Ben Brereton Diaz

[roversfan99]

10 minutes ago, JBiz said:

Why is it always black and white? just because I suggest someone shouldn’t be written off without a fair chance, doesn’t mean there is no room for discussion at all?

The financial aspect of Best is to show just how expensive wages and pay offs are - to show how criminally we’ve wasted millions. It makes that point that investing 7m in a 19 year old might cost you less than signing a ready made 28/29 year old for 3.5m. 
 

Also for productive input - if you search Kevin Davies BRFCS in google - most recent references to him are in this thread, most compare his price and impact - and that’s more than 20 years ago, in a league where the sponsorship money’s up by about 3000%.

The flex thing has been done to death, its all speculation, we dont know for sure what Brereton's wages are. The key though is that the only alternative is not a 3.5m high earning 28/29 year old.

Leon Best was a particularly horrendous way to spend money, he would have been a crap signing had he been a freebie on a modest wage. I would like to think that our standards are above displaying more value for money than Leon Best.

His appearances were never within a run of starts mainly because in those cameos he didnt do anything to suggest that he warranted a prolonged run in the team, and even then, Mowbray received plenty of criticism for how he was being used. He may have been written off as a current day judgement back when he had shown nothing by that point, compounded by other flaws in the team not being rectified, but ultimately being "written off" doesnt mean anything because now that he has suddenly come to the party, this thread is absolutely full of praise and optimism from even his most staunch critics from his first 2 seasons. All that refraining from committing to an opinion in 2 years (which is a decent portion of time) does is allow you not to be proved wrong.

[JBiz]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

The flex thing has been done to death, its all speculation, we dont know for sure what Brereton's wages are. The key though is that the only alternative is not a 3.5m high earning 28/29 year old.

Leon Best was a particularly horrendous way to spend money, he would have been a crap signing had he been a freebie on a modest wage. I would like to think that our standards are above displaying more value for money than Leon Best.

His appearances were never within a run of starts mainly because in those cameos he didnt do anything to suggest that he warranted a prolonged run in the team, and even then, Mowbray received plenty of criticism for how he was being used. He may have been written off as a current day judgement back when he had shown nothing by that point, compounded by other flaws in the team not being rectified, but ultimately being "written off" doesnt mean anything because now that he has suddenly come to the party, this thread is absolutely full of praise and optimism from even his most staunch critics from his first 2 seasons. All that refraining from committing to an opinion in 2 years (which is a decent portion of time) does is allow you not to be proved wrong.

By giving a recent “ish” example of us wasting money, I’m not suggesting we either do this one way (young and big fee) or the other (older ex prem and big wage)... such an obsession with seeing this in Black and White! It’s just example of why (at the time) I felt this “flex” argument is a simple format for viewing the way we can sign players.

Like you say - it’s all speculative without exact figures, but it’s not a stretch (for me at least) to see why we struggle attracting ex prem players, or competing for lower league who have interest from PL teams due to wages. TM seemingly has managed that side well, keeping us competitive but away from the days of Rhodes on 50k per week.

Within that limit - there’s no opportunity to compete with recently relegated teams for players, even more so being recently (at the time of the BB deal) in league 1.

Thus BB was one in our “available players” to buy. The same summer we spent 3m on Armstrong btw and whilst that isn’t an excuse to waste money, it’s an example of how every deal is about weighing up risk / reward for clubs in our position.

[Hasta]

58 minutes ago, JBiz said:

Is this fair Hasta? I mean what constitutes a fair crack at the whip? 25 minutes when we’re a goal down or chasing a game is that a fair justification of his potential and talent? Maybe for a Danny Graham with genuine expectation and past example of producing - but not so much a raw young striker in an unfamiliar position.

Also for someone supposedly without the touch or technique to be a goal scorer - I wouldn’t want to judge until he’s had a run playing upfront in the centre. Equally his goals (particularly one vs Watford) suggest there’s ample technique and an eye for goal we’ve still to see.

He’s had one solid run in the team and people think he looks a different player. This to me is just pure irony.

I do think it's fair. Until the end of least season, he made 45 appearances for Rovers of which 28 of those were 20 minutes or more game time. I'm sure many of those appearances were weren't always 'chasing a game'. I know its more difficult for an attacking player to show their potential, but I just think in that amount of time on the pitch he should have shown a lot more than he did, regardless of his fee. Regardless, that's history now and he does look a different player, albeit playing in a different role which seems to suit his game far better.

As for irony, the reason he's had a decent run in the team is because he has actually performed well. See Tyrhys Dolan. Get an opportunity, take it and you will keep featuring for the first team.  If you don't perform you will get bombed out rarely to return like Harry Chapman. Brereton ultimately got a lot more game time than most youngsters because of his price tag. Had he cost £500k he would have been shelved a long time ago.

 

Edited December 1, 2020 by Hasta

[roversfan99]

19 minutes ago, JBiz said:

By giving a recent “ish” example of us wasting money, I’m not suggesting we either do this one way (young and big fee) or the other (older ex prem and big wage)... such an obsession with seeing this in Black and White! It’s just example of why (at the time) I felt this “flex” argument is a simple format for viewing the way we can sign players.

Like you say - it’s all speculative without exact figures, but it’s not a stretch (for me at least) to see why we struggle attracting ex prem players, or competing for lower league who have interest from PL teams due to wages. TM seemingly has managed that side well, keeping us competitive but away from the days of Rhodes on 50k per week.

Within that limit - there’s no opportunity to compete with recently relegated teams for players, even more so being recently (at the time of the BB deal) in league 1.

Thus BB was one in our “available players” to buy. The same summer we spent 3m on Armstrong btw and whilst that isn’t an excuse to waste money, it’s an example of how every deal is about weighing up risk / reward for clubs in our position.

It isnt black or white but equally, you are using extreme examples again when we know that there are good players out there. I am not under the delusion that is is easy to build a good team but a manager puts himself into a position whereby he will accept that he is judged dependant on their success. Dack and Armstrong, especially the former were signed for really low fees compared to what they have given us. Fair play to Mowbray there.

Brereton had minimal impact even had he cost much less than he did, as an individual based on all we could judge him on, it was natural to feel disappointed. If you could remove yourself enough to totally withhold any judgement whatsoever then fair play to you.

The fact that he cost 7m means that even if it wasnt as simple as us going and signing a Bamford (random example of higher earner for a similar fee when we signed Brereton) etc because I appreciate that such a player was unobtainable, but it is not being unrealistic and I refuse to accept that, from a position say this summer just gone before this season in which we undoubtedly have seen a different Brereton, that we couldnt have spent that amount of money more efficiently and more effectively. Even if that was within this unsubstantiated theory in which we could only sign a young English attacker. the fact that it is difficult to sign players within certain parameters and in a competitive market is not enough to absolve a professional football manager of any responsibility/debate/criticism should a player seem to be a poor acquisition, which he did when you refer back to the timing of the comments. And I dont think that even the most positive supporter could claim to have seen his performances this season coming, even if like yourself they withheld judgement.

Playing devils advocate, if Armstrong ran his contract down and left on a free with us in the same League, which is not totally beyond possibility with 18 months left. Would he be deemed a poor signing considering what would have been a fruitless investment, and thus should we withhold judgement on him until he leaves?

 

[philipl]

4 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

Why would I be arsey? I don’t care what the rationale was as long as he does the business.

So anyway, this rationale wasn’t from the Mowbray quotes you thought you’d read, but your line into the regime? You’d think you would have mentioned your inside track to start with...

No both

[JBiz]

1 hour ago, Hasta said:

I do think it's fair. Until the end of least season, he made 45 appearances for Rovers of which 28 of those were 20 minutes or more game time. I'm sure many of those appearances were weren't always 'chasing a game'. I know its more difficult for an attacking player to show their potential, but I just think in that amount of time on the pitch he should have shown a lot more than he did, regardless of his fee. Regardless, that's history now and he does look a different player, albeit playing in a different role which seems to suit his game far better.

As for irony, the reason he's had a decent run in the team is because he has actually performed well. See Tyrhys Dolan. Get an opportunity, take it and you will keep featuring for the first team.  If you don't perform you will get bombed out rarely to return like Harry Chapman. Brereton ultimately got a lot more game time than most youngsters because of his price tag. Had he cost £500k he would have been shelved a long time ago.

 

What would you describe his role as?

For me, the change out wide suits him but I wouldn’t describe it as his speciality. Part of the reason for investing in players of this age, is the opportunity to develop their potential around specific opportunities and the style of the team.

61 appearances for the us in all competitions equals 2850 minutes. Considering we’ve had around 100 fixtures since he signed, he’s been in around half and only played about 30min a game. Far less before this season.

No supporter could’ve come to a proper judgement in that time, and as far as I’m concerned about the level he can get to, I don’t think any of us have had the time yet to judge or safely say what his full potential is.

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

It isnt black or white but equally, you are using extreme examples again when we know that there are good players out there. I am not under the delusion that is is easy to build a good team but a manager puts himself into a position whereby he will accept that he is judged dependant on their success. Dack and Armstrong, especially the former were signed for really low fees compared to what they have given us. Fair play to Mowbray there.

Brereton had minimal impact even had he cost much less than he did, as an individual based on all we could judge him on, it was natural to feel disappointed. If you could remove yourself enough to totally withhold any judgement whatsoever then fair play to you.

The fact that he cost 7m means that even if it wasnt as simple as us going and signing a Bamford (random example of higher earner for a similar fee when we signed Brereton) etc because I appreciate that such a player was unobtainable, but it is not being unrealistic and I refuse to accept that, from a position say this summer just gone before this season in which we undoubtedly have seen a different Brereton, that we couldnt have spent that amount of money more efficiently and more effectively. Even if that was within this unsubstantiated theory in which we could only sign a young English attacker. the fact that it is difficult to sign players within certain parameters and in a competitive market is not enough to absolve a professional football manager of any responsibility/debate/criticism should a player seem to be a poor acquisition, which he did when you refer back to the timing of the comments. And I dont think that even the most positive supporter could claim to have seen his performances this season coming, even if like yourself they withheld judgement.

Playing devils advocate, if Armstrong ran his contract down and left on a free with us in the same League, which is not totally beyond possibility with 18 months left. Would he be deemed a poor signing considering what would have been a fruitless investment, and thus should we withhold judgement on him until he leaves?

 

Extreme example? A striker our club paid 3.5m for who achieved fuck all and ended up costing us millions to pay off? It’s pertinent to any BRFC debate on signing strikers. Especially when many of the same criticisms (like being a lazy sod) have been nonchalantly placed on Big Ben.

Why do you and others see the pointing out the “over critical” comments as some sort of attempt to shut down debate?

You're welcome to criticise whatever and whoever you want, just like I am allowed to suggest that particular comment is wrong from my perspective.

It applies to everyone - you could take (as many did) umbridge at the notion that I felt a multimillion pound deal for an English 19 year old striker with potential was a good idea.

As for the straw-man on the end of your post, I don’t think anybody needs to be told that the club would be rightfully and heavily criticised if it allows investments like AA slip away for nowt! Speaking of AA - a 3 million pound investment in a player, who at the time was a “risk” because he’d never achieved it in the championship!

[tomphil]

Armstrong had some goal scoring pedigree for a few seasons already plus it was obvious TM could fit him in the side. He was barely much older than BB and the fee was 1.75 if he didn't cut the mustard it might not have rose to 3, still might not have.

Not really a good comparison as we were buying on a 'its already doing what it says on the tin' scenario. I don't know about straw man but there's plenty clutching going on trying to score a few points.

[JBiz]

Just now, tomphil said:

Armstrong had some goal scoring pedigree for a few seasons already plus it was obvious TM could fit him in the side. He was barely much older than BB and the fee was 1.75 if he didn't cut the mustard it might not have rose to 3, still might not have.

Not really a good comparison as we were buying on a 'its already doing what it says on the tin' scenario. I don't know about straw man but there's plenty clutching going on trying to score a few points.

The criticism at the time was related to a poor spell at Bolton if I recall. Turned out a banger. Now looking more and more top flight.

... and I hope you’re well too Phil 

[roversfan99]

Just now, JBiz said:

What would you describe his role as?

For me, the change out wide suits him but I wouldn’t describe it as his speciality. Part of the reason for investing in players of this age, is the opportunity to develop their potential around specific opportunities and the style of the team.

61 appearances for the us in all competitions equals 2850 minutes. Considering we’ve had around 100 fixtures since he signed, he’s been in around half and only played about 30min a game. Far less before this season.

No supporter could’ve come to a proper judgement in that time, and as far as I’m concerned about the level he can get to, I don’t think any of us have had the time yet to judge or safely say what his full potential is.

Extreme example? A striker our club paid 3.5m for who achieved fuck all and ended up costing us millions to pay off? It’s pertinent to any BRFC debate on signing strikers. Especially when many of the same criticisms (like being a lazy sod) have been nonchalantly placed on Big Ben.

Why do you and others see the pointing out the “over critical” comments as some sort of attempt to shut down debate?

You're welcome to criticise whatever and whoever you want, just like I am allowed to suggest that particular comment is wrong from my perspective.

It applies to everyone - you could take (as many did) umbridge at the notion that I felt a multimillion pound deal for an English 19 year old striker with potential was a good idea.

As for the straw-man on the end of your post, I don’t think anybody needs to be told that the club would be rightfully and heavily criticised if it allows investments like AA slip away for nowt! Speaking of AA - a 3 million pound investment in a player, who at the time was a “risk” because he’d never achieved it in the championship!

So could I flip that and say that because he is not Alan Shearer, Chris Sutton, Matt Jansen, Roque Santa Cruz, Craig Bellamy, Jordan Rhodes, that I am not happy with a player? A reasonable standard to expect lies in between expensive mercenary and brilliant player. No one has made a direct comparison to Leon Best regarding poor application/effort, and indeed I think that at times his effort and work rate did appear to be below the player we see this season charging around everywhere. 

The judgement does not come from where the player comes from, indeed every signing is a risk and the manager has to try and manage and calculate that risk with the resources available and is open for judgement both positive and negative dependant on the success of that player. At the time of the end of the second season, it was very difficult to make a constructive case as to the potential he had, indeed some of the most optimistic posters on here were regularly critical of the signing. If your mentality with a young player is either to praise or withhold judgement that is fair enough but if a player does not appear to be showing much ability or quality then of course I suspect you will be in the minority in withholding judgement indefinitely.

I feel like quite ironically in the last few pages of this thread, widespread praise and optimism is now being drowned out by a need to revert back to prior to this season when Brereton was not doing so well and needlessly bringing up online criticism that was justified in most minds and making out that the fans were unnecessarily harsh to him, werent supporting him etc and it is a narrative that will probably provoke a lot of people.

[tomphil]

Just now, JBiz said:

The criticism at the time was related to a poor spell at Bolton if I recall. Turned out a banger. Now looking more and more top flight.

... and I hope you’re well too Phil 

All good thanks, nice to see you in the opposite corner again and fair play for sticking to your guns with Brereton.

As for Arma i don't think it represented much of a risk as he must've had best part of 30 goals to his name by then. Clearly had something about him and if it had flunked it wasn't a massive hit although his 15 grand a week would've taken some shifting.

Edited December 1, 2020 by tomphil

[JacknOry]

BB cost 3 times the amount of AA - the latter having a lot more experience. Not sure what this argument is about tbh, player plays well, gets plaudits, doesn't play well gets criticism - been that way since year dot.  Why not just enjoy the fact that most of us now have to eat humble pie - and I DO mean MOST of us. 

[JBiz]

2 hours ago, JacknOry said:

BB cost 3 times the amount of AA - the latter having a lot more experience. Not sure what this argument is about tbh, player plays well, gets plaudits, doesn't play well gets criticism - been that way since year dot.  Why not just enjoy the fact that most of us now have to eat humble pie - and I DO mean MOST of us. 

I guess one point of mine regarding this is one came with AA 101 league apps when bought, BB 53...

Newcastle wanted to sell, perhaps Notts Forest less so? I can’t see how 2 years difference, and a minor argument of more Championship apps for BB cost double, and I can understand people’s view on that discrepancy, but transfer deals are never £ for £ the same.
 

All come with an element of risk, more so at 19 and 6/7m.
 

My annoyance with many of the so called “humble pie eaters” (Which sounds more like a problem in Wigan atm) was a lack of patience for his age, to even give benefit of the doubt for certain mistakes or lack of impact. 
 

Arma is 2 years in front of Ben. Experience, maturity of decision making - massive for modern day forwards.
 

Some players like Harvey Elliott have so much ability at young age they’re above Championship standard at 17. Doesn’t mean he will make top level - but I wonder what it would cost to get him on a permanent?

[47er]

8 hours ago, S8 & Blue said:

I’m a big, big, happy clapper on the TM and BB front and even I think that theory is a bit silly.

If anything though - spending 6m on a “ready made player” back then to go into a squad that hadn’t been built properly yet and wasn’t near ready to challenge for a couple of years may have been the bigger waste of money -  instead spending it on one of the most highly rated youngsters in the country to mature as we did.

Again, all hindsight though. 

Not my fault none of you can recognise a footballer ?

A joke yes? Faced with an open goal Brereton had 2 options for 2 seasons:

1) hit the woodwork

2) trip over his own ankles

We are all delighted he's come good but there was nothing to suggest it and you pretending you had the greater insight is laughable.

 

[47er]

7 minutes ago, JBiz said:

Arma is 2 years in front of Ben. Experience, maturity of decision making - massive for modern day forwards.

At 17 Elliott is a far better player than Brereton. Rooney was a regular first team player at 16 and there are plenty of other examples.

They were worth top dollar, Brereton not so. You can argue till you are blue in the face (and I know you will!) but its all about the fee.

We could and should have done much better for that sort of money at that time.

His signing didn't help the team at all. In fact he had a negative effect---we played him when he had nothing to offer.

If the truth is that he was a speculative investment for Balaji then that's how we should judge the success or otherwise of that transfer deal.

Nothing to do with football and all about money for the owners.

[47er]

8 hours ago, Hasta said:

Brereton had chances and didn't do that for two whole season. I've posted stats on this thread about how may of his appearances were 25minute+ appearances alongside his starts. It wasn't a string of 5 minute cameo's in which he consistently showed nothing.

 

This

[K-Hod]

9 hours ago, S8 & Blue said:

I’m a big, big, happy clapper on the TM and BB front and even I think that theory is a bit silly.

If anything though - spending 6m on a “ready made player” back then to go into a squad that hadn’t been built properly yet and wasn’t near ready to challenge for a couple of years may have been the bigger waste of money -  instead spending it on one of the most highly rated youngsters in the country to mature as we did.

Again, all hindsight though. 

Not my fault none of you can recognise a footballer ?

We’re Blackburn Rovers, not Man City. When we spend £7 Million on a player, we need them to be ready to get straight in the first team, we haven’t got the cash for that!

I’m glad Brereton has been playing well, I’m dead pleased for him and everyone associated with the club, it’s to all our benefit that he does!

However much game time he had or didn’t have doesn’t matter, he’s doing well now, so what is the issue? Does it really matter what someone nobody has ever met said online two years ago? 

The way people are going on is like fans were regularly sending Brereton those kidnap style letters with words cut out of newspapers. (Obviously red tops, such letter writers would be too thick to read broadsheets). 

 

[roversfan99]

The fee does play apart but even without it, he wasnt looking any better than poor players like Nuttall and Samuel.

[JBiz]

1 hour ago, 47er said:

At 17 Elliott is a far better player than Brereton. Rooney was a regular first team player at 16 and there are plenty of other examples.

They were worth top dollar, Brereton not so. You can argue till you are blue in the face (and I know you will!) but its all about the fee.

We could and should have done much better for that sort of money at that time.

His signing didn't help the team at all. In fact he had a negative effect---we played him when he had nothing to offer.

If the truth is that he was a speculative investment for Balaji then that's how we should judge the success or otherwise of that transfer deal.

Nothing to do with football and all about money for the owners.

I didn’t compare them, you did. I asked how much he’d be in this climate, any input on that?

You’d have to elaborate further on the part in bold because I’ve no idea what you’re on about 

[JBiz]

1 hour ago, K-Hod said:

We’re Blackburn Rovers, not Man City. When we spend £7 Million on a player, we need them to be ready to get straight in the first team, we haven’t got the cash for that!

I’m glad Brereton has been playing well, I’m dead pleased for him and everyone associated with the club, it’s to all our benefit that he does!

However much game time he had or didn’t have doesn’t matter, he’s doing well now, so what is the issue? Does it really matter what someone nobody has ever met said online two years ago? 

The way people are going on is like fans were regularly sending Brereton those kidnap style letters with words cut out of newspapers. (Obviously red tops, such letter writers would be too thick to read broadsheets). 

 

We spent more than 7m in one season in sacking managers “allegedly” and that was nearly a decade ago. 

It’s 2020 - when prem stable money Bunla can’t match top Champ wages, some in region of 4 year 10+million contracts, it makes no sense to see 7m as a “talismanic” mega splurge. 

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with criticising a player after for perceived lack of performance and effort, as long as you agree there is no issue with suggesting such criticism of a 19 year old only partially involved was critical then, and looks even more stupid now.
 

Equally - it’s absolutely fair game to say we could’ve spent the money better at the time, and it’s absolutely fine to suggest transfer business isn’t easy with certain limitations. 
 

We’re all buzzing one of our lads is performing well, that’s something we all agree on.

[47er]

13 minutes ago, JBiz said:

I didn’t compare them, you did. I asked how much he’d be in this climate, any input on that?

You’d have to elaborate further on the part in bold because I’ve no idea what you’re on about 

Biz,  I'm not falling into the old trap of arguing with you till I lose the will to live. You've obviously come back re-energised, but I haven't!

In this climate he wouldn't be worth near the £7M we paid. imo, but transfer values have skyrocketed since we signed him so who know's?

However had we signed someone else, their value would have increased at least as much especially if they hadn't flopped for 2 years.

As to the bit in bold, its not difficult, try harder.

[bluebruce]

37 minutes ago, JBiz said:

We spent more than 7m in one season in sacking managers “allegedly” and that was nearly a decade ago. 

It’s 2020 - when prem stable money Bunla can’t match top Champ wages, some in region of 4 year 10+million contracts, it makes no sense to see 7m as a “talismanic” mega splurge. 

It makes no sense to compare what top (financially) Champ clubs spend to what we spend. Most of them have parachute money- much like we did when we spent a ton firing managers. The others will probably fail FFP if they don't go up soon, or have been sneaky around the restrictions in a way we clearly aren't willing to be.

7 million was very much a talismanic figure for the newly promoted, natural cash flow deprived, FFP-beholden Blackburn Rovers of 2018 to spend on a single 19-year old striker with 9 goals to his name, and to think otherwise is to ignore reality. It was a serious statement of intent, and a huge gamble, and nothing subsequent to it happening will ever change that.

There isn't a sane Rovers fan who isn't delighted the gamble is finally paying dividends.

[SBlue]

10 hours ago, 47er said:

A joke yes? Faced with an open goal Brereton had 2 options for 2 seasons:

1) hit the woodwork

2) trip over his own ankles

We are all delighted he's come good but there was nothing to suggest it and you pretending you had the greater insight is laughable.

 

Half joke.

You're allowed to watch games of other teams FYI 

We didn’t sign him on a dare

[JBiz]

9 hours ago, bluebruce said:

 

7 million was very much a talismanic figure for the newly promoted, natural cash flow deprived, FFP-beholden Blackburn Rovers of 2018 to spend on a single 19-year old striker with 9 goals to his name, and to think otherwise is to ignore reality. It was a serious statement of intent, and a huge gamble, and nothing subsequent to it happening will ever change that.

There isn't a sane Rovers fan who isn't delighted the gamble is finally paying dividends.

I disagree - we went for the likes of Bamford and Celina but couldn’t get near wage demands. Hence assumption the deal we did didn’t go beyond a budget.

My view then, people “ignored reality” when using the fee to expect instant success. 

Age, previous experience and him being 3rd or 4th choice on our shortlist suggested (at the time) to me that this was one for further down the line.

[K-Hod]

10 hours ago, JBiz said:

We spent more than 7m in one season in sacking managers “allegedly” and that was nearly a decade ago. 

It’s 2020 - when prem stable money Bunla can’t match top Champ wages, some in region of 4 year 10+million contracts, it makes no sense to see 7m as a “talismanic” mega splurge. 

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with criticising a player after for perceived lack of performance and effort, as long as you agree there is no issue with suggesting such criticism of a 19 year old only partially involved was critical then, and looks even more stupid now.
 

Equally - it’s absolutely fair game to say we could’ve spent the money better at the time, and it’s absolutely fine to suggest transfer business isn’t easy with certain limitations. 
 

We’re all buzzing one of our lads is performing well, that’s something we all agree on.

Yeah, and look what that has meant for our balance sheet. Hence my concern that he’s taken two years to properly get going, whatever the reasons. 
 

So basically, you’re agreeing that everyone is right to have an opinion and they all have a point? 

[47er]

1 hour ago, S8 & Blue said:

Half joke.

You're allowed to watch games of other teams FYI 

We didn’t sign him on a dare

No, we signed him on a wing and a prayer!