That must be wrong Keith Hill says he doesn't want trouble causers at oakwell so he can't have just signed a convicted thug can he.
Re: That must be wrong think that proves you will look 4 anything to have a go at hill or the club, WUM of the highest order
Re: That must be wrong His interview on the official website will be far too positive for people on here, they'll hate it.
Re: That must be wrong Just pointing out the hypocracy in Keith Hill's comments. If I wanted to have a go at the club I'd say that we have proven ourselves to be absolutely fecking stupid by once again offering a one year deal giving the player all the cards
good isn't a word i'd use to describe him. [video=youtube;xXVgiWPBJtE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXVgiWPBJtE[/video]
Only a one year deal. Let's hope that if he does prove his worth we tie him down to a longer deal in January. Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner
Hes not caused trouble at pompey or rochdale or man city. He was attacked and defended os self. You seem to be trying to get your crown back as the number one bbs wum.
Sorry old **** but a court of law has ruled that he wasn't defending himself at all. Thats why he was convicted and sent down. It's also why man city sacked him. Eh? Man City sacked him? that can't be right because you've just said he didn't cause any trouble while he was there. No trouble at all except for getting himself sent to prison. Apart from that he was the model citizen. In other news uefa are disgusting for their stance on racism and the frog is the worst of them all.
If the club decided that they wanted to sign him regardless of his criminal history then yes I think they should have given him a longer contract. They can't use the excuse that they don't know if he's any good either because he's played for hill before.
I think the sooner you admit that the club could not do right for doing fecking wrong in your eyes, the easier it'll be for everyone to move on.