He has a point though. FL is always going to be careful with what he says publically and he's doing it well in both backing his current players and saying that we are working on bringing some players in during what is a difficult window.Calm down. No coffee yet?
Why do you think he’d talk about if we can keep winning games when asked about more signings?
Also the work “reckon” is there for a reason. JFC some of you get absolutely deranged when I post
He wants to keep winning games because that’s his job… That narrative doesn’t make sense when he says we’re closing in on options on loan and permanent deals.Interesting he says “I hope we can keep winning games if we can…” when asked if he wants two or three. Reckon Doug has said we don’t need anyone cos we aren’t going up. If we’re 4 pts off the playoffs after the next game he can’t really argue that.
Calm down. No coffee yet?
Why do you think he’d talk about if we can keep winning games when asked about more signings?
Also the work “reckon” is there for a reason. JFC some of you get absolutely deranged when I post
I'm perfectly calm. You're the one that's woken up spouting yet another random DK conspiracy theory to suit your agenda.
It's honestly getting quite weird.
I don't think any comments in there should be even taken with concern. It's all fair points. Due to most of the squad being back in around a month and certain players coming back into form there isn't a desperate need for signings as there might've been 3/4 weeks ago.
And at the end of the day there's no point in changing a drastically winning side and players are going to want to come here to start, certainly loan players.
If we can get a couple in to support the squad though then great.
You haven’t answered my question. Why has he talked about winning games?
As for conspiracy theories I’ve been in the minority saying I don’t think we need signings because we aren’t going up or down. Lampard has done well recently to get us close to being in touching distance of the playoffs which would change things. I’m really not sure how that’s a conspiracy theory.
You haven’t answered my question. Why has he talked about winning games?
As for conspiracy theories I’ve been in the minority saying I don’t think we need signings because we aren’t going up or down. Lampard has done well recently to get us close to being in touching distance of the playoffs which would change things. I’m really not sure how that’s a conspiracy theory.
I’m saying I think this and I think Doug thinks it too. No conspiracy unless you’re claiming I’m saying me and Doug are in cahoots?
There was a lot of noise after Norwich saying how we need to gut the team and so on. Which was an irrational knee jerking response.I think he's trying to play off the desperation around making January signings and that his core focus is to win games.
I really don't think there's anything more in it than that.
There was a lot of noise after Norwich saying how we need to gut the team and so on. Which was an irrational knee jerking response.
This team was good enough to finish 9th last season and we’ve improved it. Yes, we need 2-3 more players but we’re not as far away as has been made out at times.
He is talking about winning games because that’s his job. Bristol, Blackburn and Watford are all teams up and around the playoffs so they’re tough games.
View attachment 40905
That’s not at all what this reads like. His job is also improving players why didn’t he mention that? “Will you get two or three?” “If we can keep winning games”
He doesn't say thatView attachment 40905
That’s not at all what this reads like. His job is also improving players why didn’t he mention that? “Will you get two or three?” “If we can keep winning games”
You're quite clearly on the wind up now.
You've just reworded what is written in print.
Iv made it easier for you to read as clearly reading comprehension isn’t your strong point. I’ve not changed the meaning at all. Just give up man it’s pathetic.
I give up my IQ is plummeting by the minute speaking to you.
Someone else please take over.
He could mean “if we can get some players in” but that’s not what he’s said. As written the if we can is after the if we can keep winning.
Why on earth would we loan him out?Blackburn fans seem to think BTA turned them down as he doesn’t want to move from the East Midlands. Apparently wants to stay here but if to move would be to Stoke. Not sure if any truth as don’t even know all our ITKsbut they say we wanted £500K loan fee
Think this was from before and all Stoke could offer due to the financials atm thereWhy on earth would we loan him out?
We'll probably end up doing something that makes a lot of the posts above look ridiculous tbh. It's often the case.Get them in Doug then we can slag off the players and not argue over wording!
It's not written like that Shmeee.
If you want to take it that way I'm seriously not the one with comprehension issues I can wholeheartedly assure you of that. But take it however you wish.
Food for thought though. He's being asked that off the back of a win. So don't you think perhaps that his priority at that point in time isn't going to be who's potentially coming in, but rather about looking to the next game which is only in three days time.
That's not what it reads like at all.He could mean “if we can get some players in” but that’s not what he’s said. As written the if we can is after the if we can keep winning.
Given they already asked if they could loan Kitching and we said "sorry no loans out"Why on earth would we loan him out?
“Certainly! Here’s a grammatical breakdown:
1. Clause Structure:
• The sentence contains a main clause: “I’m hoping we can keep winning games” and a compound conditional clause: “but if we can and if they’re the right players.”
• The word “if” introduces two subordinate conditional clauses:
• “if we can”
• “if they’re the right players.”
2. Ellipsis:
• In the first conditional clause (“if we can”), the predicate “keep winning games” is omitted but implied from the earlier main clause.
• This is an example of ellipsis, where part of the sentence is left out because it is understood from the context. Without ellipsis, the sentence would read:
“I’m hoping we can keep winning games, but if we can keep winning games and if they’re the right players.”
3. Reference and Cohesion:
• The pronoun “we” in “if we can” refers to the same subject as the main clause (“we” in “we can keep winning games”).
• The modal verb “can” expresses ability or possibility, and its meaning is tied to the omitted action “keep winning games.”
In summary, “if we can” is a conditional clause with an implied predicate (“keep winning games”) that relies on ellipsis for conciseness. It derives its meaning from the main clause.”
Thank you or should i say thank you Chat GTP.“Certainly! Here’s a grammatical breakdown:
1. Clause Structure:
• The sentence contains a main clause: “I’m hoping we can keep winning games” and a compound conditional clause: “but if we can and if they’re the right players.”
• The word “if” introduces two subordinate conditional clauses:
• “if we can”
• “if they’re the right players.”
2. Ellipsis:
• In the first conditional clause (“if we can”), the predicate “keep winning games” is omitted but implied from the earlier main clause.
• This is an example of ellipsis, where part of the sentence is left out because it is understood from the context. Without ellipsis, the sentence would read:
“I’m hoping we can keep winning games, but if we can keep winning games and if they’re the right players.”
3. Reference and Cohesion:
• The pronoun “we” in “if we can” refers to the same subject as the main clause (“we” in “we can keep winning games”).
• The modal verb “can” expresses ability or possibility, and its meaning is tied to the omitted action “keep winning games.”
In summary, “if we can” is a conditional clause with an implied predicate (“keep winning games”) that relies on ellipsis for conciseness. It derives its meaning from the main clause.”
Thank you or should i say thank you Chat GTP.
“Certainly! Here’s a grammatical breakdown:
1. Clause Structure:
• The sentence contains a main clause: “I’m hoping we can keep winning games” and a compound conditional clause: “but if we can and if they’re the right players.”
• The word “if” introduces two subordinate conditional clauses:
• “if we can”
• “if they’re the right players.”
2. Ellipsis:
• In the first conditional clause (“if we can”), the predicate “keep winning games” is omitted but implied from the earlier main clause.
• This is an example of ellipsis, where part of the sentence is left out because it is understood from the context. Without ellipsis, the sentence would read:
“I’m hoping we can keep winning games, but if we can keep winning games and if they’re the right players.”
3. Reference and Cohesion:
• The pronoun “we” in “if we can” refers to the same subject as the main clause (“we” in “we can keep winning games”).
• The modal verb “can” expresses ability or possibility, and its meaning is tied to the omitted action “keep winning games.”
In summary, “if we can” is a conditional clause with an implied predicate (“keep winning games”) that relies on ellipsis for conciseness. It derives its meaning from the main clause.”
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?