Its a bit of a red herring to suggest that we didn't spend because MON only starts doing business at the end of the window. you can be assured that lots of ground work will have been done on potential signings and ciontact would have been made. The board used the resignation and delayed naming a manager until after the window recisely because they didn't want to spend any money. Why else?
Either way, the argument over spend only really scratches the surface.
Looking at players like Young, Gabby, Ireland, Downing and Albrighton and then comparing them with what Liverpool, Everton and Spurs have and ask yourself if they’re as creative as their counterparts and I’d say the answer is yes. We have a lot of good players, we haven’t scored enough goals in recent yeas, but nonetheless I’d still expect us to compete very strongly with the above-mentioned teams. Particularly with the solid platform that we have at the back, Newcastle aside.
Its a bit of a red herring to suggest that we didn't spend because MON only starts doing business at the end of the window. you can be assured that lots of ground work will have been done on potential signings and ciontact would have been made. The board used the resignation and delayed naming a manager until after the window recisely because they didn't want to spend any money. Why else?
I’d say that the board’s obvious weakness, they don’t have a Steve Stride on board and their naivety shined through. I don’t believe that there was a deliberate policy to thwart any spending and neither do I believe that Lerner has stopped funding.
The problem is the centre of midfield. We have no protection in there and many think Reo-Coker is the answer to a 3 year-old question.
After all the nonsense of the last month, I'd be happy if we finish in the top eight. Reaching the semi-final of a cup (or beyond) would be a bonus.
Its a bit of a red herring to suggest that we didn't spend because MON only starts doing business at the end of the window. you can be assured that lots of ground work will have been done on potential signings and ciontact would have been made. The board used the resignation and delayed naming a manager until after the window recisely because they didn't want to spend any money. Why else?
Because it is difficult to find, convince and apppoint a new manager from a standing start in three weeks?
IF they'd delayed announcing anything just till the window closed, how come we still haven't appointed a manager over a week after?
Its a bit of a red herring to suggest that we didn't spend because MON only starts doing business at the end of the window. you can be assured that lots of ground work will have been done on potential signings and ciontact would have been made. The board used the resignation and delayed naming a manager until after the window recisely because they didn't want to spend any money. Why else?
I’d say that the board’s obvious weakness, they don’t have a Steve Stride on board and their naivety shined through. I don’t believe that there was a deliberate policy to thwart any spending and neither do I believe that Lerner has stopped funding.
I don't think Randy has stopped funding but it was a convenient time for them to make sure there was no outlay but received money over the summer. Otherwise they would have made sure the manager was in place before the transfer window had have closed and one or two players came in - even on loan. It not as if 3 weeks isn't enough time.
I think a central three is a solution to that issue, at least while we await the return of Delph and the coming of January.
In reponse to your other post, I don’t think there was anything convenient about it at all. I think they were as shocked as the rest of us and unfortunately completely unprepared for an immediate response. This is where an old hand would have been worth his weight in gold for the experience of dealing with these situations.
If they'd wanted to they could have given MacDonald authority to make transfers. That they didn't suggests that they weren't altogether unhappy at the opportunity not to spend anything this summer.
In reponse to your other post, I don’t think there was anything convenient about it at all. I think they were as shocked as the rest of us and unfortunately completely unprepared for an immediate response. This is where an old hand would have been worth his weight in gold for the experience of dealing with these situations.
Absolutely agree with both the points here.
I would imagine "convenient" is the very last word they'd use for the events of the last few weeks, and an old (football) hand there from the start would have helped.
I think the idea of comparing us to whichever team you like works best from the point where Randy and Martin came in. Yes, we couldn't have spent much more THIS summer, but then we also had a short period when they first came to get people in, when Petrov alone was recruited. Everton are a good comparison, but there is also the fact that they've had a patient build up of their squad over the eight(?) years Moyes has been there, spending heavily on one player each summer.
We've spent a lot of money and nobody could argue with that. Yet we haven't spent the sort of money where CL qualification could be viewed as what we SHOULD be achieving, which I also hope nobody would argue with.
Its a bit of a red herring to suggest that we didn't spend because MON only starts doing business at the end of the window. you can be assured that lots of ground work will have been done on potential signings and ciontact would have been made. The board used the resignation and delayed naming a manager until after the window recisely because they didn't want to spend any money. Why else?
Because it is difficult to find, convince and apppoint a new manager from a standing start in three weeks?
IF they'd delayed announcing anything just till the window closed, how come we still haven't appointed a manager over a week after?
Can't see why it should be a standing start but that's another point.
because the time of the year dictates the importance on getting a decision made as soon as possible. If you seel an important player and buy no other players in then you are gambling on the team up to January. If it goes wrong then we run the risk of Ash going in the summer if he thinks we're going nowhere. If the board/Randy wants to protect his investment then he must see the need to have brought some players in, and to do that get a manager in.
We are still a decent job - find out who wants it, interview, make a decision. It seems that theie dithering was based on seeing if Kev Mac could do it. 6-0 told everyone but them, no. That cost us another week. They also said that they wouldn't buy in the market until a manager was announced and then that they wouldn't do it until after the transfer window closed.
Why would they do that unless they were happy to see no new faces in? Its was done, in my opinion, to avoid buying anyone this summer. The reason O'Neill left.
If they'd wanted to they could have given MacDonald authority to make transfers. That they didn't suggests that they weren't altogether unhappy at the opportunity not to spend anything this summer.
Hang on, though, Chris, weren't you in the "these things take time to sort out, you dont just wave the money and the players come" camp when it was MON taking his time to complete transfers, but now you reckon KMac could have got them under way and sorted in three weeks?
Maybe we'd already talked to players who wanted to come but changed their mind when our managerial situation changed, thus leaving us at square one?
The only thing we can say without any doubt on transfers is that the Milner deal, which went through after MON left, included a player to make up, what, 40 percent of the deal value.
That doesn't sound like a board who were suddenly happy not to be spending anything, or surely they'd have insisted on the cash.
Its a bit of a red herring to suggest that we didn't spend because MON only starts doing business at the end of the window. you can be assured that lots of ground work will have been done on potential signings and ciontact would have been made. The board used the resignation and delayed naming a manager until after the window recisely because they didn't want to spend any money. Why else?
Because it is difficult to find, convince and apppoint a new manager from a standing start in three weeks?
IF they'd delayed announcing anything just till the window closed, how come we still haven't appointed a manager over a week after?
Can't see why it should be a standing start but that's another point.
because the time of the year dictates the importance on getting a decision made as soon as possible. If you seel an important player and buy no other players in then you are gambling on the team up to January. If it goes wrong then we run the risk of Ash going in the summer if he thinks we're going nowhere. If the board/Randy wants to protect his investment then he must see the need to have brought some players in, and to do that get a manager in.
We are still a decent job - find out who wants it, interview, make a decision. It seems that theie dithering was based on seeing if Kev Mac could do it. 6-0 told everyone but them, no. That cost us another week. They also said that they wouldn't buy in the market until a manager was announced and then that they wouldn't do it until after the transfer window closed.
Why would they do that unless they were happy to see no new faces in? Its was done, in my opinion, to avoid buying anyone this summer. The reason O'Neill left.
The time of year might make it more important to get a manager in quickly, but it doesn't change the fact that it is time consuming. In fact, far from it, the time of year makes it even harder to get a manager in.
It's difficult to persuade managers to leave posts when the season is starting at the end of the week, certainly harder than at the end of a season.
And, as I said above, we did buy someone this summer - Ireland. Why wouldn't the board have insisted on cash only for Milner?
And, as I said above, we did buy someone this summer - Ireland. Why wouldn't the board have insisted on cash only for Milner?
Just playing Devils Advocate, but might it not be a case of the deal being set up by MON and they went with it? Or the £16m being enough for what they wanted/needed and deciding to take the player instead to not overly weaken the ream? Or simply as the fans would have been in uproar if they had taken straight cash?
As I said in another thread, there are too many ifs, buts and maybes to draw any meaningful conclusions as to the boards intents from the dealings of this summer. So they get the benefit of the doubt, which is the least they deserve given past player investment, and we see in January/summer 2011.