Why no chamakh

If he is not good enough why did we take him..?

When we signed him Warnock warned theres 2 Chamakhs and depending which one turned up his contract would not be extended beyond January. Obviously the "cant be arsed" Chamakh turned up.

A talented player on his day but not the sort required in a relegation battle.

When we signed him Warnock warned theres 2 Chamakhs and depending which one turned up his contract would not be extended beyond January. Obviously the "cant be arsed" Chamakh turned up.

A talented player on his day but not the sort required in a relegation battle.

I hope he only gets pay to play money...otherwise a waste of a lot of brass in my opinion..

When we signed him Warnock warned theres 2 Chamakhs and depending which one turned up his contract would not be extended beyond January. Obviously the "cant be arsed" Chamakh turned up.

A talented player on his day but not the sort required in a relegation battle.

Warnock certainly did and thankfully he has virtually cost us nothing

When we signed him Warnock warned theres 2 Chamakhs and depending which one turned up his contract would not be extended beyond January. Obviously the "cant be arsed" Chamakh turned up.

A talented player on his day but not the sort required in a relegation battle.

Warnock certainly did and thankfully he has virtually cost us nothing

The guys made his money now, he didnt have much desire when he was in his pomp at Arsenal, so earning a six month contract extension at a club struggling at the wrong end of the Championship obviously didnt appeal much.

Hes the sort of player the City fans would crucify anyway so maybe its not a bad thing