by midfield diamond » 19 Apr 2010 16:37
by Wycombe Royal » 19 Apr 2010 16:37
by SpaceCruiser » 19 Apr 2010 16:46
midfield diamond Presumably this was in part to head off the reported interest from Bristol City.
by Smoking Kills Dancing Doe » 19 Apr 2010 16:53
by 1871 Royal » 19 Apr 2010 19:59
SpaceCruisermidfield diamond Presumably this was in part to head off the reported interest from Bristol City.
Wasn't his old contract expiring anyway?
by Woodcote Royal » 19 Apr 2010 20:04
midfield diamond EP website reporting that Squeaky has signed new 3 year contract as SJM's right hand man.
Presumably this was in part to head off the reported interest from Bristol City.
by Ian Royal » 19 Apr 2010 23:11
Woodcote Royalmidfield diamond EP website reporting that Squeaky has signed new 3 year contract as SJM's right hand man.
Presumably this was in part to head off the reported interest from Bristol City.
Sad day for the club I guess they couldn't persuade Coppell to replace him.............................
by 1871 Royal » 19 Apr 2010 23:13
Woodcote Royalmidfield diamond EP website reporting that Squeaky has signed new 3 year contract as SJM's right hand man.
Presumably this was in part to head off the reported interest from Bristol City.
Sad day for the club I guess they couldn't persuade Coppell to replace him.............................
by WTRoyal » 20 Apr 2010 00:19
1871 Royal You obviously are miss informed on what NH does at this club.
Woodcote Royal 'Ere, oo are you callin Miss?
1871 Royal Oh, Ay'm sorry, Ai have a cold
John Cleese I wish to make a complaint
by Woodcote Royal » 20 Apr 2010 21:55
1871 RoyalWoodcote Royalmidfield diamond EP website reporting that Squeaky has signed new 3 year contract as SJM's right hand man.
Presumably this was in part to head off the reported interest from Bristol City.
Sad day for the club I guess they couldn't persuade Coppell to replace him.............................
You obviously are miss informed on what NH does at this club.
by 0-7 » 20 Apr 2010 22:43
by Woodcote Royal » 21 Apr 2010 00:16
by Forest Gump » 21 Apr 2010 00:31
by Woodcote Royal » 21 Apr 2010 01:37
by 1871 Royal » 21 Apr 2010 08:59
Forest Gump I think they should have found a well respected and better connected one.
by Still Hate Futcher! » 21 Apr 2010 10:05
0-7 Nick Hammond was a lousy goalkeeper
by SpaceCruiser » 21 Apr 2010 10:13
Forest Gump I think this is a missed opportunity for Reading. Can't see what he adds to it at the moment and if they actually need a DoF I think they should have found a well respected and better connected one.
Those without very short memories will remember how we were left to look like a bunch of amatuers in the Tommy Smith saga.
by Smoking Kills Dancing Doe » 21 Apr 2010 10:22
by Wycombe Royal » 21 Apr 2010 10:29
Forest Gump Those without very short memories will remember how we were left to look like a bunch of amatuers in the Tommy Smith saga.
by 1871 Royal » 21 Apr 2010 10:40
Wycombe RoyalForest Gump Those without very short memories will remember how we were left to look like a bunch of amatuers in the Tommy Smith saga.
Oh yes that's right we should have just met Watford's demands without trying to negotiate a better deal.... Hammond was actually doing his job properly in trying to get the best deal for RFC and it isn't his fault that when he had it all tied up Portsmouth decided to spend more money they didn't have.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 157 guests