BOROCHAT
Newest article: Re: Cambridge by Rob SBFCToday 20:56Today at 20:56:58view thread
Oldest article: Tomorrow by Sev11/10/2024 18:48Fri Oct 11 18:48:53 2024view thread
Next thread: Nathan thompson by Wrighty31/1 14:22Fri Jan 31 14:22:27 2025view thread
Nathan Thompson
Views: 1382
Gone to MK Franchise
https://x.com/mkdonsfc/status/1882881056329834906?s=46
Revs Out!
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 447
Out for the season with a knee injury.
Couldn't happen to a nicer club.
Feel for Nathan tho'.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 508
One might suggest it's turned out to be an awesome bit of business.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 1084
He's been good for us, although I think realistically may become 4th choice.
Hope his brother doesn't follow!
Wonder if we'll get a loanee in as back up.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 754
Anyone who thinks Sweeney is a better player than him needs their head testing.
Nathan's been brilliant whenever he's been called upon. Let's hope Goode stays fit!
Edited by RockyBottom at 10:46:43 on 25th January 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
7 people
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 1111
FFS Revs. You better have a better replacement
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 831
PGarni, Sweeney, Goode, Freestone to name but a few
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 1287
WHAT THE FUDGE.
I've had enough of this club.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 1263
Hope PW enjoys the money 💰
I’m off to cry myself to sleep
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 1300
Extra funds to sign goal scoring machine Joe Westley next season.
reply to this article | return to the front page
7 people
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 972
If nothing else our playing budget must have increased or stabilised.Two Thompaons gone plus Simpson Pressley loans and assume the clubs are paying or contributing to salary .Even H Smith and Cochrane gone and although assume small salaries freed up.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 755
Plus Aboh who we must have paid some of his salary. Hopefully all making way for an incoming.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 657
Think I posted last week heard 4 incoming Inc a striker.
PS source someone who knows one of the senior management .Make of it what you want .
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 698
We won't get 4 out of 4 targets.
We might get 4 players who'll all be sold to us as "we've wanted him and have been tracking him for ages, he really fits in to our DNA" only to sit on the bench and make 3 sub appearances.
Not many January signings work. Its mostly desperate clubs fighting for survival paying over the odds and clubs offloading bad summer signings.
They should scrap it.
reply to this article | return to the front page
5 people
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 627
Totally agree. The only players usually available are either overpriced or have under achieved elsewhere. Last year's January window was actually a hindrance – having brought in Oliver, Evans felt obliged to play him, to the detriment of results. The same applied, to a lesser extent, to McGillivray.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 631
Actually agree both windows should be gone In fact can't remember the reasons it was sold to us as a good idea anyway.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 641
100% clubs should be able to buy and sell 365 days a year, if the player is cup-tied, they're cup tied.
The only caveat would be they can only move once in the same league per annum.
Other than that if Leeds want to buy half of Liverpool to get them over the line in April, and they've got the finance, why shouldn't they.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 606
Other than that if Leeds want to buy half of Liverpool to get them over the line in April, and they've got the finance, why shouldn't they.
Because Leeds not going up would be funny.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 612
I wouldn't be happy if say Wrexham fucked up and decided to just buy half our squad in February.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 671
Boot on the other foot, if we had the money and needed a replacement striker for the run-in to secure promotion/survival...
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 546
Law of the jungle I suppose.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 1150
The only plausible reasoning behind this move
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 1225
Money now or nothing in 6 months. He was leaving anyway.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 1154
Sad news. Our POTS.
BUT. We’ve got a fee for a 34 year old. And we will be in league 1 next season regardless.
Good luck Thommo
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 1160
And we will be in league 1 next season regardless.
Let's not count our chickens too soon.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 998
Exactly
10 points off the play offs, here we come!
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 1165
For me he’s been our best player this season
reply to this article | return to the front page
4 people
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 1153
After reading PWs explanation, I can't say I mind.
Out of contract in the summer, offered new deal and said he doesn't want to sign.
Good bit of business
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 940
Assume we offered new contract to June 26 but they offered longer or higher salary Can't blame him at his age.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 895
Two and half years to our one and a half.
No brainer at age 34 for a L1 footballer. They've probably matched his wage and put a promotion bonus on the table to match whatever he wouldn't have got here this season.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 1129
Fucking great player but we can't be sentimental about players who don't want to be at the club.
Before Goode's injury we seemed to have a CB too many anyway - don't know if Freestone is deemed good enough to play there since he's been relegated to a not particularly good auxiliary left back.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 1073
Definitely think we need to sign a CB in the next week given Goode's injury record.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 992
We have Goode, Sweeney and Freestone, we are fine.
The latter two are not as good as NT (although Sweeney offers more goal threat down the other end), but Goode looked quality and all three can do a job.
We weren't going up or down, we still aren't, so cash in on a player we would otherwise lose for nothing in a few months.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 1058
I think we need a left back more than a centre back, particularly with Butler's injury sounding fairly serious. Freestone was good against Orient but I'd rather not rely on him there
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Nathan Thompson
Views: 1042
Nah, got Luther and Freestone as cover.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Previous thread: 🎙️SFC POD: HollyWood Dream / S6 EP47 by Boromatt29/1 20:22Wed Jan 29 20:22:35 2025view thread