I remember a couple of weeks ago there was a post about a massive signing that was happening. A few people were saying it was some guy being a hero and that apparently BA was peed off about the leaked info. The blog was then deleted. Anyone know any further about this?

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • We are signing Woods apparently . Maybe the leak ruined the deal hahha.
    • That would be laughable if that was the case. Another embarrassment for the Eels
  • Yes there was a few TCT tweets from Mitch - M, regarding 4 signings and one of those a 'massive' signing, they were asked to remove the tweets according to some, the blog that chief put up here screenshoting the tweet was removed too. im not surprised Brads pissed off if thats the case.

    • Thanks snake. So is there any further info??
    • Hey snake what you hers about james grahem
  • No idea mate

  • Nothing's happening with it mate. If there was a confirmed "massive" signing when the original blog was released, the 10 day cooling off period would have elapsed and the signing announced officially. It's just more rumour and speculation about possible signings.

    Just wait for the follow up "I told you so" blog in a few months when any player signs, regardless of it being massive or not.
    • Yeah that sounds about right. But I must say everything that transpired with the deleted blogs etc tells me there was something to it
    • If it was more than a rumour or an approach to a player's manager, it'd be confirmed by now. I'm sure the club has approached hundreds of players over the years, if it doesn't progress past that it's just speculation.
    • Or the 'I told you announcing the signing on Twitter via a third party and reposting on a blog site would jeopardise the deal and it's fallen through' line. Like player agents and their clients are trawling fans sites..... please
This reply was deleted.

More stuff to read

Tin Tim replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion Ryles never offered Pezet more than 1 year
"It was explained at the time, but some here still had their own thoughts & like most of the time the people here were wrong. "
6 minutes ago
Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐 replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion Ryles never offered Pezet more than 1 year
"Mate, im just asking you which one is correct?  Your the one that said the second version is incorrect as Anasta is  protecting the Eels 
Prove it LB"
6 minutes ago
Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐 replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion Ryles never offered Pezet more than 1 year
"Others are putting more trust in the other version.  
When i posted this blog I didn't see both versions.   Im just saying both can't be correct,  and how would anyone prove which one is. 
So you're saying the second version is bs - prove it.
What…"
8 minutes ago
LB replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion Ryles never offered Pezet more than 1 year
"Well it was, don't trigger the option. To trigger the option he would have known the deal before doing that. He wasn't doing a Zac Lomax."
20 minutes ago
More…