Bet he doesn't make it this term eh? and we are talking strikers, Hume in particular and Jays perception of the fee and the value it represented.
Much less according to Leicester. http://www.lcfc.com/page/ProfilesDetail/0,,10274~8616,00.html</p> And you're right about Jay.</p>
Even when it's there in black and white You'll still try to argue the point.</p> http://www.lcfc.com/page/ProfilesDetail/0,,10274~8616,00.html</p> </p>
Ok, not much less then! http://www.southyorkshiretimes.co.uk/sport/Around-the-grounds.4244972.jp?articlepage=1</p> </p>
The point I'm arguing (irrespective of what the official site reported the fee as (and in my opinion they have reported the maximum figure we would pay for him to try and make it look better) As both Davey and Leicester at the time said the initial fee was 750K ish? and COULD rise to 1.2m. I cant be arsed to trawl the net or old copies of the comical & star to get that in whatever shade of print you prefer.) Is your claim we paid too much, how many regular 10+ goal championship strikers, under contract, under 27, changed hands for less than 1.2m?
RE: The point I'm arguing Kevin Doyle Jason Scotland Ross McCormack Tommy Smith Kevin Phillips That's 5 of the top 6 highest scorers in the division who all cost much less than Hume. That's probably not what you want, but you are a fruit cake so I've no idea how to answer you without you still arguing when the evidence to the contrary is given to you on a plate. My opinion is we paid too much for him. That's not a fact, just an opinion, dunno what else I can say.