Two Players We Still Haven't Replaced

[TRon]

Baggio, if we didnt have a sell to buy policy last summer, how come you insist that Smith was a replacement for Dyer? If the actual date the deal goes through proves anything. Which it doesnt anyway.

 

Because Allardyce went on tv and said he was his replacement?

 

When a player leaves you usually replace them, yet we were prepared to hang on to Dyer until we got the money we thought he was worth, in fact we signed Enrique a week before we sold Dyer, where does he fit in this imaginary buy to sell policy?

 

So none of the deals were financially linked then?

 

 

 

IIRC We sold Dyer, then bought Smith, then told West Ham Dyer was no longer for sale because something upset Ashley about the way West Ham had carried out their business. How does that fit in with your sell to buy argument?

 

 

[ChezGiven]

Baggio, if we didnt have a sell to buy policy last summer, how come you insist that Smith was a replacement for Dyer? If the actual date the deal goes through proves anything. Which it doesnt anyway.

 

Because Allardyce went on tv and said he was his replacement?

 

When a player leaves you usually replace them, yet we were prepared to hang on to Dyer until we got the money we thought he was worth, in fact we signed Enrique a week before we sold Dyer, where does he fit in this imaginary buy to sell policy?

 

So none of the deals were financially linked then?

 

 

 

IIRC We sold Dyer, then bought Smith, then told West Ham Dyer was no longer for sale because something upset Ashley about the way West Ham had carried out their business. How does that fit in with your sell to buy argument?

 

 

 

I'm not the one insisting they were directly linked and was merely highlighting that the dates deals are completed means nowt.

[NE5]

Baggio, if we didnt have a sell to buy policy last summer, how come you insist that Smith was a replacement for Dyer? If the actual date the deal goes through proves anything. Which it doesnt anyway.

 

Because Allardyce went on tv and said he was his replacement?

 

When a player leaves you usually replace them, yet we were prepared to hang on to Dyer until we got the money we thought he was worth, in fact we signed Enrique a week before we sold Dyer, where does he fit in this imaginary buy to sell policy?

 

So none of the deals were financially linked then?

 

 

 

IIRC We sold Dyer, then bought Smith, then told West Ham Dyer was no longer for sale because something upset Ashley about the way West Ham had carried out their business. How does that fit in with your sell to buy argument?

 

 

a bit similar to portsmouth perhaps. Signing Defoe to replace Benjani, then shitting themselves when the Benjani deal looked like it might fall through.

 

They may be in the Cup Semi Final and above us in the league, for the moment and the first time in decades, but when we behave like clubs who have 20,000 gates.....

 

I'll leave you to work it out yourself.

 

 

[Decky]

NE5 are you going to respond to Baggio's post?

[Liam Liam Liam O]

NE5 are you going to respond to Baggio's post?

 

No, he doesn't do answers to questions

[Mick]

 

a bit similar to portsmouth perhaps. Signing Defoe to replace Benjani, then shitting themselves when the Benjani deal looked like it might fall through.

 

They may be in the Cup Semi Final and above us in the league, for the moment and the first time in decades, but when we behave like clubs who have 20,000 gates.....

 

I'll leave you to work it out yourself.

 

 

 

Portsmouth finished 4 places higher then we did last season, how come it's now become the first time in decades? 

[Baggio]

Baggio, if we didnt have a sell to buy policy last summer, how come you insist that Smith was a replacement for Dyer? If the actual date the deal goes through proves anything. Which it doesnt anyway.

 

Because Allardyce went on tv and said he was his replacement?

 

When a player leaves you usually replace them, yet we were prepared to hang on to Dyer until we got the money we thought he was worth, in fact we signed Enrique a week before we sold Dyer, where does he fit in this imaginary buy to sell policy?

 

So none of the deals were financially linked then?

 

 

 

IIRC We sold Dyer, then bought Smith, then told West Ham Dyer was no longer for sale because something upset Ashley about the way West Ham had carried out their business. How does that fit in with your sell to buy argument?

 

 

 

I'm not the one insisting they were directly linked and was merely highlighting that the dates deals are completed means nowt.

 

I'm not the one suggesting they were directly linked either although if you lose a defender then you obviously need another in, perhaps your reply should be to sicsfingeredmong who suggested the club had a sell to buy policy which meant we had to sell Parker before we met Man City's valuation of Barton which never actually happened in reality.

 

What you're getting at and what Sicsfingeredmong are getting at are two different things.

 

[Baggio]

 

a bit similar to portsmouth perhaps. Signing Defoe to replace Benjani, then shitting themselves when the Benjani deal looked like it might fall through.

 

They may be in the Cup Semi Final and above us in the league, for the moment and the first time in decades, but when we behave like clubs who have 20,000 gates.....

 

I'll leave you to work it out yourself.

 

 

 

Portsmouth finished 4 places higher then we did last season, how come it's now become the first time in decades? 

 

[TRon]

I would have thought a Chairman desperate for cash would have snapped West Ham's hands off at £6m. Bean counters don't usually risk a deal falling through by upping the price on a whim, but then recognising this probably doesn't fit in with some people's agenda so best ignore it and hope no one notices.