when people with an exceptionally average grip of the English language try to pick people apart on it just to look smart. Give up.
It's even more cringeworthy when some idiot tries to correct someone and completely messes up You're saying 'SS were right', which is past tense and a 'fact'....... the 'if' comes in the part where you're talking about something else which may, or may not, happen in the future and is therefore speculation on your part. If you're not mixing us your tenses then you're using the word 'were' right when you should've actually said, "They won't admit SS may be right." Or perhaps you're not saying SS were right, are contradicting yourself, and claiming the paper already believes it and are lying. Either way I can't help it if you're grasp of grammar is so poor as to be unintelligible. Dear oh dear Oh, btw, you seem to be a very angry man who can't take a bit of banter
Wow. A total embarrassment. Allow me to give you just a teensy bit of help, then have a re-think. "They won't admit SS were right" is not past tense, as you claimed. That leaves two tenses, try and figure out which one it is, there's a good lad
Why do people constantly omit the word 'that' "They won't admit that SS were right" makes sense, but without 'that' word it simply doesn't . . . . and stop bloody arguing
