Jump to content

Seamus O'Wye

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Seamus O'Wye

  1. Yea, me too. they're the very expensive bungalows (£300,000+) where work came to a halt over 2 yrs ago, and suddenly sparked back into life about 9 months ago. I looked them up as I thought I might view/make an offer for one - then I saw the prices!!
  2. Ok, no prob. It's not often I'm right! I had to google it anyway.
  3. ... but I would have loved to have seen how he got on with NS. Some real humdingers of an argument no doubt.
  4. Ok, sorry about that. I must have missed that when trawling through the rules. Any chance you could point me in the right direction to that rule please?
  5. 43.8 Subject to Regulations 43.2, 43.3 and 57, a Player will only be eligible to play in a match organised by The League if the appropriate forms for his registration or the transfer of his registration (including, for the avoidance of doubt, Temporary Loan Transfers) are received (including by facsimile) and found to be in order by The League by 12.00 noon on the day prior to the date of such match.
  6. ...and should it come to the big D, I'll bet NS only values the club at a few hundred grand !!!
  7. "He is a striker but is comfortably playing in several positions up front." Yet another versatile player to add to those we already have! If he was a good striker, that's what he would be - a striker. If he was a good winger, that's where he would play - as a winger. Every time I hear this 'can play in several positions' phrase, to me it just means he isn't good enough in any of them! And we've got plenty of players who aren't good enough in their chosen position - let's just hope he bucks the trend.
  8. Agreed. Over the last few years, we've signed plenty of players who can play in any position across the back four... it just means they aren't good enough in any of them.
  9. It may well be a 'tough draw' as others have posted, but I'm not sure I can see one that is any easier,apart from being drawn at home. Perhaps Oxford at VP but the rest would all seem tougher!!
  10. I'm pleased to read your comments on Clark, as I thought that was the poorest I've seen him play. When he passed a 10 yard pass straight out of play, his reaction and expression spoke a thousand words about his performance. However, I'm sure he will improve on that if selected on Saturday (he should be)... even he must feel that he can't play as poorly on Sat.
  11. ,,, and perhaps it will make Vale think harder about which players we try to borrow. Too often in the last few years we have borrowed too many players who have no realistic chance of being in the 1st X1... in fact many have been nowhere near the 18 man match-day squad. Pointless. Our youth team lads could be filling the non-playing/non match day squad positions.
  12. ....there's a few right tools in our match-day squad; a good 'cleaning' for them might help us put in a few decent performances.
  13. "It just shows how bad our management are, because Monty like Vassell is not a left back and I’ll go so far as to say that his performances in defence earlier this season (or as a left wing back) scream “I don’t want to play in this position”." (PV1973) Correct. The fact that Aspin still thinks Montano is a full back/wing back speaks volumes. The ability to defend is a pre-requisite for that position...and Montano hasn't got it.
  14. Lose to Oldham on Saturday and I can see Aspin going. Unfortunately, like many others, I can't see Smurthwaite appointing a good, experienced manager as his whole philosophy is governed by money (i.e. paying out as little as possible,) and not by any knowledge of football - and we all know the extent of that !!
  15. He may well be a good prospect, but at what level? I can't see Dean Smith recalling him to be part of his matchday squad, as I don't believe he is anywhere near that good/ready at the moment - and he may never attain Championship standard. However, recalling him to get a better look at him in training/in u23 games, or to loan him to a better club (sadly there are many) I could understand.
  16. ....presumably Glenavon refused to include any confidentiality agreement in the talks/proposed deal. It appears that we aren't the only club with interest in him, so, as you say, it is in their interest to get as much as they can; therefore no confidentiality and make the offer as public as possible.
  17. Too often in the last 3/4 years we have played teams in the bottom 6 and seemed to have made a habit of losing or at best scraping a draw. This does not give the fans much confidence or a belief that we can go to Macc (or anywhere else), give a dominant display and return with all 3 points. If it does happen, then it will be, like at Yeovil, totally out of the blue.
  18. ....not bad that, out of a total attendance of 184 !!
  19. "On this occasion credit to Smurf as from what i read on here and in the press he was one of those who rightly voted NO." (darren1810) Forgive me if I'm wrong (and I often am!) but I thought that Smurthwaite voted against including the 'B' teams when this idea was first put forward, but when the deal needed renewing (last summer?) and the money was increased, I thought he voted in favour. Can someone please correct me if this is incorrect.
  20. No match pass, but can you watch it if you subscribe for the season? Perhaps this is their way of getting more people to subscribe.
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy