Jump to content

Darren Ambrose


Srg

Recommended Posts

Well it would take a lot for a single player, the most we have paid in the championship for a single player thus far was 900k for barker so why would they spend 2 million on one? it isn't going to happen and there are better clubs who would want him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Well it would take a lot for a single player, the most we have paid in the championship for a single player thus far was 900k for barker so why would they spend 2 million on one? it isn't going to happen and there are better clubs who would want him.

Shakell is over £1m and the reported bid on Waghorn is £1.25m. I agree it would be a massive fee, but earlier in the thread someone has said QPR have bid just £1.2m, so would it really take £2m ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shakell is over £1m and the reported bid on Waghorn is £1.25m. I agree it would be a massive fee, but earlier in the thread someone has said QPR have bid just £1.2m, so would it really take £2m ?

Why would they bid that, that's just insulting. They should get their money out and offer that £2 mil like the papers said! That's how it works isn't it?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Massive fee or not, i think this summer has been planned for along time....we have'nt missed a target yet....the money needed and wage bill will have been worked out to the last peeny...you're mad if you think that another player for around 1 million is coming.....unless a bigger fee is gained for Varney etc than what we were anticipating.

(after Shackell and Waghorn)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well we dont need waghorn anymore, due to the amount of strikers we have so the reported 1.2M may go on ambrose ?

Could well do....who knows, it's only guessing, but maybe we didn't expect to get Tyson....he did reportedly turn us down and held talks with Millwall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't need Waghorn? What?! While we're at it lets drop the Shackell deal because we've already got some centrehalves! Signing him has nothing to do with signing a striker who will be the goal threat or anything!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't need Waghorn? What?! While we're at it lets drop the Shackell deal because we've already got some centrehalves! Signing him has nothing to do with signing a striker who will be the goal threat or anything!

Nice useage of the exclamation mark there.

Sarcasm 6/10

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't need Waghorn? What?! While we're at it lets drop the Shackell deal because we've already got some centrehalves! Signing him has nothing to do with signing a striker who will be the goal threat or anything!

well last year when we played well we had kuqi, who scored about twice for us but oh well its all about a big name player coming, not like it was the attacking 3 that scored all the goals or anything and its not like ambrose would play this attacking 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...