- Thread starter
- #21
Confusing criteria judging by the Albion / Palace examples in the OP.
Is it the clubs' "worst player signed" (Best wasn't very good / effective) or "worst ever signing". For the latter transfer fee, dressing room disruption, cost of wages, etc all come into play.
If Mutch cost £8m or so in fees and wages, and contributed little, then he's clearly a candidate for "worst ever signing" but there's no way he is their "worst player signed" - there will be scores of worse players in their fairly recent Championship history. yet the choice of Best seems based on an entirely different criteria - apart from being rubbish, he wasn't a truly bad signing - he cost us pennies and was only here for ten minutes.
As already said it's the Mail Online along with misogyny, body shaming, sexism, Princess Diana, mortgages & the weather 'confusing' is their middle name.
As for bringing it to the masses, again I said I wouldn't have bothered but for the palace deal.
Even then I still highlighted what I believed to be the 'good' bit.
That being the fact they were still paying, dare I say, a considerable wage to a player who played 40 games, didn't score and hasn't played for 2 (two) years.
