The Signing Of Jack Lester
#21
Posted 14 December 2012 - 10:14 PM
#22
Posted 14 December 2012 - 10:17 PM
MDCCCLXVI, on 14 December 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:
Thankfully, as has been the case with so many issues over recent times, the individuals in question have been exposed.
How do we see who's dishing the minus's anyone?
#24
Posted 15 December 2012 - 09:30 AM
Bankrobber, on 14 December 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:
Maybe the 3 year deal and higher goals/win bonus was the only way we could have met Lester's demands. I wouldn't say its foresight at all, but any club at our level would bend over backwards to make a deal for a 31 yr old Jack Lester.
#26
Posted 15 December 2012 - 10:55 AM
Darcy Sarto, on 15 December 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:
What are you trying to say?
#27
Posted 15 December 2012 - 10:59 AM
#29
Posted 15 December 2012 - 03:38 PM
#30
Posted 15 December 2012 - 03:41 PM
Darcy Sarto, on 15 December 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:
There wasnt any uptake for the other clubs to act upon.
He doesnt have an agent, so its not as if he was being hawked around and we had competition for his signature.
He approached us, we gave him a deal that matched what he wanted. End of.
#31
Posted 15 December 2012 - 05:29 PM
Spire1986, on 15 December 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:
Are you serious? You're not are you? Oh God, you are.
#32
Posted 15 December 2012 - 05:41 PM
This post has been edited by Spire1986: 15 December 2012 - 05:43 PM
#33
Posted 15 December 2012 - 05:58 PM
Spire1986, on 15 December 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:
Do you think the formation deployed under Paul Cook is defensive?
#34
Posted 15 December 2012 - 06:10 PM
Its not attacking. He will have a honeymoon period.We were not attacking enough for a team at home.
#35
Posted 15 December 2012 - 06:49 PM
death, on 15 December 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:
He doesnt have an agent, so its not as if he was being hawked around and we had competition for his signature.
He approached us, we gave him a deal that matched what he wanted. End of.
Oh well if you put "end of" at the finish, that means I can't reply, ah well, fat use you would be in the debating society
#36
Posted 15 December 2012 - 06:56 PM
Spire1986, on 15 December 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:
Its not attacking. He will have a honeymoon period.We were not attacking enough for a team at home.
Eyes Wide.....
SHUT!

#37
Posted 15 December 2012 - 07:01 PM
Spire1986, on 15 December 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:
Its not attacking. He will have a honeymoon period.We were not attacking enough for a team at home.
Check the Match Stats I think they disagree.
16 Attempts with 7 on target
13 Corners
Hit the Post on atleast 2 occasions if not 3................
#38
Posted 15 December 2012 - 07:06 PM
KevoBMMD, on 15 December 2012 - 07:01 PM, said:
16 Attempts with 7 on target
13 Corners
Hit the Post on atleast 2 occasions if not 3................
I can see where he's coming from. 4-5-1 (in my opinion) is boring, especially at home. Look at us in the first half, we were woeful. 4-5-1 invites pressure and that's never good. We have two of the best strikers in the division with Richards and Lester, so why on Earth would anyone even begin to think about only playing one of them? Against Accrington those two were absolutely sublime, they were the only players who performed on the night and those two alone got us the victory that day. Consequently Cook should know first hand that if he plays them together we'll be virtually unbeatable.
#39
Posted 15 December 2012 - 07:36 PM
ArcticSpireite, on 15 December 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:
I certainly don’t find it boring.
#40
Posted 15 December 2012 - 07:38 PM