Hazzman
New Member
You'd be lucky to get 20 games out of him.
Bid for Fryatt - or is it bull ??
- Thread starter Lboro fox
- Start date
- Status
You'd be lucky to get 20 games out of him.
Melton Fox
Dancing Queen
Explain why you find my suggestion funny instead of ridiculing it.If this was a quote from virtually anyone but you on here then the person would get ridiculed until they left not only TB but the country!!
Oh hold on, I get it now, your being sarcastic, good joke Melts!!
Melton Fox
Dancing Queen
homer
Well-Known Member
In which he'd score 10 goals (at least) - which would be 6 more than Fryatt managed last season
Hazzman
New Member
23 - he twice bust his foot.
Fowler at his age would get a knock and then be out for a couple of weeks. It would be a waste of money IMO.
Melton Fox
Dancing Queen
I seriously can't believe this.
Some of you would choose Matty Fryatt over Robbie Fowler?
****ing bizarre!!!
Some of you would choose Matty Fryatt over Robbie Fowler?
****ing bizarre!!!
Hazzman
New Member
Can't disagree with that and he'd certainly fire us out of the league.
IF he had a decent midfield to provide him with chances - something Fryatt hasn't had.
highland fox
New Member
Robbie Fowler would piss all over this League and score a bucketful but he's not going to come here so its irrelevent
highland fox
New Member
M17TT C
Well-Known Member
Because Fowler would demand well in excess of a million pounds to come here.
For about the whole of last season he was unable to hit a cows arse with a banjo. I saw a few 'Pool games on TV last season that he 'played' in and he was anonymous in all of them and missed chances that he would have scored with his eyes closed if he were in his prime.
Fowler is way past it now, injuries and cocaine have caught up with him now and if he can't managed to bag a couple of goals for a Liverpool team littered with World class players then I'm sure he will bang in 50 goals for us with our squad of sensational freebies!!
The Voice From Above
Active Member
Forget Fowler. I am not surprised no one has been in for him.
He's finished. Over. Will be looking to do other things like his lazy mate McManaman who is part of the consortium interested in buying Birmingham.
Fryatt got at least 10 years ahead of him as opposed to the 10 minutes that Fowler has to offer.
Walsall also have a hefty sell-on percentage clause on a Fryatt deal.
Yorkshire Vixen
Active Member
But they would accept Teddy Sherringham:icon_conf
talk of him going to colchester so thatd rule another 'target' out
Melton Fox
Dancing Queen
I can't argue with that Matt, you've got me.
It's so ****ing ridiculous I can't quite comprehend it
Matt_B
Well-Known Member
Dammit we're missing out on all the good 'uns
Hazzman
New Member
But do you seriously believe Fowler would come here? When the likes of Australian, SPL, Rgrs and Celtic are after him? I don't think he's bothered much about footie anymore, he'd much rather play a 16 game season and send the rest of the year watching horseracing.
Hazzman
New Member
But they would accept Teddy Sherringham
Because he generally still looks hungry for the game. His off the ball work is a lot more harder to come by in a player than a goalscorer like Fowler is.
M17TT C
Well-Known Member
Instead of ridiculing my statement, why not explain why he would be a good signing.
Last edited:
man alive.
if you look at the balance sheet as being organic (insert jokes her), or a 'work in progress'. Then Mandaric is neutral at best. With the only intangibles being signing on fees and compo for Allen (none of which IMO will outweigh the 650k received for McCarthy).
The players he is shifting will be on comparable or higher wages than the majority that have come in. We wil not have to pay severance of their contracts as they will have chosen to leave for other clubs. Therefore given that more players have been released than have been signed i very much doubt that Mandaric has in reality actually outlayed any money thus far. I won't mention season ticket sales and/or improved sponorship deals +decreased kit costs.
Selling Matty Fryatt would leave the balance sheet, both current and projected, in a very healthy state for an 'investor' like Mandy
if you look at the balance sheet as being organic (insert jokes her), or a 'work in progress'. Then Mandaric is neutral at best. With the only intangibles being signing on fees and compo for Allen (none of which IMO will outweigh the 650k received for McCarthy).
The players he is shifting will be on comparable or higher wages than the majority that have come in. We wil not have to pay severance of their contracts as they will have chosen to leave for other clubs. Therefore given that more players have been released than have been signed i very much doubt that Mandaric has in reality actually outlayed any money thus far. I won't mention season ticket sales and/or improved sponorship deals +decreased kit costs.
Selling Matty Fryatt would leave the balance sheet, both current and projected, in a very healthy state for an 'investor' like Mandy
Lako42
Well-Known Member
I agree, get over the name.
Melton Fox
Dancing Queen
No, that wasn't my point.
My point is what I would try to achieve in MM's position. And you have to go for the best. If Fowler was up for a new challenge and regular first team football, and if he could survive on a mill a year then yes, it's possible.
So now your argument is based around him now wanting to come here because bigger clubs are after him. A few minutes ago you were saying he's past it.
Weirdos, the lot of you. I can't bloody understand it sometimes
- Status
Championship
| P | Pld | Pts | |
| 1 | Bournemouth | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | Arsenal | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | Aston Villa | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | Brentford | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | Brighton | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | Chelsea | 0 | 0 |
| 7 | Palace | 0 | 0 |
| 8 | Everton | 0 | 0 |
| 9 | Fulham | 0 | 0 |
| 10 | Ipswich | 0 | 0 |
| 11 | Leicester | 0 | 0 |
| 12 | Liverpool | 0 | 0 |
| 13 | Manchester C | 0 | 0 |
| 14 | Manchester U | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | Newcastle | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | Nottm F | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | Southampton | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | Tottenham | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | West Ham | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | Wolves | 0 | 0 |
