Icy Gull
Back on the rollercoaster
- Jul 5, 2003
- 72,015
- Thread starter
- #21
Sigh...why does this come up over and over again. He didn't cost £100,000 - he cost £60,000 - it could have risen to £100,000 if he'd made a certain number of appearances but it didn't.
Farrington's trouble was that he was plagued by injuries and seemed never to be fully fit but he scored four times in just over 30 appearances - not great but too much of a shocker for someone who was not fully fit and playing in the second tier of English football. It was a gamble that didn't come off but at £60k it wasn't an expensive gamble. Fashanu, for example, cost a lot more and had worst strike rate.
He was bargain of the month compared to the likes of Peake, Turienzo and my particular pet waste-of-money Micky Bloody Thomas.
I'm with you on Farrington. His misfortune was a spate of injuries and once fit the club didn't pick him because it would have triggered additional payments as he was just short of the games where it cut in. He also followed the Small and Byrne pairing, not many of our strikers of the last 20 years would have come close to either of them in quality so hefailed when judged against them. The myth of how shit he was has grown ever since and he's always close to the top of a waste of money discussion.