Ingram was a much, much better keeper than ROD, who I actually thought was pretty ordinary. No loss, but some ridiculous decison making has obviously been made in January with these clauses. Paying a fee for people who can walk away for nothing 6 months later is financially laughable, but also from the point of view of the team is a ludicrous decision. Bringing players into what is probably not a great environment morale wise with the promise of a free get out is hardly likely to inpsire commited performances. No wonder Van Veen looked like he wasn't trying. He actually wasn't trying. Relegation was his preferred outcome presumably. .
That tw*t Turnbull can go now, clause or clause. He finished bottom with Coventry and thought he was too good to go down, then turns up here and we get the same result.
I agree with some of this:
Agreed bits; strange decision in allowing ROD to walkaway without receiving any financial contribution for him. Agree also on the affect it may have had on morale.
Not agreed : I thought that Ingrams's performances tailed off and ROD looked far more committed at the the time. Turnbull turned in some useful performances. Why do you label him as a 'twat'.
On the Fence - vV had no 90min game time ; was injured at AFC . It would not surprise me based on biased opinion on here to see vV come good. In fact would love it.