Chronicle Questions

[Lotus]

I know this is probably an unpopular opinion, but I don't see why DL or Lee Charnley should answer some of those questions. As much as I think they need to communicate more, I'd be surprised if you could find a chairman / club secretary in the country who would be willing to answer questions about club finances, whether the club will or won't be put up for sale, where the new striker is, or whether they have or have not lied.

 

Let's face it, no matter what answers they come up (whether they are true or not), no ones going to believe them anyway so what's the point.

 

I agree. I suppose the purpose of it is show the Owner/Board what's on the fans minds. What they're upset about. Any business should pay attention to any concerns raised by it's customer base imo.

 

Obviously it reads like something out of a complaints book. If the football improves then so will the tone of the questions imo.

[quayside]

The whole communication issue is a circular argument, and it's no great surprise that the board don't say much. Even looking at those questions the first part of question 5 goes a long way towards answering question 2.

 

The club let Pards do most of the communicating these days - poor f*cker.

 

[Mistle17]

When do these get answered?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

When do these get answered?

 

Is this a rhetorical question?

[Mick]

Well that's what comes from being incompetent, isn't it?  If they tell the truth about what they've done or what they plan to do they'll be shouted down for being morons, if they lie about it then they're liers.  That's not the fault of the people asking the questions, but those answering them.

 

Fair point, you're right to a degree.

 

But even things that they're doing right, like restricting the amount they'll pay transfer fees, they can't actually come out and say because it will influence future deals. And things like the fact that Ashley would sell up to any decent buyer, they can't say because it will only cause more instability.

 

Right or wrong, there are a lot of things that it would be very unwise to comment publicly about.

 

How can "restricting the amount they'll pay transfer fees" be doing the right thing if it means we're not getting the players we need and want?

[Cronky]

Well that's what comes from being incompetent, isn't it?  If they tell the truth about what they've done or what they plan to do they'll be shouted down for being morons, if they lie about it then they're liers.  That's not the fault of the people asking the questions, but those answering them.

 

Fair point, you're right to a degree.

 

But even things that they're doing right, like restricting the amount they'll pay transfer fees, they can't actually come out and say because it will influence future deals. And things like the fact that Ashley would sell up to any decent buyer, they can't say because it will only cause more instability.

 

Right or wrong, there are a lot of things that it would be very unwise to comment publicly about.

 

Well, if the club make a point of saying that ALL the Carroll money will go back into the club and then 8 months later have a net transfer spend of about £500k i think there are some questions that are fair to ask.

 

There's something strange about your defending of them on really quite minor points.

 

I don't defend that promise about the Carroll money, I've always said they were wrong to promise it would all go on the team.

 

 

IIRC the comment about it all being spent on 'the team' came from Pardew, not Llambias. His wording also led to the interpretation that it would all go on transfer fees, and nothing else.

 

Now you may say that Pardew was only repeating, word for word, what he had been told - 'the owner's mouthpiece' line. However, I think we've seen more recently that Pardew tends to speak from some middle ground of his own devising, in between the owner on the one hand, and the fans and players on the other. Some of it may be literally what he's been told, some may be his interpretation of what's been said, and some may be his own slant in order to put pressure on the owner.

 

Someone can dismiss it all in the word 'lies' if they want, but these sort of games are what goes on in the real world of a tough working environment. Personally, I think Pardew runs the danger of trying to appear to be all things to all men. It's too easy then to end up confusing the picture, or making yourself look dishonest.

[TRon]

The questions are all valid but it's a bit pointless even attempting to answer them IMO. When you have had 7 months to replace your main striker but failed in several attempts due mostly to not wanting to spend the money to persuade clubs to sell, or wasting too much time on targets who had no interest in coming, then there really isn't any justification which would satisfy fans. Action speaks louder than words and our rubbish attempts to bring in the much needed striker said everything about how serious we were.

[Benwell Lad]

Well that's what comes from being incompetent, isn't it?  If they tell the truth about what they've done or what they plan to do they'll be shouted down for being morons, if they lie about it then they're liers.  That's not the fault of the people asking the questions, but those answering them.

 

Fair point, you're right to a degree.

 

But even things that they're doing right, like restricting the amount they'll pay transfer fees, they can't actually come out and say because it will influence future deals. And things like the fact that Ashley would sell up to any decent buyer, they can't say because it will only cause more instability.

 

Right or wrong, there are a lot of things that it would be very unwise to comment publicly about.

 

Well, if the club make a point of saying that ALL the Carroll money will go back into the club and then 8 months later have a net transfer spend of about £500k i think there are some questions that are fair to ask.

 

There's something strange about your defending of them on really quite minor points.

 

I don't defend that promise about the Carroll money, I've always said they were wrong to promise it would all go on the team.

 

 

IIRC the comment about it all being spent on 'the team' came from Pardew, not Llambias. His wording also led to the interpretation that it would all go on transfer fees, and nothing else.

 

Now you may say that Pardew was only repeating, word for word, what he had been told - 'the owner's mouthpiece' line. However, I think we've seen more recently that Pardew tends to speak from some middle ground of his own devising, in between the owner on the one hand, and the fans and players on the other. Some of it may be literally what he's been told, some may be his interpretation of what's been said, and some may be his own slant in order to put pressure on the owner.

 

Someone can dismiss it all in the word 'lies' if they want, but these sort of games are what goes on in the real world of a tough working environment. Personally, I think Pardew runs the danger of trying to appear to be all things to all men. It's too easy then to end up confusing the picture, or making yourself look dishonest.

 

Hey come on, lets not introduce the real world into Newcastle discussion forums 

[quayside]

The questions are all valid but it's a bit pointless even attempting to answer them IMO. When you have had 7 months to replace your main striker but failed in several attempts due mostly to not wanting to spend the money to persuade clubs to sell, or wasting too much time on targets who had no interest in coming, then there really isn't any justification which would satisfy fans. Action speaks louder than words and our rubbish attempts to bring in the much needed striker said everything about how serious we were.

 

I agree our attempts were rubbish, but even more worryingly I think we were serious. It seems pretty obvious that the transfer market is a difficult place to do business. There are differering agendas from players, their agents and the clubs themselves and they all have to be dealt with. We seem to be ok at identifying and closing in on release clauses and free transfers. We can also pick out a bargain. But to me we have demonstrated that there is a lack of the right sort of negotiating expertise in our structure. There are times when a bit of flexibility is required. One of the journos (Edwards?) said we are always looking for the perfect deal when, at times, you have to bite the bullet and pay a full price for a player you really need - and I think that view is right.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Well that's what comes from being incompetent, isn't it?  If they tell the truth about what they've done or what they plan to do they'll be shouted down for being morons, if they lie about it then they're liers.  That's not the fault of the people asking the questions, but those answering them.

 

Fair point, you're right to a degree.

 

But even things that they're doing right, like restricting the amount they'll pay transfer fees, they can't actually come out and say because it will influence future deals. And things like the fact that Ashley would sell up to any decent buyer, they can't say because it will only cause more instability.

 

Right or wrong, there are a lot of things that it would be very unwise to comment publicly about.

 

Well, if the club make a point of saying that ALL the Carroll money will go back into the club and then 8 months later have a net transfer spend of about £500k i think there are some questions that are fair to ask.

 

There's something strange about your defending of them on really quite minor points.

 

I don't defend that promise about the Carroll money, I've always said they were wrong to promise it would all go on the team.

 

 

IIRC the comment about it all being spent on 'the team' came from Pardew, not Llambias. His wording also led to the interpretation that it would all go on transfer fees, and nothing else.

 

Now you may say that Pardew was only repeating, word for word, what he had been told - 'the owner's mouthpiece' line. However, I think we've seen more recently that Pardew tends to speak from some middle ground of his own devising, in between the owner on the one hand, and the fans and players on the other. Some of it may be literally what he's been told, some may be his interpretation of what's been said, and some may be his own slant in order to put pressure on the owner.

 

Someone can dismiss it all in the word 'lies' if they want, but these sort of games are what goes on in the real world of a tough working environment. Personally, I think Pardew runs the danger of trying to appear to be all things to all men. It's too easy then to end up confusing the picture, or making yourself look dishonest.

 

Yeah, very fair assessment.

 

That promise I think was made in the heat of trying to defend a very unpopular decision, and in hindsight everyone can see it was an error. Managers don't always have the luxury of time and space to consider their responses to unexpected events, particularly when employed by Derek and Mike.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Well that's what comes from being incompetent, isn't it?  If they tell the truth about what they've done or what they plan to do they'll be shouted down for being morons, if they lie about it then they're liers.  That's not the fault of the people asking the questions, but those answering them.

 

Fair point, you're right to a degree.

 

But even things that they're doing right, like restricting the amount they'll pay transfer fees, they can't actually come out and say because it will influence future deals. And things like the fact that Ashley would sell up to any decent buyer, they can't say because it will only cause more instability.

 

Right or wrong, there are a lot of things that it would be very unwise to comment publicly about.

 

How can "restricting the amount they'll pay transfer fees" be doing the right thing if it means we're not getting the players we need and want?

 

Because there's more to it than what happens on the pitch. If paying whatever it took to get a player was always right we would be back to chaos. It's not always wrong either though, obviously.

 

See quayside's post for a (as usual) clearer explanation!

 

[Sifu]

Llambias will sit with a lawyer one night and draft answers that are airtight but tell us absolutely f*** all. Like someone's just said, expect nowt but generic positive statements which dont give us anything near a satisfactory answer.

 

[TRon]

The questions are all valid but it's a bit pointless even attempting to answer them IMO. When you have had 7 months to replace your main striker but failed in several attempts due mostly to not wanting to spend the money to persuade clubs to sell, or wasting too much time on targets who had no interest in coming, then there really isn't any justification which would satisfy fans. Action speaks louder than words and our rubbish attempts to bring in the much needed striker said everything about how serious we were.

 

I agree our attempts were rubbish, but even more worryingly I think we were serious. It seems pretty obvious that the transfer market is a difficult place to do business. There are differering agendas from players, their agents and the clubs themselves and they all have to be dealt with. We seem to be ok at identifying and closing in on release clauses and free transfers. We can also pick out a bargain. But to me we have demonstrated that there is a lack of the right sort of negotiating expertise in our structure. There are times when a bit of flexibility is required. One of the journos (Edwards?) said we are always looking for the perfect deal when, at times, you have to bite the bullet and pay a full price for a player you really need - and I think that view is right.

 

Couldn't agree more. What annoys me, and I suspect a lot of other people, is that "the perfect deal" is sometimes paying a bit more to get a component you need rather than look at it in isolation. If we had to spend an extra £2m on signing a striker it would probably have been worth at least that just in finishing several places higher in the league table, generating excitement and therefore higher gates and so on. I just don't understand our mentality sometimes. By all means work within a budget, but when you've banked so much money from sales why not invest a bit more in the players who will take you on a level? It makes business sense to do so for most people.

[Dave]

[Benwell Lad]

The questions are all valid but it's a bit pointless even attempting to answer them IMO. When you have had 7 months to replace your main striker but failed in several attempts due mostly to not wanting to spend the money to persuade clubs to sell, or wasting too much time on targets who had no interest in coming, then there really isn't any justification which would satisfy fans. Action speaks louder than words and our rubbish attempts to bring in the much needed striker said everything about how serious we were.

 

I agree our attempts were rubbish, but even more worryingly I think we were serious. It seems pretty obvious that the transfer market is a difficult place to do business. There are differering agendas from players, their agents and the clubs themselves and they all have to be dealt with. We seem to be ok at identifying and closing in on release clauses and free transfers. We can also pick out a bargain. But to me we have demonstrated that there is a lack of the right sort of negotiating expertise in our structure. There are times when a bit of flexibility is required. One of the journos (Edwards?) said we are always looking for the perfect deal when, at times, you have to bite the bullet and pay a full price for a player you really need - and I think that view is right.

 

Couldn't agree more. What annoys me, and I suspect a lot of other people, is that "the perfect deal" is sometimes paying a bit more to get a component you need rather than look at it in isolation. If we had to spend an extra £2m on signing a striker it would probably have been worth at least that just in finishing several places higher in the league table, generating excitement and therefore higher gates and so on. I just don't understand our mentality sometimes. By all means work within a budget, but when you've banked so much money from sales why not invest a bit more in the players who will take you on a level? It makes business sense to do so for most people.

 

I'm not entirely sure it was a case of just offering a higher price, but more worryingly that extra nous is needed when the target player's club do not want to sell.  Lets face it any idiot can transact a deal when the club wants to sell but we seem to lack someone with the the ability to make it happen when they don't.

During the last days of the transfer window the only forwards who moved were discards and if we are aiming higher than that then we need someone involved who is capable of making it happen.

[wormy]

The questions are all valid but it's a bit pointless even attempting to answer them IMO. When you have had 7 months to replace your main striker but failed in several attempts due mostly to not wanting to spend the money to persuade clubs to sell, or wasting too much time on targets who had no interest in coming, then there really isn't any justification which would satisfy fans. Action speaks louder than words and our rubbish attempts to bring in the much needed striker said everything about how serious we were.

 

I agree our attempts were rubbish, but even more worryingly I think we were serious. It seems pretty obvious that the transfer market is a difficult place to do business. There are differering agendas from players, their agents and the clubs themselves and they all have to be dealt with. We seem to be ok at identifying and closing in on release clauses and free transfers. We can also pick out a bargain. But to me we have demonstrated that there is a lack of the right sort of negotiating expertise in our structure. There are times when a bit of flexibility is required. One of the journos (Edwards?) said we are always looking for the perfect deal when, at times, you have to bite the bullet and pay a full price for a player you really need - and I think that view is right.

 

Couldn't agree more. What annoys me, and I suspect a lot of other people, is that "the perfect deal" is sometimes paying a bit more to get a component you need rather than look at it in isolation. If we had to spend an extra £2m on signing a striker it would probably have been worth at least that just in finishing several places higher in the league table, generating excitement and therefore higher gates and so on. I just don't understand our mentality sometimes. By all means work within a budget, but when you've banked so much money from sales why not invest a bit more in the players who will take you on a level? It makes business sense to do so for most people.

 

We did, though. You should see the signing on fees.

[Wallace]

The questions are all valid but it's a bit pointless even attempting to answer them IMO. When you have had 7 months to replace your main striker but failed in several attempts due mostly to not wanting to spend the money to persuade clubs to sell, or wasting too much time on targets who had no interest in coming, then there really isn't any justification which would satisfy fans. Action speaks louder than words and our rubbish attempts to bring in the much needed striker said everything about how serious we were.

 

I agree our attempts were rubbish, but even more worryingly I think we were serious. It seems pretty obvious that the transfer market is a difficult place to do business. There are differering agendas from players, their agents and the clubs themselves and they all have to be dealt with. We seem to be ok at identifying and closing in on release clauses and free transfers. We can also pick out a bargain. But to me we have demonstrated that there is a lack of the right sort of negotiating expertise in our structure. There are times when a bit of flexibility is required. One of the journos (Edwards?) said we are always looking for the perfect deal when, at times, you have to bite the bullet and pay a full price for a player you really need - and I think that view is right.

 

Couldn't agree more. What annoys me, and I suspect a lot of other people, is that "the perfect deal" is sometimes paying a bit more to get a component you need rather than look at it in isolation. If we had to spend an extra £2m on signing a striker it would probably have been worth at least that just in finishing several places higher in the league table, generating excitement and therefore higher gates and so on. I just don't understand our mentality sometimes. By all means work within a budget, but when you've banked so much money from sales why not invest a bit more in the players who will take you on a level? It makes business sense to do so for most people.

 

The team's needs seem to be less of a priority than getting any player for what they consider to be value for money e.g. buying a younger promising and cheaper right back who can also play at left back rather than a specialist left back when we don't even have one in the squad and arguably have 4 players (Simpson, Taylor, Perch and Tavernier) who can already play at right back.

[TRon]

The questions are all valid but it's a bit pointless even attempting to answer them IMO. When you have had 7 months to replace your main striker but failed in several attempts due mostly to not wanting to spend the money to persuade clubs to sell, or wasting too much time on targets who had no interest in coming, then there really isn't any justification which would satisfy fans. Action speaks louder than words and our rubbish attempts to bring in the much needed striker said everything about how serious we were.

 

I agree our attempts were rubbish, but even more worryingly I think we were serious. It seems pretty obvious that the transfer market is a difficult place to do business. There are differering agendas from players, their agents and the clubs themselves and they all have to be dealt with. We seem to be ok at identifying and closing in on release clauses and free transfers. We can also pick out a bargain. But to me we have demonstrated that there is a lack of the right sort of negotiating expertise in our structure. There are times when a bit of flexibility is required. One of the journos (Edwards?) said we are always looking for the perfect deal when, at times, you have to bite the bullet and pay a full price for a player you really need - and I think that view is right.

 

Couldn't agree more. What annoys me, and I suspect a lot of other people, is that "the perfect deal" is sometimes paying a bit more to get a component you need rather than look at it in isolation. If we had to spend an extra £2m on signing a striker it would probably have been worth at least that just in finishing several places higher in the league table, generating excitement and therefore higher gates and so on. I just don't understand our mentality sometimes. By all means work within a budget, but when you've banked so much money from sales why not invest a bit more in the players who will take you on a level? It makes business sense to do so for most people.

 

I'm not entirely sure it was a case of just offering a higher price, but more worryingly that extra nous is needed when the target player's club do not want to sell.  Lets face it any idiot can transact a deal when the club wants to sell but we seem to lack someone with the the ability to make it happen when they don't.

During the last days of the transfer window the only forwards who moved were discards and if we are aiming higher than that then we need someone involved who is capable of making it happen.

 

Ruiz is the one I can't get my head around. If there were no players of the right quality available then fair enough, but why wait all summer then bid for Ruiz at the last minute? Because we were hoping to sign Mobidu Maiga despite Socheaux telling us repeatedly that they weren't going to sell without getting a replacement? What utter shit.

[Colocho]

The questions are all valid but it's a bit pointless even attempting to answer them IMO. When you have had 7 months to replace your main striker but failed in several attempts due mostly to not wanting to spend the money to persuade clubs to sell, or wasting too much time on targets who had no interest in coming, then there really isn't any justification which would satisfy fans. Action speaks louder than words and our rubbish attempts to bring in the much needed striker said everything about how serious we were.

 

I agree our attempts were rubbish, but even more worryingly I think we were serious. It seems pretty obvious that the transfer market is a difficult place to do business. There are differering agendas from players, their agents and the clubs themselves and they all have to be dealt with. We seem to be ok at identifying and closing in on release clauses and free transfers. We can also pick out a bargain. But to me we have demonstrated that there is a lack of the right sort of negotiating expertise in our structure. There are times when a bit of flexibility is required. One of the journos (Edwards?) said we are always looking for the perfect deal when, at times, you have to bite the bullet and pay a full price for a player you really need - and I think that view is right.

 

Couldn't agree more. What annoys me, and I suspect a lot of other people, is that "the perfect deal" is sometimes paying a bit more to get a component you need rather than look at it in isolation. If we had to spend an extra £2m on signing a striker it would probably have been worth at least that just in finishing several places higher in the league table, generating excitement and therefore higher gates and so on. I just don't understand our mentality sometimes. By all means work within a budget, but when you've banked so much money from sales why not invest a bit more in the players who will take you on a level? It makes business sense to do so for most people.

 

I'm not entirely sure it was a case of just offering a higher price, but more worryingly that extra nous is needed when the target player's club do not want to sell.  Lets face it any idiot can transact a deal when the club wants to sell but we seem to lack someone with the the ability to make it happen when they don't.

During the last days of the transfer window the only forwards who moved were discards and if we are aiming higher than that then we need someone involved who is capable of making it happen.

 

Ruiz is the one I can't get my head around. If there were no players of the right quality available then fair enough, but why wait all summer then bid for Ruiz at the last minute? Because we were hoping to sign Mobidu Maiga despite Socheaux telling us repeatedly that they weren't going to sell without getting a replacement? What utter shit.

 

Like they were going to spend £10.8m.

[wormy]

The questions are all valid but it's a bit pointless even attempting to answer them IMO. When you have had 7 months to replace your main striker but failed in several attempts due mostly to not wanting to spend the money to persuade clubs to sell, or wasting too much time on targets who had no interest in coming, then there really isn't any justification which would satisfy fans. Action speaks louder than words and our rubbish attempts to bring in the much needed striker said everything about how serious we were.

 

I agree our attempts were rubbish, but even more worryingly I think we were serious. It seems pretty obvious that the transfer market is a difficult place to do business. There are differering agendas from players, their agents and the clubs themselves and they all have to be dealt with. We seem to be ok at identifying and closing in on release clauses and free transfers. We can also pick out a bargain. But to me we have demonstrated that there is a lack of the right sort of negotiating expertise in our structure. There are times when a bit of flexibility is required. One of the journos (Edwards?) said we are always looking for the perfect deal when, at times, you have to bite the bullet and pay a full price for a player you really need - and I think that view is right.

 

Couldn't agree more. What annoys me, and I suspect a lot of other people, is that "the perfect deal" is sometimes paying a bit more to get a component you need rather than look at it in isolation. If we had to spend an extra £2m on signing a striker it would probably have been worth at least that just in finishing several places higher in the league table, generating excitement and therefore higher gates and so on. I just don't understand our mentality sometimes. By all means work within a budget, but when you've banked so much money from sales why not invest a bit more in the players who will take you on a level? It makes business sense to do so for most people.

 

I'm not entirely sure it was a case of just offering a higher price, but more worryingly that extra nous is needed when the target player's club do not want to sell.  Lets face it any idiot can transact a deal when the club wants to sell but we seem to lack someone with the the ability to make it happen when they don't.

During the last days of the transfer window the only forwards who moved were discards and if we are aiming higher than that then we need someone involved who is capable of making it happen.

 

Ruiz is the one I can't get my head around. If there were no players of the right quality available then fair enough, but why wait all summer then bid for Ruiz at the last minute? Because we were hoping to sign Mobidu Maiga despite Socheaux telling us repeatedly that they weren't going to sell without getting a replacement? What utter shit.

 

Like they were going to spend £10.8m.

 

Hate to say that even I've turned into a cynic. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if it was discovered that yes, they bid £10.8m for Ruiz. But then offered him, like £10k a week.

[taxfree]

lee_ryder Lee Ryder

#nufc board answers to appear in @EveningChron at end of the week

[Dave]

So fitting.

[Benwell Lad]

The questions are all valid but it's a bit pointless even attempting to answer them IMO. When you have had 7 months to replace your main striker but failed in several attempts due mostly to not wanting to spend the money to persuade clubs to sell, or wasting too much time on targets who had no interest in coming, then there really isn't any justification which would satisfy fans. Action speaks louder than words and our rubbish attempts to bring in the much needed striker said everything about how serious we were.

 

I agree our attempts were rubbish, but even more worryingly I think we were serious. It seems pretty obvious that the transfer market is a difficult place to do business. There are differering agendas from players, their agents and the clubs themselves and they all have to be dealt with. We seem to be ok at identifying and closing in on release clauses and free transfers. We can also pick out a bargain. But to me we have demonstrated that there is a lack of the right sort of negotiating expertise in our structure. There are times when a bit of flexibility is required. One of the journos (Edwards?) said we are always looking for the perfect deal when, at times, you have to bite the bullet and pay a full price for a player you really need - and I think that view is right.

 

Couldn't agree more. What annoys me, and I suspect a lot of other people, is that "the perfect deal" is sometimes paying a bit more to get a component you need rather than look at it in isolation. If we had to spend an extra £2m on signing a striker it would probably have been worth at least that just in finishing several places higher in the league table, generating excitement and therefore higher gates and so on. I just don't understand our mentality sometimes. By all means work within a budget, but when you've banked so much money from sales why not invest a bit more in the players who will take you on a level? It makes business sense to do so for most people.

 

I'm not entirely sure it was a case of just offering a higher price, but more worryingly that extra nous is needed when the target player's club do not want to sell.  Lets face it any idiot can transact a deal when the club wants to sell but we seem to lack someone with the the ability to make it happen when they don't.

During the last days of the transfer window the only forwards who moved were discards and if we are aiming higher than that then we need someone involved who is capable of making it happen.

 

Ruiz is the one I can't get my head around. If there were no players of the right quality available then fair enough, but why wait all summer then bid for Ruiz at the last minute? Because we were hoping to sign Mobidu Maiga despite Socheaux telling us repeatedly that they weren't going to sell without getting a replacement? What utter s***.

 

Did we bid for him ?

I think Sky need to keep some kind of frenzy going on the last night to maintain audience figures. They could have probably said early on that no one was going to be signed but that doesn't keep the large Newcastle interest going, so the mad presenters spout a load of guff and the punters keep viewing. Jim White strings the audience along building up their hopes and keeps them watching the adverts.

Considering his name had never been mentioned until the last day and no one from the club has mentioned him at all I wonder if there was ever anything in the Ruiz story apart from Sky feeding internet sites and vice versa. Cue hysteria and much wailing but nothing of any substance.

[mrmojorisin75]

I'm not entirely sure it was a case of just offering a higher price, but more worryingly that extra nous is needed when the target player's club do not want to sell.  Lets face it any idiot can transact a deal when the club wants to sell but we seem to lack someone with the the ability to make it happen when they don't.

During the last days of the transfer window the only forwards who moved were discards and if we are aiming higher than that then we need someone involved who is capable of making it happen.

 

is this a joke?  2 things make clubs sell in this situation:

 

1. pay them the money they want

2. the player becomes disruptive forcing them to sell (hello maiga)

[UV]

No-one believes we seriously tried to sign Ruiz do they? That goes straight on the taking-the-piss pile along with Schweinsteiger, Johnson, Richardson, & N'Zogbia. You have to then wonder if they are happy to put in joke bids/enquiries on the last day and let the press run with the story as if it was serious, how many of the other supposed targets were just for show?

 

When we were promoted, we had Ameobi, Lovenkrands, Carroll, Best & Ranger as our strikeforce. With Ameobi & Lovenkrands you pretty much knew what you were going to get in terms of effectiveness in the Premiership. Best had been very poor for us in the Championship, Ranger looked promising but had very little game time, and Carroll had looked good but there were major doubts as to whether he'd be as effective in the Premiership. We really needed a proven striker then, but we made no attempts to buy one.

 

Carroll was far better than anyone expected, but picked up an injury which was going to keep him out for a good part of the second half of the season so we really needed to bring a first team striker in at the very least on loan in January, but we made no attempts to get one.

 

In the Summer Ba was picked up early on, giving us 5 strikers again. There were rumours about Ranger, Best & Lovenkrands being sold, but there were no bids and no serious interest. All the talk has been of playing 4-5-1. There's no way we were going to have 6 strikers on the books IMO (or 7 if you count Xisco). With that in mind you have to wonder how much actual effort was put into bringing in another striker by the man responsible for setting transfer and wage budgets, when his relatively low basic wage will almost certainly be significantly boosted by bonuses based on the club making a profit.

 

I guess we might see in January if they were really serious, but my money is on nothing happening then either unless it's a 1 in 1 out deal for a bargain basement striker, or a loan if we look in serious danger of relegation.