SR not AL for SR 12:45 - Dec 18 with 358 views | Jellybaby | I assumed along with others that Lallana was brought in to the club in readiness for the inevitable Russell Martin implosion and that at this point AL would be leading the team tonight, not the amiable Simon Rusk, who happens to share the same initials as the owners, but looks and sounds like He has been plucked off the nearest Building Site. Presumably the decision was made so as to not muddy the waters and a replacement may be named after the game tonight, hopefully. The take away from his interview is that he will listen to the players - so this will be revealing to see what style is played tonight - should be fascinating. | |
| I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it. |
| | |
SR not AL for SR on 13:22 - Dec 18 with 264 views | mushinexile | Yes. If he has one game in charge, the rule book can go out of the window. Just get out there and play, boys! | | | |
SR not AL for SR on 14:01 - Dec 18 with 161 views | saints__fan__73 | Why on earth did anyone think Lallana had been bought in with an eye to a coaching role? Surely not just as he wore a suit when he was unveiled lol. His deal was the same thinking that brought us Theo. [Post edited 18 Dec 14:07]
| |
| |
SR not AL for SR on 14:05 - Dec 18 with 152 views | franniesTache | I thought the reason the rat was brought back was because he was threatening to pull his nipper out of our academy? Also the club don't think he's capable of being manager so it was never even entertained as an idea. | | | |
SR not AL for SR on 14:43 - Dec 18 with 90 views | kingslandstand1 |
SR not AL for SR on 14:01 - Dec 18 by saints__fan__73 | Why on earth did anyone think Lallana had been bought in with an eye to a coaching role? Surely not just as he wore a suit when he was unveiled lol. His deal was the same thinking that brought us Theo. [Post edited 18 Dec 14:07]
|
And that went well .... | | | |
| |