RETAINED LIST

[U.T.C]

Brough has been invited back for training... No mention of a contract. Do natural leaders rely on others to read things for them?

[Mysterious Curle]

if we want to progress AK isnt good enough - i always think he flatters to deceive. has all the attributes, but doesnt stand out and dominate enough for me

Agreed, has the attributes but doesn't excel in any of them. He's just average all round - further evidenced by NGW excelling.

[U.T.C]

Agreed, has the attributes but doesn't excel in any of them. He's just average all round - evidence further by NGW excelling.

Evidenced* 😘

[Deepcut Cobbler]

Nope, I’m clear minded, comes from being a natural leader, AK should have been offered a contract, and Brough should have been shown the door. FACT.

A good 'natural born leader' listens to other opinions, interpretations, advice and informed expertise; assesses the options available and then decides the best course of action.
Unfortunately you fail to meet those criteria in nearly all aspects.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

A good 'natural born leader' listens to other opinions, interpretations, advice and informed expertise; assesses the options available and then decides the best course of action.
Unfortunately you fail to meet those criteria in nearly all aspects.

Based on this I’m withdrawing my application to join the congregation.

[Manwork04]

A good 'natural born leader' listens to other opinions, interpretations, advice and informed expertise; assesses the options available and then decides the best course of action.
Unfortunately you fail to meet those criteria in nearly all aspects.

I am disappointed with my 21 year assessment mate 🙁

[U.T.C]

Assessments are only as good as the people doing them 

[Madrid Cobbler]

Regarding Brough, I was surprised to see he's been invited back to training. If this was just a courtesy, why would it not have been offered to other players? I've got a feeling KN (or CC or Sammo) has identified Brough as a possible winger. I agree he's not good enough defensively to be a left back, but he is quite quick, decent going forward and can deliver some good crosses. Perhaps not as classy, but would certainly put in a better shift than Fosu and would definitely be a lot cheaper.

[Mysterious Curle]

Regarding Brough, I was surprised to see he's been invited back to training. If this was just a courtesy, why would it not have been offered to other players?

I guess the question is where do we draw the line?

If we had of invited every player along that's recently returned from injury we'd be tight on space!

[Winslow Lee]

Regarding Brough, I was surprised to see he's been invited back to training. If this was just a courtesy, why would it not have been offered to other players? I've got a feeling KN (or CC or Sammo) has identified Brough as a possible winger. I agree he's not good enough defensively to be a left back, but he is quite quick, decent going forward and can deliver some good crosses. Perhaps not as classy, but would certainly put in a better shift than Fosu and would definitely be a lot cheaper.

I really hope not and it’s just a courtesy thing due to the length of injury.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

I guess the question is where do we draw the line?

If we had of invited every player along that's recently returned from injury we'd be tight on space!

had*

The correct phrasing is simply "had." "Had of" is a non-standard and ungrammatical construction. "Had" is the past tense of "have" and also the past perfect tense form, used with other verbs in the past perfect tense. For example, "I had eaten" is grammatically correct, while "I had of eaten" is not.

[Mysterious Curle]

had*

The correct phrasing is simply "had." "Had of" is a non-standard and ungrammatical construction. "Had" is the past tense of "have" and also the past perfect tense form, used with other verbs in the past perfect tense. For example, "I had eaten" is grammatically correct, while "I had of eaten" is not.

I think you’re on the wrong forum fella.

[west stand oap]

Misuse of the English language should be a criminal offence, there is no excuse.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

I think you’re on the wrong forum fella.

fellow* You know me, just being helpful.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

Misuse of the English language should be a criminal offence, there is no excuse.

You should live over here, its an absolute disgrace. They claim it's "Australian English". I have explained that it is known in the UK simply as English with a speech impediment. In preparation for when I moved over I watched Neighbours for 2 years with the subtitles on, and I still couldn't understand a word they were on about when I got here.

[Omega]

had*

The correct phrasing is simply "had." "Had of" is a non-standard and ungrammatical construction. "Had" is the past tense of "have" and also the past perfect tense form, used with other verbs in the past perfect tense. For example, "I had eaten" is grammatically correct, while "I had of eaten" is not.

…..but is he actually correct in the indicative or even the subjunctive tense?

[SC Cobbler]

I'm 99% confident Brough has been offered to come back so he can complete his physio. Give him usage of the facilities over the summer, then maybe bring him up to match speed so he can find another club during pre-season. I doubt many clubs will be scouting him on the back of a leg break unfortunately.

1% of me is thinking we've lost Odimayo, Koiki, McCarron, Mbete (and have a clear starting left back in Nesta) and we may well be interested in a cheapo squad option down that left flank?

[Melbourne Cobbler]

…..but is he actually correct in the indicative or even the subjunctive tense?

No idea, I just looked it up on the net.

[Omega]

No idea, I just looked it up on the net.

I’ve got no idea either- just me being a bit of a smart arse 😉

[Melbourne Cobbler]

I’ve got no idea either- just me being a bit of a smart arse 😉

+1