Jump to content

Kieron Freeman

Ambitious

By Ambitious
in Transfer Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 308
  • Created
  • Last Reply
p.shilton

p.shilton

Posted
Posted

You're quite the pessimistic fan aren't you shilton.

Not at all mate- over all I am quite optimistic, have not doubted the club or what we have tried to achieve over the past 5 years- more than most fans on here can say. That was an attempt humour!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Albert

Albert

Posted
Posted

In Cloughs interview on Rams Player when asked about anymore incomings hes says hes happy with the defence and the cover for the defence, he talks about Freeman asif hes our player but i still havent seen anything official.

Same with Gjokaj, sounds like he's pretty much signed apart from some things to do with the medical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
observer

observer

Posted
Posted

just out of interest what could be the reasons for this hold up, they say issues on his medical...

I would of thought this would be pretty straightforward, or is it a case a doctor says we think he may potentially probably have an issue with his knee we need a second opinion??? or sorting out insurance or something

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Albert

Albert

Posted
Posted

I know he did, he played against Sheffield Wednesday as well... The point was that Nigel had referenced Gjokaj as having signed before he had (about 2-3 days before he signed). It seems as though its a similar situation where we are just waiting for all the details to be sorted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StaffsRam

StaffsRam

Posted
Posted

I know he did, he played against Sheffield Wednesday as well... The point was that Nigel had referenced Gjokaj as having signed before he had (about 2-3 days before he signed). It seems as though its a similar situation where we are just waiting for all the details to be sorted.

Hopefully. 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Albert

Albert

Posted
Posted

Would have expected the sentence to include "He'd" rather than "He's" if that were the case.

However, no worries either way. 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />

Eh?

Same with Gjokaj, sounds like he's pretty much signed apart from some things to do with the medical.

Let's try this:

"Same with Gjokaj, sounds like he would pretty much signed apart from some things to do with the medical."

That doesn't even make sense. It is meant to be:

"Same with Gjokaj, sounds like he has pretty much signed apart from some things to do with the medical."

Which makes more sense. Basically, it was meant to be: "Same with Gjokaj (that is, like Gjokaj he was mentioned by Clough as our player before he had signed), sounds like he's (he has, 'he' here is referencing Freeman) pretty much signed apart from some things to do with the medical."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StaffsRam

StaffsRam

Posted
Posted

Eh?

Let's try this:

"Same with Gjokaj, sounds like he would pretty much signed apart from some things to do with the medical."

That doesn't even make sense. It is meant to be:

"Same with Gjokaj, sounds like he has pretty much signed apart from some things to do with the medical."

Which makes more sense. Basically, it was meant to be: "Same with Gjokaj (that is, like Gjokaj he was mentioned by Clough as our player before he had signed), sounds like he's (he has, 'he' here is referencing Freeman) pretty much signed apart from some things to do with the medical."

For the point you're trying to get across, your tensing is wrong.

The sentence should be "Same with Gjokaj, sounds like he'd pretty much signed apart from some things to do with the medical."

However do we really need to argue semantics? From your original post I didn't think that you knew he'd signed. You obviously did, so fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Albert

Albert

Posted
Posted

For the point you're trying to get across, your tensing is wrong.

The sentence should be "Same with Gjokaj, sounds like he'd pretty much signed apart from some things to do with the medical."

However do we really need to argue semantics? From your original post I didn't think that you knew he'd signed. You obviously did, so fair enough.

Again, he'd isn't a tense, its a contraction of 'he would'. As such you're saying that I should have said:

"Same with Gjokaj, sounds like he would pretty much signed apart from some things to do with the medical."

Which doesn't even make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StaffsRam

StaffsRam

Posted
Posted

Again, he'd isn't a tense, its a contraction of 'he would'. As such you're saying that I should have said:

"Same with Gjokaj, sounds like he would pretty much signed apart from some things to do with the medical."

Which doesn't even make sense.

No, it's a contraction of "he had", which is past tense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Albert

Albert

Posted
Posted

No, it's a contraction of "he had", which is past tense.

Actually, its can be both, and here I did state it was being used in such a context.

However, it did completely slip my mind that it could be he had, which does make sense in the context. Thanks for clearing that up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StaffsRam

StaffsRam

Posted
Posted
Derby are set to add 20-year-old Nottingham Forest full- back Kieron Freeman.

They hope to have him signed in time to play in the Under-21 League fixture at Leeds United tomorrow.

[url=http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/New-striker-Conor-Sammon-hopes-Premier-League/story-16739200-detail/story.html]http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/New-striker-Conor-Sammon-hopes-Premier-League/story-16739200-detail/story.html

Hoping that means today then.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...