egg

Fran Hunter, our vision and awareness coach. She's well thought of in the game and has worked with top clubs and players. Basically looks to improve the awareness of players in terms of who's around them and where the ball is etc. Sounds odd but the story I've heard about her working with ronaldo involved getting him to the point where with a corner coming over, the lights were turned off but he still headed the ball into the net.

Cheers Del, I'll hang my head in shame.

Can't get into specifics Tokes. My criminal practice spanned a very broad range. Anyways, the popint is that people shouldn't be thinking that people found "not guilty" are always innocent and that the accuser is a liar.

Many tell you after they've been acquited! If they tell you before the trial you can't put forward a positive case for the defence (ie call evidence) but you can challenge the prosecution case. In that situation it's sensible to withdraw and let them find new lawyers and start again. Client's rarely walk walk into your office saying "I'm innocent". Instead they want your help to "get them off". That involves attacking the prosecution case or leaving them to mess it up which in my time they were very good at.

Correct. A Not Guilty verdict often doesn't prove innocence and/or that the accuser was lying. When I ran a criminal defence practice the vast majority of the Defendants who were acquited had committed the crime. The fact that I played a part in keeping abusers, thugs, thieves and other toerags on the streets is the reason I gave up that work years ago.

I too would like to know the answers. Has nobody answered yet?

Good luck getting answers to relevant questions.

I'm not missing your point. I don't buy that we would veto a prem move, Puncheon is a case in point. He's a championship player who will attract a championship club. They won't pay his wages. Billy can stay and take his wage or take a cut if he wants a move. That's his choice, not the club.

And why do you think we bought someone else? Perhaps we thought Billy wasn't good enough and/or new boy was better.

He was clearly bench warming for a replacement in the first couple of games. Mayuka was a young central striker shoved out wide in a league well above what he was used too. He was a bit of a car crash but his ability has been proven at international level. Simple question, based on the pedigree of Sharp and Mayuka was it not reasonable to pick Mayuka over Sharp? Forget hindsight, look at the situation as it was when Mayuka arrived.

What? You misunderstand me. You should only be on the bench or in the 25 if you're good enough to start. Billy isn't.

I agree benjii, I'm only mentioning other players cos apparently Billy deserves a chance just in case he is actually good enough. I'm trying to understand why that rule applies to billy but not the others. Sadly Alpine etc can't answer that point.

Should Forte, Barnard, Martin, Lee get the same opportunity just in case the coaches got it wrong? We're Hammond and Chaplow denied an opportunity too?

I don't buy that story. We allowed Puncheon to move to a prem club so why not Billy? It's about money I would guess. The club won't want to subsidise a move. If I'm right the club are doing nothing wrong in taking that stance.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary I'll assume the managers have assessed the players and chosen their squad. Sharp's inclusion in pre season means nothing. Look at Guly and Isgrove this pre season. Simply, Sharp was cast aside as it was believed Mayuka was a better option. Sadly he didn't fulfil his potential. With hindsight I doubt Sharp would have done much worse than Mayuka. To be fair Forte and Barnard would have done no less than Mayuka but like Sharp I don't think would have done any better.

What are you babbling about? Of course my opinion that he's not good enough is my opinion. What are other opinion could I express? Jeez. Anyway, what about my earlier question?

That's the nature of football. Martin, Forte, Barnard are on an outrageous wage and won't go anywhere if they don't lower his wage expectations. They can sit tight and get paid if they want but its their choice. Hammond moved on and I'm doubtful he's earning the same as he did here. The club are doing nothing wrong.

Your 1st point makes my point. The manager assessed then both and preferred Mayuka. Your 2nd point is impossible to answer. Mayuka was a let down, no doubt about it but whether Billy would have done better is speculation. My opinion though is that he would have struggled in the prem but we'll never know.

You gonna explain why personal tragedy and charity work makes a player deserving of a chance? You gonna explain why Billy's commitment to the cause makes him more deserving of a prem chance than, for example, Hammond who after all helped us to 2 promotions?

It's a silly question as the manager didn't have the benefit of hindsight when he made his decision. That said, I think Mayuka has more ability and pace than Billy and I can understand why he was chosen ahead of him. I get the point that Billy could have snatched a late goal from the bench but I'm of the 'if you're not good enough to start you're not good enough to be on the bench' school of thought.

I haven't mentioned RL but he got his chance as he's good enough. Please answer the question.

In what way? Nobody will buy him or take him on loan cos of wages. The club aren't involving him as he's not in the managers plans. Please explain in simple terms how he's being treated like crap.

Of the rubbish you've posted that's up there. Doing charity work and suffering in his family life does not make Billy a prem player and/or deserving of a chance. Do those factors make him more deserving of a squad place than say Hammond was? You deserve a chance if you're good enough. He isn't.

No, they're different players with different abilities. If you want comparables within our club look at Hammond, Barnard, Chaplow, Forte. They weren't good enough either. The thing is the vast majority of us knew that the above 4 weren't up to it. All of them played a role in getting us from league 1. Hammond arguably played a bigger role than Billy. Based on your, and others, argument that Billy might have been good enough if we just gave the poor lad a crack presumably you say that 4 should all have had a crack too? I just don't get why Billy is so deserving of much more sentiment and support than his peers.

Goal scoring in the lower leagues and pre season kickabouts hardly prove he's good enough for the prem. It's should be obvious to anyone who's seen him play that he's not enough for the prem. Adkins and Pochetino have assssed him correctly.