| Dan James 19:59 - May 11 with 3773 views | max936 |
Sent off in Leeds v Chelsea game, it was a bad one  |  | | |  |
| Dan James on 12:56 - May 12 with 995 views | Chief |
| Dan James on 12:51 - May 12 by STID2017 |
Agree, we should have told Leeds to do one and come back with a decent bid. |
Yes absolutely. But the propaganda bot is trying to spin the facts again so that they favour the Americans.
Even though all the facts and logic produce the opposite outcome. |  |
| |
| Dan James on 13:04 - May 12 with 991 views | STID2017 |
| Dan James on 12:56 - May 12 by Chief |
Yes absolutely. But the propaganda bot is trying to spin the facts again so that they favour the Americans.
Even though all the facts and logic produce the opposite outcome. |
If the stories about Jenkins refusing to sanction the deal at the last minute are to be believed, it was an excellent piece of work by him, even if he had blotted his copy book by selling us down the Tawe by then |  |
| |
| Dan James on 14:12 - May 12 with 960 views | Chief |
| Dan James on 13:04 - May 12 by STID2017 |
If the stories about Jenkins refusing to sanction the deal at the last minute are to be believed, it was an excellent piece of work by him, even if he had blotted his copy book by selling us down the Tawe by then |
Oh yes absolutely fantastic parting gift from outgoing Huw, that can't be denied.
But he or the club, the player etc should never have been in that situation in the first place. | |
| |
| Dan James on 14:15 - May 12 with 959 views | STID2017 |
| Dan James on 14:12 - May 12 by Chief |
Oh yes absolutely fantastic parting gift from outgoing Huw, that can't be denied.
But he or the club, the player etc should never have been in that situation in the first place. |
Agree | |
| |
| Dan James on 14:21 - May 12 with 953 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Dan James on 13:04 - May 12 by STID2017 |
If the stories about Jenkins refusing to sanction the deal at the last minute are to be believed, it was an excellent piece of work by him, even if he had blotted his copy book by selling us down the Tawe by then |
Depends who "US" is. If "us" is the SCST then he gave them a 10,000% return on their investment and put US buyers on a table in front of them with bulging wallets in 2015 and 2016 when the club was in the Premier league. The rest was down to them to make a deal.
Your narrative is fake of being "sold down the river".
The semi Socialist narrative of good working people being outmaneuvered by American ultra capitalists and their Welsh lackies filling their pockets will always go down well in south Wales where failing and poor economic performance is a way of live for many.
It is hard to blame the fans for the sellers because they are both co owners and customers. The sellers know this. The customer is alway right and Uncle Sam knows this. It does not stop me though. I do not want to meet any of the 1000+ members in person though and would certainly be careful with my words. I was aggressively hounded off a lower quality forum owned by a Trust board member for my correct predictions. |  |
| |
| Dan James on 14:29 - May 12 with 950 views | STID2017 |
| Dan James on 14:21 - May 12 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Depends who "US" is. If "us" is the SCST then he gave them a 10,000% return on their investment and put US buyers on a table in front of them with bulging wallets in 2015 and 2016 when the club was in the Premier league. The rest was down to them to make a deal.
Your narrative is fake of being "sold down the river".
The semi Socialist narrative of good working people being outmaneuvered by American ultra capitalists and their Welsh lackies filling their pockets will always go down well in south Wales where failing and poor economic performance is a way of live for many.
It is hard to blame the fans for the sellers because they are both co owners and customers. The sellers know this. The customer is alway right and Uncle Sam knows this. It does not stop me though. I do not want to meet any of the 1000+ members in person though and would certainly be careful with my words. I was aggressively hounded off a lower quality forum owned by a Trust board member for my correct predictions. |
I have no axe to grind with the sellers, except that they didn't sell us to people who would truly progress their great work over the years.
They failed to do that and sold us down the river to the highest bidder without due care.
I make no mention of the trust as they could not have prevented the sale.
Move on eh ? | |
| |
| Dan James on 14:45 - May 12 with 947 views | Chief |
| Dan James on 14:21 - May 12 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Depends who "US" is. If "us" is the SCST then he gave them a 10,000% return on their investment and put US buyers on a table in front of them with bulging wallets in 2015 and 2016 when the club was in the Premier league. The rest was down to them to make a deal.
Your narrative is fake of being "sold down the river".
The semi Socialist narrative of good working people being outmaneuvered by American ultra capitalists and their Welsh lackies filling their pockets will always go down well in south Wales where failing and poor economic performance is a way of live for many.
It is hard to blame the fans for the sellers because they are both co owners and customers. The sellers know this. The customer is alway right and Uncle Sam knows this. It does not stop me though. I do not want to meet any of the 1000+ members in person though and would certainly be careful with my words. I was aggressively hounded off a lower quality forum owned by a Trust board member for my correct predictions. |
****random unwarranted dig at supporters trust alert**** | |
| |
| Dan James on 14:49 - May 12 with 930 views | onehunglow |
| Dan James on 14:29 - May 12 by STID2017 |
I have no axe to grind with the sellers, except that they didn't sell us to people who would truly progress their great work over the years.
They failed to do that and sold us down the river to the highest bidder without due care.
I make no mention of the trust as they could not have prevented the sale.
Move on eh ? |
That is absolutely where I am on this matter.
We could have found owners that would have moved us on. Not all billionaire owners or consortia are robbers |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Dan James on 15:56 - May 12 with 901 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Dan James on 14:29 - May 12 by STID2017 |
I have no axe to grind with the sellers, except that they didn't sell us to people who would truly progress their great work over the years.
They failed to do that and sold us down the river to the highest bidder without due care.
I make no mention of the trust as they could not have prevented the sale.
Move on eh ? |
Wrong on so many counts.
a) The US owners are good guardians of the club. They cover the clubs loses and run the club like it always has been run free of debt. This has preserved the Trusts 21% up to Covid. The Trust went the court route as they perceived the owners were "hedgefunders" (probably fake) and asset strippers (Fake) and they would never invest (fake). Levien and SIlverstein are sports investors. Levien has been at DC United for around 10 years and now 6 years at Swansea.
b) Unlike Man Utd and Burnley and probably quite a few other they did not buy the club with debt. It was not a leveraged purchase. If it was, the sellers would not have accepted the bid as three remained owners. It is incorrect there was "no care". You have bought the fake narrative. Burnley will be out of pocket by £13m per season to pay off the loans they took on to buy the club. Manageable in the Premier league but a slog in the Championship.
c) Could the Trust have stopped the sale?. I am not a lawyer but if as they claim the sellers broke the Shareholders agreement presumably they could have served a writ and stopped the sale. This would have dealt with the issue in 2016.
At some point people will start question the narratives fed to them over the last 6 years. It is easy to hate and blame and less easy to self assess and progress.
I am keen to know if the so called "sell outs" contributed to the CLN. One so called "sell out" has taken over the stadium sponsorship.
Sold down the river?. You still believe that stuff? Really? [Post edited 12 May 2022 15:58]
| |
| |
| Dan James on 16:07 - May 12 with 894 views | Chief |
| Dan James on 15:56 - May 12 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Wrong on so many counts.
a) The US owners are good guardians of the club. They cover the clubs loses and run the club like it always has been run free of debt. This has preserved the Trusts 21% up to Covid. The Trust went the court route as they perceived the owners were "hedgefunders" (probably fake) and asset strippers (Fake) and they would never invest (fake). Levien and SIlverstein are sports investors. Levien has been at DC United for around 10 years and now 6 years at Swansea.
b) Unlike Man Utd and Burnley and probably quite a few other they did not buy the club with debt. It was not a leveraged purchase. If it was, the sellers would not have accepted the bid as three remained owners. It is incorrect there was "no care". You have bought the fake narrative. Burnley will be out of pocket by £13m per season to pay off the loans they took on to buy the club. Manageable in the Premier league but a slog in the Championship.
c) Could the Trust have stopped the sale?. I am not a lawyer but if as they claim the sellers broke the Shareholders agreement presumably they could have served a writ and stopped the sale. This would have dealt with the issue in 2016.
At some point people will start question the narratives fed to them over the last 6 years. It is easy to hate and blame and less easy to self assess and progress.
I am keen to know if the so called "sell outs" contributed to the CLN. One so called "sell out" has taken over the stadium sponsorship.
Sold down the river?. You still believe that stuff? Really? [Post edited 12 May 2022 15:58]
|
- You're making things up again and creating these fake narratives that you enjoying preaching about. Where have the trust said the Americans are hedgefunders or that they'd never invest? Although technically as it stands that remains true.
- what fake narrative is there about no care then? Or are you just pretending there is one?
- probably, but instead like responsible shareholders the trust decided to at least give the parties a chance to negotiate instead of plunging the club into real limbo.
- what narratives? Who's been feeding them? Who's been eating them? We're in the championship and finished 15th, surely it's likely that a lot of these 'narratives' (opinions) have come to fruition and will continue to do so.
- you're the epitome of blame culture. You've relentlessly blamed and slurred the trust repeatedly for years on a daily basis for a huge multitude of issues most of which well beyond their control. You're audacity as usual knows no bounds.
- I've told you - the latest information the trust does have suggests the selllouts aren't involved in the CLN. Yes stadium sponsorship that our owners haven't managed to monetise for years prior to this.
But
****Random unwarranted dig at supporters trust alert****
Stick to Dan James | |
| |
| Dan James on 16:28 - May 12 with 873 views | jasper_T |
| Dan James on 12:41 - May 12 by Chief |
- What did Leeds do wrong then? A cheeky bid aye, but they're perfectly entitled to do that.
- The silliness was from our end with the Americans letting the transfer get so far advanced on such awful terms for the swans.
- who got little support? Potter? You're the one constantly moaning about his transfer buys? |
They came in with a cheeky bid. And then changed the bid. And then it was a loan not a transfer. And then they didn't want to pay anything until the end of the season. And then Huw stopped answering his phone and they cried about it in their documentary. How could mean old Swansea City do this to poor Dan?!?
He could have been theirs for no more than £5m the first week of January, but they played silly bggers all month instead. | | | |
| Dan James on 16:29 - May 12 with 868 views | STID2017 |
| Dan James on 15:56 - May 12 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Wrong on so many counts.
a) The US owners are good guardians of the club. They cover the clubs loses and run the club like it always has been run free of debt. This has preserved the Trusts 21% up to Covid. The Trust went the court route as they perceived the owners were "hedgefunders" (probably fake) and asset strippers (Fake) and they would never invest (fake). Levien and SIlverstein are sports investors. Levien has been at DC United for around 10 years and now 6 years at Swansea.
b) Unlike Man Utd and Burnley and probably quite a few other they did not buy the club with debt. It was not a leveraged purchase. If it was, the sellers would not have accepted the bid as three remained owners. It is incorrect there was "no care". You have bought the fake narrative. Burnley will be out of pocket by £13m per season to pay off the loans they took on to buy the club. Manageable in the Premier league but a slog in the Championship.
c) Could the Trust have stopped the sale?. I am not a lawyer but if as they claim the sellers broke the Shareholders agreement presumably they could have served a writ and stopped the sale. This would have dealt with the issue in 2016.
At some point people will start question the narratives fed to them over the last 6 years. It is easy to hate and blame and less easy to self assess and progress.
I am keen to know if the so called "sell outs" contributed to the CLN. One so called "sell out" has taken over the stadium sponsorship.
Sold down the river?. You still believe that stuff? Really? [Post edited 12 May 2022 15:58]
|
Where did I say I hate anyone ?
Not in my nature.
Yes it is my belief based on what I have observed with my own eyes and ears that the sellers, who in my opinion were entitled to take their profit, failed to carry out due diligence on the new owners.
The new owners may have passed all tests required but all the good financial work done by Jenkins and co has been undone.
In a misguided attempt to buy Premier League safety at all costs, they consequently squandered the parachute payments and four short years on we are £4 million in debt
It is my opinion that they sold us down the river - I have bought into nothing.
However you are beginning to ruin every thread with this nonsense now.
Please start a dedicated thread and keep it on that ? [Post edited 12 May 2022 16:32]
| |
| |
| Dan James on 16:33 - May 12 with 860 views | Chief |
| Dan James on 16:28 - May 12 by jasper_T |
They came in with a cheeky bid. And then changed the bid. And then it was a loan not a transfer. And then they didn't want to pay anything until the end of the season. And then Huw stopped answering his phone and they cried about it in their documentary. How could mean old Swansea City do this to poor Dan?!?
He could have been theirs for no more than £5m the first week of January, but they played silly bggers all month instead. |
Well £5mill was demonstrably way to low to start with so by not nipping it in the bud then and then still hanging in negotiations with Leeds hanging the terms to the point that James even went up there was ridiculous. We're more to blame than Leeds who were understandably after a bargain. Thankfully Huw ended the madness. | |
| |
| Dan James on 16:58 - May 12 with 843 views | builthjack |
| Dan James on 15:56 - May 12 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Wrong on so many counts.
a) The US owners are good guardians of the club. They cover the clubs loses and run the club like it always has been run free of debt. This has preserved the Trusts 21% up to Covid. The Trust went the court route as they perceived the owners were "hedgefunders" (probably fake) and asset strippers (Fake) and they would never invest (fake). Levien and SIlverstein are sports investors. Levien has been at DC United for around 10 years and now 6 years at Swansea.
b) Unlike Man Utd and Burnley and probably quite a few other they did not buy the club with debt. It was not a leveraged purchase. If it was, the sellers would not have accepted the bid as three remained owners. It is incorrect there was "no care". You have bought the fake narrative. Burnley will be out of pocket by £13m per season to pay off the loans they took on to buy the club. Manageable in the Premier league but a slog in the Championship.
c) Could the Trust have stopped the sale?. I am not a lawyer but if as they claim the sellers broke the Shareholders agreement presumably they could have served a writ and stopped the sale. This would have dealt with the issue in 2016.
At some point people will start question the narratives fed to them over the last 6 years. It is easy to hate and blame and less easy to self assess and progress.
I am keen to know if the so called "sell outs" contributed to the CLN. One so called "sell out" has taken over the stadium sponsorship.
Sold down the river?. You still believe that stuff? Really? [Post edited 12 May 2022 15:58]
|
Just one question.
If the club had no debt, why did the club have to sell every player worth anything when relegation came?
After all, we had parachute payments to come. |  |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| Dan James on 17:10 - May 12 with 832 views | Flynnidine_Zidownes |
| Dan James on 12:14 - May 12 by ReslovenSwan1 |
He is on course to surpass both Ryan Gogs and Leighton James in statistical terms for Wales in appearances and goals if he can keep his place.
5 goals in 31 is approximately half of Giggsy (12 in 68) and Leighton ( 10 in 54). Scoring important goals in international games is not so easy and pace is pace. [Post edited 12 May 2022 12:15]
|
68 caps is pathetic for a player who was one of the best of his generation and played till he was 41. | | | |
| Dan James on 17:17 - May 12 with 827 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Dan James on 16:29 - May 12 by STID2017 |
Where did I say I hate anyone ?
Not in my nature.
Yes it is my belief based on what I have observed with my own eyes and ears that the sellers, who in my opinion were entitled to take their profit, failed to carry out due diligence on the new owners.
The new owners may have passed all tests required but all the good financial work done by Jenkins and co has been undone.
In a misguided attempt to buy Premier League safety at all costs, they consequently squandered the parachute payments and four short years on we are £4 million in debt
It is my opinion that they sold us down the river - I have bought into nothing.
However you are beginning to ruin every thread with this nonsense now.
Please start a dedicated thread and keep it on that ? [Post edited 12 May 2022 16:32]
|
I quoted 'some people 'not yourself of course. Some people would include OHL for example who has used derogatory phrases for the owners and the most regular poster on here. The US people are routinely accused of all sorts of things with posters questioning the company accounts.
What 'due diligence' did they not do? It is a myth. The whole sale process took one year by all accounts of 'getting to know each other'.
The club has been relegated (which was bound to happen eventually) and 6 years later there are no projected debts and considerable playing assets Piroe Downes Obafemi and Cabango.
I am not expert on anything in particular but understand the difference between debt and accountancy loses. The clubs debts are to the owners and these will be cleared when the debt is converted into equity.
People dislike me contesting fake narratives. I defend the owners who I think are decent people and good guardians on the club.
If you put on line they 'sold the club down the river' I will contest your narrative whether you like it or not. Many threads see Jenkins and co slagged off. I defend them and get accused of messing up threads. Chief jumps on my posts as a matter of routine and then questions everything I have posted. Others suggest I am related to the seller in some way. I think it is an attempt to silence and in some way a form of censorship by the majority. | |
| |
| Dan James on 17:18 - May 12 with 828 views | Treforys_Jack |
| Dan James on 16:28 - May 12 by jasper_T |
They came in with a cheeky bid. And then changed the bid. And then it was a loan not a transfer. And then they didn't want to pay anything until the end of the season. And then Huw stopped answering his phone and they cried about it in their documentary. How could mean old Swansea City do this to poor Dan?!?
He could have been theirs for no more than £5m the first week of January, but they played silly bggers all month instead. |
This all day long. |  | | |
| Dan James on 17:32 - May 12 with 819 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Dan James on 16:58 - May 12 by builthjack |
Just one question.
If the club had no debt, why did the club have to sell every player worth anything when relegation came?
After all, we had parachute payments to come. |
The wages were too high. Narsingh ws on £30k a week and the club could not shift him even on loan.
Clucas, Fernandez, Fabianski, Mesa, Jordan Ayew, Bartley were all on big bucks and prepared to move on. Andre Ayew had only just signed. The parachute is designed to help clubs transition from £100m+ wages to £30m wages in three seasons.
Swansea kept Ayew and paid up his contract in full. Nordfieldt, Fer, Van De Horn, Olsen were on less money and stuck around for their last year of contract It was hoped they could lead Swansea back to the PL but Fer and Olsen got injured Narsingh was useless and Potters signing of Celina John Aroso and McKay was £7m wasted. | |
| |
| Dan James on 18:17 - May 12 with 795 views | jasper_T |
| Dan James on 16:58 - May 12 by builthjack |
Just one question.
If the club had no debt, why did the club have to sell every player worth anything when relegation came?
After all, we had parachute payments to come. |
Parachute payments barely cover legacy contracts. We had to halve our wage bill that first season, and then keep cutting.
"No debt" is deceptive. There was no long-standing or fixed debt on the books but the way we were conducting transfers - buying with payments spread over multiple years, factoring the future receivables for upfront cash when we sold - left us with a big stack of liabilities that were set to fall due 1/2/3 years down the line. Around £60m of spending yet to be paid for iirc. So after relegation crippled our revenue we needed to generate cash asap or debts would soon appear and skyrocket (or we'd go bankrupt). | | | |
| Dan James on 18:36 - May 12 with 783 views | jasper_T |
| Dan James on 16:33 - May 12 by Chief |
Well £5mill was demonstrably way to low to start with so by not nipping it in the bud then and then still hanging in negotiations with Leeds hanging the terms to the point that James even went up there was ridiculous. We're more to blame than Leeds who were understandably after a bargain. Thankfully Huw ended the madness. |
We were all a bit excited about him but he'd not done an awful lot at the point the original deal started being negotiated. The big televised performances came after the transfer drama, against Brentford in February and Man City in March. Then his first international goal. His stock rose massively between New Year and the end of the season.
Leeds had a bargain and tried to take advantage further. Player happy to move, our club desperate to bring some cash in. Brilliant that it blew up in their faces. | | | |
| Dan James on 18:40 - May 12 with 782 views | Lorax |
| Dan James on 12:14 - May 12 by ReslovenSwan1 |
He is on course to surpass both Ryan Gogs and Leighton James in statistical terms for Wales in appearances and goals if he can keep his place.
5 goals in 31 is approximately half of Giggsy (12 in 68) and Leighton ( 10 in 54). Scoring important goals in international games is not so easy and pace is pace. [Post edited 12 May 2022 12:15]
|
Yeah, the Titanic was on course too. If James hits a metaphorical iceberg who knows?
It could be that James 5 goals are a flash in the pan. Michael Owen relied on pace but then along came an iceberg.
I could argue that scoring goals in internationals is not as hard as it could be when you are playing Slovakia, Belarus, Finland and the Czech republic. Now if he'd scored against the really good teams....
When James left us there was a general opinion that he was nowhere near the finished article, he had pace to burn but his decision making and his passing were suspect and his crossing was abysmal. Pace can't cover up such shortcomings forever. He'll tear the Championship up but then maybe he'll be like Mitrovic who sets records at this level but looks anything but a record setter in the EPL. | | | |
| Dan James on 20:41 - May 12 with 715 views | Boundy |
| Dan James on 18:40 - May 12 by Lorax |
Yeah, the Titanic was on course too. If James hits a metaphorical iceberg who knows?
It could be that James 5 goals are a flash in the pan. Michael Owen relied on pace but then along came an iceberg.
I could argue that scoring goals in internationals is not as hard as it could be when you are playing Slovakia, Belarus, Finland and the Czech republic. Now if he'd scored against the really good teams....
When James left us there was a general opinion that he was nowhere near the finished article, he had pace to burn but his decision making and his passing were suspect and his crossing was abysmal. Pace can't cover up such shortcomings forever. He'll tear the Championship up but then maybe he'll be like Mitrovic who sets records at this level but looks anything but a record setter in the EPL. |
From what I've seen of him since he moved on, he hasn't improved , his decision making is still suspect and his end product more so. He imo found his level in the Championship . but maybe his formed dipped at Utd due to a lack of confidence and as a consequence of the rest of the team being gash .He's still young but as he ages so will his pace deteriorate so he needs to bring more to his game if he wants to continue playing at the upper echelons of the league(s) | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| Dan James on 21:24 - May 12 with 687 views | onehunglow |
| Dan James on 17:17 - May 12 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I quoted 'some people 'not yourself of course. Some people would include OHL for example who has used derogatory phrases for the owners and the most regular poster on here. The US people are routinely accused of all sorts of things with posters questioning the company accounts.
What 'due diligence' did they not do? It is a myth. The whole sale process took one year by all accounts of 'getting to know each other'.
The club has been relegated (which was bound to happen eventually) and 6 years later there are no projected debts and considerable playing assets Piroe Downes Obafemi and Cabango.
I am not expert on anything in particular but understand the difference between debt and accountancy loses. The clubs debts are to the owners and these will be cleared when the debt is converted into equity.
People dislike me contesting fake narratives. I defend the owners who I think are decent people and good guardians on the club.
If you put on line they 'sold the club down the river' I will contest your narrative whether you like it or not. Many threads see Jenkins and co slagged off. I defend them and get accused of messing up threads. Chief jumps on my posts as a matter of routine and then questions everything I have posted. Others suggest I am related to the seller in some way. I think it is an attempt to silence and in some way a form of censorship by the majority. |
Well thanks Res,Im flattered.
Flattered that I have the courage to stand by what I say.I am not literate enough to evidence my contempt for the owners you admire so pitifully. People who promised to take us to the next level-upwards presumably.
Couple that with a current coach who has insulted or club and fan both alive and deceased and I ask myself if I am living in a parallel universe. One thing for sure,you valley denizens are in no way anything like Swansea people. We're a proud people and we have a proper club too.
Our demise has been disgusting to behold ,an unforgivable lesson in ineptitude and bad management couple with appalling marketing.
The ignore button is your friend. This football thing gets people upset,don't ya know.
Never tolerate second best or at least ask questions. | |
| |
| Dan James on 22:42 - May 12 with 658 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
Dan James is a fine footballer. Like Wayne Routledge if he could finish better he would be top class. Vardy this week at 33 can still terrorize. No reason why James cannot become one of Wales's finest. I have seen too many failures to be sniffy about beating Czechs, Turks , Slovaks and Hungarians. They still take some beating. | |
| |
| Dan James on 23:12 - May 12 with 653 views | Lorax |
| Dan James on 22:42 - May 12 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Dan James is a fine footballer. Like Wayne Routledge if he could finish better he would be top class. Vardy this week at 33 can still terrorize. No reason why James cannot become one of Wales's finest. I have seen too many failures to be sniffy about beating Czechs, Turks , Slovaks and Hungarians. They still take some beating. |
Where did I mention Turks or Hungarians? It wasn't even sniffy, merely pointing out they aren't the best teams.
Dan James is nowhere near the player Wayne Routs was. Routs terrorised defences with skill as much as pace, he had a good end product apart from goal scoring, his decision making, passing and crossing were far better than James, better than James may ever be. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.