Lee Trundle
3:59 Wed Jan 10
Re: Lingard
|
As MPI said, I think I'd prefer Ings to stay instead.
And Ings is good for the dressing room, so Lingards apparent role is already taken.
|
Moncurs Putting Iron
3:49 Wed Jan 10
Re: Lingard
|
By paying out for him to have accomodation and travel whilst he trained with us we were running the rule over him (buying knowledge if you will)
Clearly the knowledge we gained showed that we should not invest any more time or effort into him.
|
On The Ball
3:48 Wed Jan 10
Re: Lingard
|
Moncurs Putting Iron 3:24 Wed Jan 10
Axctually I think the one thing we could definitely rely on him for would be to be good in the dressing room.
To be honest I think they all get the cynical money-based moves - enough of them do it - they liked him before so I reckon they would again.
|
claypole
3:29 Wed Jan 10
Re: Lingard
|
Only someone stuck in the past would think this is a good deal
|
Moncurs Putting Iron
3:24 Wed Jan 10
Re: Lingard
|
Busted flush who, whilst on a high with us put his efforts, energy and focus into leveraging wages (With Manchester B and with Forest) not expanding on that purple patch of Football.
The results and impact on his football and personal life were very predictable.
A busted flush who would bring a complexity and toxicity to the dressing room we dont need.
Rather keep Ings
|
Sir Alf
3:09 Wed Jan 10
Re: Lingard
|
Yes in our hour of need cometh the saviour
Just like Justin Fashanu, Ted mcDougall, David Kelly, Derek Hales, John Radford and countless other deals.
|
Claret Badger
2:56 Wed Jan 10
Re: Lingard
|
if I even see him selling hotdogs and pies at the london stadium i'm gonna be furious
|
Lee Trundle
2:21 Wed Jan 10
Re: Lingard
|
I read only the other day that he had offered himself out to Barcelona?
It'll right up Moyes's street snivelling and grilling for this waste of space.
|
| 
