Can't disagree with much of that letter.
Quote from: Risso on January 24, 2013, 09:19:42 AMCan't disagree with much of that letter.It could have been worded better as Tuesdays game was not actually a defeat.
The problem is we get lots of communication about it, Lambert says something regarding transfers in every interview, it's just that no one wants to believe it, so they act like nothing has been said then post things like "I don't care if we're not going to spend but they should let us know", which is clearly not the case.Lambert has said numerous times that he's looking to get 1-2 in but that they won't be big names. That's the intention, right there, it's vague, it's probably not enough for what we need but the message has been made public a number of times.
Agree with the messaging above.I think there's value in targeting Faulkner as welll, since he is apparently RL's 'eyes and ears' and supposed decision-maker at the club.
Lerner and Faulkner might take a bit of notice if the letter was signed by that whiskey faced bully from Govan.The pair of starry eyed fuckin' buffoons.
He won't get rid of Faulkner.That would mean breaking the Cambridge old boys oath.
It would help if as 'a letter' it was addressed to Lerner rather than being, in effect, an Editor's comment.I don't expect Lerner will respond, though we'll perhaps get something from Faulkner. Whatever is said though, will only be analysed in minute detail, distorted according to each person's viewpoint and complained about.I'm not sure there is any sort of answer that would placate people, even if he said he was employing a DoF, pumping in another £100m and selling tickets for a tenner people would only complain it hadn't been done before, wasn't enough and was a bad idea in income terms.However, it's wrong that nothing at all has been said.