Will Hopoate

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
  • We have been getting regular requests for users who have been locked out of their accounts because they have changed email adresses over the lifetime of their accounts. Please make sure the email address under your account is your current and correct email address in order to avoid this in the future. You can set your email address at https://silvertails.net/account/account-details
TT is on top shelf FB money.

However, Hoppa would be so much better at the back in defence. I would have Hoppa at FB over TT.

Regardless of their cost to us, each player needs to be played where they give us the best use.
It's business FFS, there is no place for absurd position-price stereotypes.
If we buy Hoppa and play Tom at FB i'm done until whoever is responsible is gone or learns.
 
How about Hoppa to FB and Tom as a roaming winger? Pretty much the role Tom plays now and Hoppa can fulfill all the FB duties Tom doesn't... and we get to keep Kelly.
I cant see manly paying near a mill for Tom to be a winger . He'll be fullback or centre i recon.
 
I cant see manly paying near a mill for Tom to be a winger . He'll be fullback or centre i recon.

As I said, "absurd position-price stereotyping".

It's a moronic concept.

In REALITY, why does it matter how much he is paid "to be a winger"?

I have a great idea, lets compound the 2 mistakes we made with Tom, by paying him too much and putting him in at FB too early, and buy Hoppa for about 800k and play him on the wing or at centre.

F*k me!
 
Last edited:
As I said, "absurd position-price stereotyping".

It's a moronic concept.

In REALITY, why does it matter how much he is paid "to be a winger"?

I have a great idea, lets compound the 2 mistakes we made with Tom, by paying him too much and putting him in at FB too early, and buy Hoppa for about 800k and play him on the wing or at centre.

F*k me!
That kind of coin wouldn't you want a player of that class with the pill in his hands more often then not ?
 
That kind of coin wouldn't you want a player of that class with the pill in his hands more often then not ?

Which player do you refer to? Tom on 900k, Hoppa on 800k, tiny difference in reality.

Coin is IRRELEVANT. You play players where they contribute best to your results.

It is basic sense mate.

Keep Tom at FB and don't buy Hoppa, we don't need to spend that much on a winger or centre. Do we need a centre at all?

Or buy Hoppa and put Tom on the wing to grow up for a year or 2.
 
Where’s this “ noise “ coming from??

It’s 99.9% bull**** and conjecture from most of the sports journos so if it’s from them I’d not get too excited.

Hi Mark, mentioned this on one of my posts a few days ago. Was having a drink with papa Hoppa and his entourage, and he said he said his youngin was keen to get back to us. Family Heritage thing.... I told him if he did I hope he didn't want to digitally enhance the brand? I just don't see how we afford him? Anyway he said that Dogs had to let him go and if they did they would have to cover a large chunk for 2 years.
 
Hi Mark, mentioned this on one of my posts a few days ago. Was having a drink with papa Hoppa and his entourage, and he said he said his youngin was keen to get back to us. Family Heritage thing.... I told him if he did I hope he didn't want to digitally enhance the brand? I just don't see how we afford him? Anyway he said that Dogs had to let him go and if they did they would have to cover a large chunk for 2 years.
That's a relief, the only explanation I could think of for the Hoppa rumour was to replace Walker, if we happened to end up with a coach he didn't like.
 

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
8 7 1 109 16
9 7 2 72 16
8 7 1 56 16
9 6 3 57 14
10 6 4 58 12
9 5 4 -14 12
10 5 4 31 11
9 5 4 95 10
9 4 5 19 10
9 4 5 -16 8
9 4 5 -19 8
9 4 5 -70 8
9 3 6 -71 8
9 3 5 11 7
8 2 6 -63 6
8 1 7 -89 4
8 1 7 -166 4
Back
Top Bottom