the modric offer

[Guest]

we spent plenty in the summer. one of the highest spending clubs in the world actually.

 

ashley is still fat though.

 

We did indeed spend a lot of money. 

 

Danny Guthrie £2.5m

Sebastien Bassong £2

Fabricio Coloccini £9.1m 

Francisco Jiminez Tejada "Xisco"£5m

 

That makes a total of £19.1m,

 

 

 

 

 

.....however we also brought in a lot of money through player sales.

 

David Rozehnal DEF Lazio £2.9m

Emre £3m

Abdoulaye Faye £2.25m

James Milner £12

 

Which makes around £20.15m coming in. 

 

I've used the 'best' figures that I can find - unfortuately with the lack of transparency we can only go on rumoured transfer fees from news sites and NUFC.com.

 

As for Modric - Rooney smokescreen in my books.  Mind after watching him, I much prefer Jonas TBH.  Scored a John Dahl Tommasonn 'cracker' last night though.

 

The average spend has been greatly exaggerated though by the fact we received an offer we couldn't refuse for a player. Let's say Modric hadn't turned us down and Villa were only offering £8m for Milner, chances are we'd not have sold him and we'd be looking at something like a £40m net spend for the last two years.

[Teasy]

 

The average spend has been greatly exaggerated though by the fact we received an offer we couldn't refuse for a player. Let's say Modric hadn't turned us down and Villa were only offering £8m for Milner, chances are we'd not have sold him and we'd be looking at something like a £40m net spend for the last two years.

 

Like people have said where was the alternative to Modric?  Also if Milner was only sold because the offer was too good to refuse then why wasn't that money re-invested in players?  We were willing to spend £40 million net but we just keep failing and ending up basically breaking even?  I gave them the benefit of that doubt at first, three windows later I don't believe it anymore!

[Guest johny2k]

libertine your argument is completely flawed,made a profit this summer, spent about 9m last, mid table is wot ashley's invest ment deserve so far, spurs have spent more than our total net spend for all of ashleys windows on at least 4 seperate signings(rightly or wrongly ) so to try and describe our transfer activity as ambitions is crazy

[Guest]

 

The average spend has been greatly exaggerated though by the fact we received an offer we couldn't refuse for a player. Let's say Modric hadn't turned us down and Villa were only offering £8m for Milner, chances are we'd not have sold him and we'd be looking at something like a £40m net spend for the last two years.

 

Like people have said where was the alternative to Modric?  Also if Milner was only sold because the offer was too good to refuse then why wasn't that money re-invested in players?  We were willing to spend £40 million net but we just keep failing and ending up basically breaking even?  I gave them the benefit of that doubt at first, three windows later I don't believe it anymore!

 

We bid £22.5m for Rooney in Aug 2004, we didn't sign his "alternative" until 12 months later (Owen).

[Spider Jerusalem]

 

The average spend has been greatly exaggerated though by the fact we received an offer we couldn't refuse for a player. Let's say Modric hadn't turned us down and Villa were only offering £8m for Milner, chances are we'd not have sold him and we'd be looking at something like a £40m net spend for the last two years.

 

 

I would love to have thought that Mr Nut, but Villa had been sniffing round for three transfer windows and then he left with a few days to spare, after handing in a transfer request a week before.  If the club had any sort of transfer strategy they would have had some sort of replacement lined up before he left, or even as cover, as this was one of the positions that we have had no cover for in the previous season.

 

The cynic in me has said,since Sep 2nd, that he was sold to cover the transfer fee for Collocini, which was only backed up by Mr Balls of Iron giving up without a fight when a bunch of middle aged guys paraded a banner around St James' a few days later asking him to leave.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

There is something dodgey about the whole deal at Spurs' end iyam, we done well to dodge that one as even if he were any good, his owners would have him away after a spell, not that he is any good. They are welcome to him.

[Wullie]

 

The average spend has been greatly exaggerated though by the fact we received an offer we couldn't refuse for a player. Let's say Modric hadn't turned us down and Villa were only offering £8m for Milner, chances are we'd not have sold him and we'd be looking at something like a £40m net spend for the last two years.

 

Like people have said where was the alternative to Modric?  Also if Milner was only sold because the offer was too good to refuse then why wasn't that money re-invested in players?  We were willing to spend £40 million net but we just keep failing and ending up basically breaking even?  I gave them the benefit of that doubt at first, three windows later I don't believe it anymore!

 

We bid £22.5m for Rooney in Aug 2004, we didn't sign his "alternative" until 12 months later (Owen).

 

Bizarre.

[Guest]

What's "bizarre" about it? Shepherd wanted his top-class striker in 2004 and went for Rooney, missed out, and it wasn't until exactly a year later that the alternative was signed.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

I thought Owen was Shearer's replacement? Or was Rooney so Owen was really the replacement's replacement? No wonder he looked a bit miffed when he signed. He wasn't even first-choice on the list. The Souness of strikers.

[Wullie]

What's "bizarre" about it? Shepherd wanted his top-class striker in 2004 and went for Rooney, missed out, and it wasn't until exactly a year later that the alternative was signed.

 

I know you love to hark back to some past situation in every post but how is that in anyway relevant to anything?

[Guest]

What's "bizarre" about it? Shepherd wanted his top-class striker in 2004 and went for Rooney, missed out, and it wasn't until exactly a year later that the alternative was signed.

 

I know you love to hark back to some past situation in every post but how is that in anyway relevant to anything?

 

Because sometimes there isn't simply a case of there "being an alternative". I'd imagine, like with the Rooney scenario, we saw a top-class player who we could a) afford and b) might have a chance of signing, so went beyond what they'd normally do to sign them. There might be a case in this transfer window or the summer where there's another "Modric" out there who this time might sign for us, just like in 2004/5 where we wanted a big-name striker to replace Shearer long-term so went for Rooney and then later on, Owen.

[Wullie]

What's "bizarre" about it? Shepherd wanted his top-class striker in 2004 and went for Rooney, missed out, and it wasn't until exactly a year later that the alternative was signed.

 

I know you love to hark back to some past situation in every post but how is that in anyway relevant to anything?

 

Because sometimes there isn't simply a case of there "being an alternative". I'd imagine, like with the Rooney scenario, we saw a top-class player who we could a) afford and b) might have a chance of signing, so went beyond what they'd normally do to sign them. There might be a case in this transfer window or the summer where there's another "Modric" out there who this time might sign for us, just like in 2004/5 where we wanted a big-name striker to replace Shearer long-term so went for Rooney and then later on, Owen.

 

But there's so many differences that the comparison is totally pointless and makes no sense, not least the timing and the fact we've been absolutely desperate for a quality midfielder for years.

[TRon]

What's "bizarre" about it? Shepherd wanted his top-class striker in 2004 and went for Rooney, missed out, and it wasn't until exactly a year later that the alternative was signed.

 

I know you love to hark back to some past situation in every post but how is that in anyway relevant to anything?

 

Because sometimes there isn't simply a case of there "being an alternative". I'd imagine, like with the Rooney scenario, we saw a top-class player who we could a) afford and b) might have a chance of signing, so went beyond what they'd normally do to sign them. There might be a case in this transfer window or the summer where there's another "Modric" out there who this time might sign for us, just like in 2004/5 where we wanted a big-name striker to replace Shearer long-term so went for Rooney and then later on, Owen.

 

That sounds very Shepherd-like thinking tbf. Forget what we need, look who's available!

[merlin]

What's "bizarre" about it? Shepherd wanted his top-class striker in 2004 and went for Rooney, missed out, and it wasn't until exactly a year later that the alternative was signed.

 

I know you love to hark back to some past situation in every post but how is that in anyway relevant to anything?

 

Because sometimes there isn't simply a case of there "being an alternative". I'd imagine, like with the Rooney scenario, we saw a top-class player who we could a) afford and b) might have a chance of signing, so went beyond what they'd normally do to sign them. There might be a case in this transfer window or the summer where there's another "Modric" out there who this time might sign for us, just like in 2004/5 where we wanted a big-name striker to replace Shearer long-term so went for Rooney and then later on, Owen.

 

The difference is that the club is in a MUCH worse position now than it was in 2004/5 - any top player will NOT sign for NUFC if he has an alternative, and if he IS a 'top' player, he will have plenty of alternatives...

Whether you like it or not, the club is viewed as second-rate now.

Owen, for example, would not sign for us now if he was 25 and at Real Madrid.....

[Baggio]

What's "bizarre" about it? Shepherd wanted his top-class striker in 2004 and went for Rooney, missed out, and it wasn't until exactly a year later that the alternative was signed.

 

I know you love to hark back to some past situation in every post but how is that in anyway relevant to anything?

 

Because sometimes there isn't simply a case of there "being an alternative". I'd imagine, like with the Rooney scenario, we saw a top-class player who we could a) afford and b) might have a chance of signing, so went beyond what they'd normally do to sign them. There might be a case in this transfer window or the summer where there's another "Modric" out there who this time might sign for us, just like in 2004/5 where we wanted a big-name striker to replace Shearer long-term so went for Rooney and then later on, Owen.

 

The difference is that the club is in a MUCH worse position now than it was in 2004/5 - any top player will NOT sign for NUFC if he has an alternative, and if he IS a 'top' player, he will have plenty of alternatives...

Whether you like it or not, the club is viewed as second-rate now.

Owen, for example, would not sign for us now if he was 25 and at Real Madrid.....

 

He didn't want to sign for us back then tbh, the only reason he did was because he wanted his England place at the World cup and if the situation was the same now then he'd probably do it again.

[Guest The Libertine]

libertine your argument is completely flawed,made a profit this summer, spent about 9m last, mid table is wot ashley's invest ment deserve so far, spurs have spent more than our total net spend for all of ashleys windows on at least 4 seperate signings(rightly or wrongly ) so to try and describe our transfer activity as ambitions is crazy

 

we're currently 2 points higher than tottenham, constantly beat them in the league and we dont even have a manager. again, mass signings doesnt always = success. you're also forgetting the fact that they sold their best 2 strikers to fund/recoup the money spent.

 

i havent said the transfer activity is "ambitious", im saying we've done very well selling players who were crap or wanted away while spending decent money (top 15 spenders in the world).

[Guest The Libertine]

 

would you rather we gave away the players we sold? its pathetic because if we got ripped off selling these players the ashley haters wouldnt shut up about it.

 

would you rather we give kinnear £50 million this window when he's looking at players like barry ferguson? by your and numerous other peoples standards, we have to back him no matter what.

 

still, anything to have a dig at fat fatty mike, eh?

 

What the hell are you on about - as I have stated on a  number of occasions on this thread you stated that we had spent a lot of money.  I pointed out that we had brought more in, after which you then went off at a tangent about quality etc.

 

Now you go on to assume that I think that we should back the current manager to the hilt.  If I had my way then he wouldn't be any where near the club, but once he has been hired he has to backed to some extent.  Although, isn't that what Little Dennis is supposed to be doing and bringing in the players, not the manager?

 

As Far as Ashley is concerned, he deserves having a dig made after failing to invest in the squad, coming up with nothing but excuses when investment was required and the overall running of the club in the past six months.

 

the "tangent" should have showed you that the money we brought in was for crap and/or want away players and not selling a good player to fund transfers. but this is apparently irrelevant because it brings the net spend down.

 

back the manager or dont back the manager? "to SOME extent" so you DONT want significant money available for kinnear but you DO want significant money available? make your mind up.

 

in that case, have a dig at keegan. fucked off and didnt look back. or dont, whichever suits your "stance".

[Guest The Libertine]

 

The average spend has been greatly exaggerated though by the fact we received an offer we couldn't refuse for a player. Let's say Modric hadn't turned us down and Villa were only offering £8m for Milner, chances are we'd not have sold him and we'd be looking at something like a £40m net spend for the last two years.

 

Like people have said where was the alternative to Modric?  Also if Milner was only sold because the offer was too good to refuse then why wasn't that money re-invested in players?  We were willing to spend £40 million net but we just keep failing and ending up basically breaking even?  I gave them the benefit of that doubt at first, three windows later I don't believe it anymore!

 

because he was sold (wanted to be sold btw) in the last few days of the window. after which we paid good money for xisco.

[Tooj]

What is more worrying is how come Modric actually came over and trained with the squad, yet we couldn't finalise the deal. That's the worrying part.

[Tooj]

It's stinks of one big smoke screen tbh.

 

Tend to agree with this these days. I stuck up for Ashley for ages on the back of this 'offer' but at the end of the day bids mean nothing.

 

I find it impossible to believe that the plan B after missing out on Modric was buying Guthrie.

 

But surely, if you are going to bid then you have the money, what would have happened if he'd agreed to join us? I'm not picking a side and saying you are wrong or Ashley's bullshitting. But the idea of making an offer is that you will actually come through because were we not the team who bid first and spoke to him first? I hardly think Ashley wanted to lose Modric.

 

I highly doubt Ashley had such a hard on for Modric that he was willing to pay £20m for him but not spend it on anyone else in the world.

 

[Tooj]

 

thats the point though. because we did so well selling crap/want away players the net spend looks shit and is looked at as a bad thing.

 

Er no - you said we've spent a load of cash, when we clearly haven't.  We also spent a load of cash last year (mostly based on player sales again) and bought absolute gash in the likes of Alan Smith as a replacement.

 

The net spend looks shit (since Ashley came through the door) for one reason, and one reason only.  Because the net spend is shit.

 

If the rumours about the transfer budget of £6m are true then what has happened to the Milner money?  Or was he sold to make up the deficit, making a nice profit on the net transfer spend to boot?

 

we have spent plenty. we've also made it back selling players who were either crap or wanted out. win win.

 

ashely backed the manager (allardyce) and you're saying he bought shit so, again, dont back the manager?

 

"rumours about the....blah blah". "rumours" being the key word. time will tell.

 

Ashley never backed Allardyce though. We lost out on several targets due to the 'strategic review.'

 

we spent plenty in the summer. one of the highest spending clubs in the world actually.

 

ashley is still fat though.

 

We did indeed spend a lot of money. 

 

Danny Guthrie £2.5m

Sebastien Bassong £2

Fabricio Coloccini £9.1m 

Francisco Jiminez Tejada "Xisco"£5m

 

That makes a total of £19.1m,

 

 

 

 

 

.....however we also brought in a lot of money through player sales.

 

David Rozehnal DEF Lazio £2.9m

Emre £3m

Abdoulaye Faye £2.25m

James Milner £12

 

Which makes around £20.15m coming in. 

 

I've used the 'best' figures that I can find - unfortuately with the lack of transparency we can only go on rumoured transfer fees from news sites and NUFC.com.

 

As for Modric - Rooney smokescreen in my books.  Mind after watching him, I much prefer Jonas TBH.  Scored a John Dahl Tommasonn 'cracker' last night though.

 

The average spend has been greatly exaggerated though by the fact we received an offer we couldn't refuse for a player. Let's say Modric hadn't turned us down and Villa were only offering £8m for Milner, chances are we'd not have sold him and we'd be looking at something like a £40m net spend for the last two years.

 

You can't say that though man.

[Guest The Libertine]

 

thats the point though. because we did so well selling crap/want away players the net spend looks shit and is looked at as a bad thing.

 

Er no - you said we've spent a load of cash, when we clearly haven't.  We also spent a load of cash last year (mostly based on player sales again) and bought absolute gash in the likes of Alan Smith as a replacement.

 

The net spend looks shit (since Ashley came through the door) for one reason, and one reason only.  Because the net spend is shit.

 

If the rumours about the transfer budget of £6m are true then what has happened to the Milner money?  Or was he sold to make up the deficit, making a nice profit on the net transfer spend to boot?

 

we have spent plenty. we've also made it back selling players who were either crap or wanted out. win win.

 

ashely backed the manager (allardyce) and you're saying he bought shit so, again, dont back the manager?

 

"rumours about the....blah blah". "rumours" being the key word. time will tell.

 

Ashley never backed Allardyce though. We lost out on several targets due to the 'strategic review.'

 

a sacked manager making excuses for failing? who'd have thought it.

[Spider Jerusalem]

 

would you rather we gave away the players we sold? its pathetic because if we got ripped off selling these players the ashley haters wouldnt shut up about it.

 

would you rather we give kinnear £50 million this window when he's looking at players like barry ferguson? by your and numerous other peoples standards, we have to back him no matter what.

 

still, anything to have a dig at fat fatty mike, eh?

 

What the hell are you on about - as I have stated on a  number of occasions on this thread you stated that we had spent a lot of money.  I pointed out that we had brought more in, after which you then went off at a tangent about quality etc.

 

Now you go on to assume that I think that we should back the current manager to the hilt.  If I had my way then he wouldn't be any where near the club, but once he has been hired he has to backed to some extent.  Although, isn't that what Little Dennis is supposed to be doing and bringing in the players, not the manager?

 

As Far as Ashley is concerned, he deserves having a dig made after failing to invest in the squad, coming up with nothing but excuses when investment was required and the overall running of the club in the past six months.

 

the "tangent" should have showed you that the money we brought in was for crap and/or want away players and not selling a good player to fund transfers. but this is apparently irrelevant because it brings the net spend down.

 

back the manager or dont back the manager? "to SOME extent" so you DONT want significant money available for kinnear but you DO want significant money available? make your mind up.

 

in that case, have a dig at keegan. fucked off and didnt look back. or dont, whichever suits your "stance".

 

Fucking hell, you're as bad as NE5, or even more deluded.  Let's have a dig at Keegan then.  Aye he fucked off after three matches and left us right in the shit.  After being promised funds to rebulid, being told (as we were publicly via the media) that he was in charge of who we would bring in, was hauled over the coals (publicly) after having the nerve to say that we were not going to challenge Chelsea after watching them give us a good bumming in the face on our own ground (but then that type of comment may have an effect on the impending season ticket renewals that were due).  And to top that off only one of his targets was purchased over the summer and had two players of questionable quality that he didn't want foisted on him on the last day of the transfer window after having his only right winger sold from under him.  Oh, not to mention having the entire squad put up for transfer on the last day of the window - Ashley is a master strategist if he thinks having no squad is going to win matches.  I really think he should have stayed as he was getting backed to the hilt, wasn't he?  Or do you want to ingore all of that given your stance as an Ashley Apologist.

 

The 'quality' players that we actually paid for we spunked more than a quarter of the total outlay this summer on Xisco, who is one of the players that we are allegedly trying to shove out of the door.  But as an Ashley Apologist this will just be ignored.

 

With regards to the Milner situation, Villa had been sniffing around for a while and had put his request in a week before the window shut - so we could have had a replacement lined up before he went.  Or had a replacement already in as this was one of the positions we had no cover in last season.  But announccing that he wants away a few days before the window shuts is a really good way of getting any potential buyer to up thier price and panic buy, bringing in enough money to cover your outgoings, and even bring in a nice little profit.  But again, in your stance of Ashley Aplogist will make you a bit blinkered towards this.

 

Oh, and Allerdyce was complaining from the transfer window about the lack of movement from the management team in bringing in players causing us to miss targets, not just after he was sacked.  But as Ashley Apologists seem to be astute at doing, don't let things like this shake your opionion that under his stweardship this club is in a complete shambles.

[Guest The Libertine]

 

would you rather we gave away the players we sold? its pathetic because if we got ripped off selling these players the ashley haters wouldnt shut up about it.

 

would you rather we give kinnear £50 million this window when he's looking at players like barry ferguson? by your and numerous other peoples standards, we have to back him no matter what.

 

still, anything to have a dig at fat fatty mike, eh?

 

What the hell are you on about - as I have stated on a  number of occasions on this thread you stated that we had spent a lot of money.  I pointed out that we had brought more in, after which you then went off at a tangent about quality etc.

 

Now you go on to assume that I think that we should back the current manager to the hilt.  If I had my way then he wouldn't be any where near the club, but once he has been hired he has to backed to some extent.  Although, isn't that what Little Dennis is supposed to be doing and bringing in the players, not the manager?

 

As Far as Ashley is concerned, he deserves having a dig made after failing to invest in the squad, coming up with nothing but excuses when investment was required and the overall running of the club in the past six months.

 

the "tangent" should have showed you that the money we brought in was for crap and/or want away players and not selling a good player to fund transfers. but this is apparently irrelevant because it brings the net spend down.

 

back the manager or dont back the manager? "to SOME extent" so you DONT want significant money available for kinnear but you DO want significant money available? make your mind up.

 

in that case, have a dig at keegan. fucked off and didnt look back. or dont, whichever suits your "stance".

 

Fucking hell, you're as bad as NE5, or even more deluded.  Let's have a dig at Keegan then.  Aye he fucked off after three matches and left us right in the shit.  After being promised funds to rebulid, being told (as we were publicly via the media) that he was in charge of who we would bring in, was hauled over the coals (publicly) after having the nerve to say that we were not going to challenge Chelsea after watching them give us a good bumming in the face on our own ground (but then that type of comment may have an effect on the impending season ticket renewals that were due).  And to top that off only one of his targets was purchased over the summer and had two players of questionable quality that he didn't want foisted on him on the last day of the transfer window after having his only right winger sold from under him.  Oh, not to mention having the entire squad put up for transfer on the last day of the window - Ashley is a master strategist if he thinks having no squad is going to win matches.  I really think he should have stayed as he was getting backed to the hilt, wasn't he?  Or do you want to ingore all of that given your stance as an Ashley Apologist.

 

The 'quality' players that we actually paid for we spunked more than a quarter of the total outlay this summer on Xisco, who is one of the players that we are allegedly trying to shove out of the door.  But as an Ashley Apologist this will just be ignored.

 

With regards to the Milner situation, Villa had been sniffing around for a while and had put his request in a week before the window shut - so we could have had a replacement lined up before he went.  Or had a replacement already in as this was one of the positions we had no cover in last season.  But announccing that he wants away a few days before the window shuts is a really good way of getting any potential buyer to up thier price and panic buy, bringing in enough money to cover your outgoings, and even bring in a nice little profit.  But again, in your stance of Ashley Aplogist will make you a bit blinkered towards this.

 

Oh, and Allerdyce was complaining from the transfer window about the lack of movement from the management team in bringing in players causing us to miss targets, not just after he was sacked.  But as Ashley Apologists seem to be astute at doing, don't let things like this shake your opionion that under his stweardship this club is in a complete shambles.

 

im not reading all that. ive made my points, if you disagree, then fine. no doubt i'll disagree with what you said up there so i'd rather just leave it than type an essay replying.

[NG32]

 

would you rather we gave away the players we sold? its pathetic because if we got ripped off selling these players the ashley haters wouldnt shut up about it.

 

would you rather we give kinnear £50 million this window when he's looking at players like barry ferguson? by your and numerous other peoples standards, we have to back him no matter what.

 

still, anything to have a dig at fat fatty mike, eh?

 

What the hell are you on about - as I have stated on a  number of occasions on this thread you stated that we had spent a lot of money.  I pointed out that we had brought more in, after which you then went off at a tangent about quality etc.

 

Now you go on to assume that I think that we should back the current manager to the hilt.  If I had my way then he wouldn't be any where near the club, but once he has been hired he has to backed to some extent.  Although, isn't that what Little Dennis is supposed to be doing and bringing in the players, not the manager?

 

As Far as Ashley is concerned, he deserves having a dig made after failing to invest in the squad, coming up with nothing but excuses when investment was required and the overall running of the club in the past six months.

 

the "tangent" should have showed you that the money we brought in was for crap and/or want away players and not selling a good player to fund transfers. but this is apparently irrelevant because it brings the net spend down.

 

back the manager or dont back the manager? "to SOME extent" so you DONT want significant money available for kinnear but you DO want significant money available? make your mind up.

 

in that case, have a dig at keegan. f***ed off and didnt look back. or dont, whichever suits your "stance".

 

f***ing hell, you're as bad as NE5, or even more deluded.  Let's have a dig at Keegan then.  Aye he f***ed off after three matches and left us right in the s***.  After being promised funds to rebulid, being told (as we were publicly via the media) that he was in charge of who we would bring in, was hauled over the coals (publicly) after having the nerve to say that we were not going to challenge Chelsea after watching them give us a good bumming in the face on our own ground (but then that type of comment may have an effect on the impending season ticket renewals that were due).  And to top that off only one of his targets was purchased over the summer and had two players of questionable quality that he didn't want foisted on him on the last day of the transfer window after having his only right winger sold from under him.  Oh, not to mention having the entire squad put up for transfer on the last day of the window - Ashley is a master strategist if he thinks having no squad is going to win matches.  I really think he should have stayed as he was getting backed to the hilt, wasn't he?  Or do you want to ingore all of that given your stance as an Ashley Apologist.

 

The 'quality' players that we actually paid for we spunked more than a quarter of the total outlay this summer on Xisco, who is one of the players that we are allegedly trying to shove out of the door.  But as an Ashley Apologist this will just be ignored.

 

With regards to the Milner situation, Villa had been sniffing around for a while and had put his request in a week before the window shut - so we could have had a replacement lined up before he went.  Or had a replacement already in as this was one of the positions we had no cover in last season.  But announccing that he wants away a few days before the window shuts is a really good way of getting any potential buyer to up thier price and panic buy, bringing in enough money to cover your outgoings, and even bring in a nice little profit.  But again, in your stance of Ashley Aplogist will make you a bit blinkered towards this.

 

Oh, and Allerdyce was complaining from the transfer window about the lack of movement from the management team in bringing in players causing us to miss targets, not just after he was sacked.  But as Ashley Apologists seem to be astute at doing, don't let things like this shake your opionion that under his stweardship this club is in a complete shambles.

 

im not reading all that. ive made my points, if you disagree, then fine. no doubt i'll disagree with what you said up there so i'd rather just leave it than type an essay replying.

 

Coward.