bahtat
Striker
How many players have we bought after a loan, Elmo can't think of many moreSometimes they are. As a stop gap and also a chance to fully assess a player before buying
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How many players have we bought after a loan, Elmo can't think of many moreSometimes they are. As a stop gap and also a chance to fully assess a player before buying
thats why i don't like them, they make us weaker whilst making the parent club stronger in the long term.How many players have we bought after a loan, Elmo can't think of many more
How for the love of god, does it make us weakerthats why i don't like them, they make us weaker whilst making the parent club stronger in the long term.
if/when sess is sold - net spend: £3.5M. you can tell what the plan is
O'Shea has played left back, Celustka played left back when Colback went off the other day. Gardner, Celustka, O'shea Brown Cuellar can play right back. We do have some options, however we do need a specialist left backWe need a LB, Buttner or not.
What the fuck would we do if Colback got injured with our squad is as it is ATM?
because they take him back and we're back to square one?How for the love of god, does it make us weaker
I agree, personally I think we could of bought Rose last summer instead we went for a loan, made Spurs realise what a good player he was and as a result lost out. In fact it's worse than that cos if we had not taken Rose we would probably of had to develop Colback just as we are having to do now except we have lost a year and pissed the lad off to the extent he won't sign a new contractthats why i don't like them, they make us weaker whilst making the parent club stronger in the long term.
it is true. simple as thatCan you? Please enlighten me.
Unless you break the habit of a lifetime and don't come out with some half line sneering soundbite by way of explanation, I'm going to assume you won't be able to. What I'll do is explain how I see it so you'll know what kind of thing I'm after.
We are rationalising and restructuring the playing staff. That means no further stupid wages paid out to average plodders. We're stuck with the lads previous regimes have signed because of the policy of blindly splashing the cash on whoever happens to wander past. Unfortunately this means having to lose some of our better players on high wages because they are the only saleable assets. We replace these assets using the new, on first impression more effective, scouting team to find us viable alternatives within the new structure. While we're transitioning it can look like we're cutting costs, that's true, however it doesn't mean that it's the be all and end all of the strategy.
In effect you could say that about any transfer if you want to be miserable enough. They might ask for a transfer. The fact remains we can't possible be weaker if we get a left back on loan. We have a left back whilst the scouts try and find us a permanent one. So back to square one means we are the same, not weakerbecause they take him back and we're back to square one?
O'Shea has played left back, Celustka played left back when Colback went off the other day. Gardner, Celustka, O'shea Brown Cuellar can play right back. We do have some options, however we do need a specialist left back
Worse than that cos we have held back existing players at the clubbecause they take him back and we're back to square one?
could ya fuck.In effect you could say that about any transfer if you want to be miserable enough. They might ask for a transfer. The fact remains we can't possible be weaker if we get a left back on loan. We have a left back whilst the scouts try and find us a permanent one. So back to square one means we are the same, not weaker
Well he was the last manager and I recall reading that this sort of thing would be a thing of the past.You said mr containment first mate.
He failed man. Take the shrine down fella.
I don't think he can see thisIn effect you could say that about any transfer if you want to be miserable enough. They might ask for a transfer. The fact remains we can't possible be weaker if we get a left back on loan. We have a left back whilst the scouts try and find us a permanent one. So back to square one means we are the same, not weaker
Worse than that cos we have held back existing players at the club
it is true. simple as that
im not knocking the fact that its a different set up at the back, but we're still cutting costs regardless of anyway you like to dress it up.[/quote]
Yes we are! And Im delighted about it! What cant people understand about managing a budget??????
Utter bollocksStill don't think it's £30m.
It was leaked out by the club in preparation for no more spend.