after a full season out injured, who knows, it's been known to make, or break, a player.

Yes I would, his name has nothing to do with it, as I said earlier It is clear the club wanted to keep him which shows they value his potential.



Agreed I would be more gutted if we would of lost Crooks, but just because Luke what not at the top of the 'potential pile' does not mean we should all just disregard his loss as one of those things.

We can't keep everyone.

It's not like selling Viakona.

no, it's not, we don't need to sell someone to keep the club afloat!

I didn't think that happened, how else could we have then signed Hunte, Prescott and Booth?

I think this just proves how important it is to have contract talks with players who are still in contract to stop sneaky clubs like Leeds tapping up our young and talented players.It has the smell of the Hetherington's all over it.

So is crooks that good because of what he has done on the pitch or is he another being hyped up because of his surname/father?

He plays for England in his age group so he can't be bad.

wasn't the same season, was it?

No but we should be able to keep the ones we want to keep, which is the problem, due to all the changes at the club over the past weeks someone has dropped the ball with this one.

I thought it was? I might be wrong though.

Not exactly the best of news, is it

Yes it was Standee, The money from the Vaikona deal paid for Hunte, Prescott and Booth.

not sure, I remember at the time we were in serious financial trouble, hence why he was sold, I am sure someone will remember the timing(s)

Bang on the money as usual!

I'm really gutted about this. We've been told for a long time he's got the most potential out of the three. The majority of that will be hype, but it's still a blow. I think this is the first time I've ever wanted to see a junior player fail, for any club! If we're looking to become a top four team, we simply cannot allow this to happen - whatever the circumstances!