| The Board 15:09 - Feb 1 with 2731 views | Swanfan1 |
Could have gambled 5 to 10 mill. to survive at least.
If we go down it will be a total loss in terms of revenues for over 70 million pounds,
surely it is worth taking a shot at staying up and improving
Tiendalli´s position. the amat situation and a better winger.
If we go down we will still miss out on a lot of revenues, I just dont see why saving money in this January is good in the long term, not advocating overspending but if you losing revenues of 70 or 80. is not that big of a difference still a huge loss, but you at least tried to stay up for that 10 more. | |
| |  |
| The Board on 15:10 - Feb 1 with 2723 views | DwightYorkeSuperstar |
£5m to £10m seems excessive, but a better loan or 2 wouldn't have hurt. Why the hell didn't we go in for Holtby is beyond me. | |
| |
| The Board on 15:17 - Feb 1 with 2660 views | jacksfullaces |
as others yesterday I sadly got sucked into the Sky led transfer day pantomime where we were linked with all sorts of attackers/wingers over the last few days. But then listened to the wise words of Huw that we have a squad built for the season if everyone is fit (but seem to have bought in a couple of striker cum winner journeymen that will be 3rd or 4th choice, I let that go)
Then I watched todays match - saw the team sheet and see a CB in midfield. And a RB that was only ever called in last year to cover an injured LB. And I ask why weren't these clear gaps filled, wouldn't have cost a fortune but that 5-10 mil mentioned above could have found some decent competition for places in these positions?
Now I notice that might seem a simple evaluation, but if we are building or covering those are the holes, and we knew that before today and for most of the whole of Jan or before if we talk about RB | | | |
| The Board on 15:20 - Feb 1 with 2637 views | Phil_S |
Where is this £10m coming from? | | | |
| The Board on 15:20 - Feb 1 with 2637 views | Swanfan1 |
Yea maybe not 5-10 mill. but at least a few quid to address some of the problems in the squad that is clear for everyone to see,
You are not going to have your best 11 players fit at the same time when u played as many games as we have, to think otherwise is to be naive and inexperienced and thats the 2 things I would never associate with Huw Jenkins. | |
| |
| The Board on 15:20 - Feb 1 with 2637 views | Phaedrus |
You take a gamble to survive if you are 15 points adrift at the bottom of the league. [Post edited 1 Feb 2014 15:20]
| |
| And what is good Phaedrus, and what is not good. Need we ask anyone to tell us these things? |
| |
| The Board on 15:29 - Feb 1 with 2587 views | Magic_Michu |
The board didn't give Laudrup any money this window because they know that Laudrup is leaving and weren't willing to give him any money | |
| |
| The Board on 15:31 - Feb 1 with 2559 views | Swanfan1 |
if thats the case they should have gotten rid of him and replaced him.
there is some squad problems and is evident for everyone to see.
this could backfire. | |
| |
| The Board on 15:38 - Feb 1 with 2524 views | jacksfullaces |
moving this into the how Laudrup manages his squad field. I thought he outlined that he would have a small squad with a competitive under 21s. why then does he not bring in a like for like replacement (donelly/lucas/Richards) when we are up against it?
We are neither adhering to his outlined plan or bringing in replacements, so both board and Laudrup are in question here. But ultimately the Board should be putting pressure on Laudrup to manage his squad better or give him the money to buy replacements if he admits that maybe his original plan won't work because of lack of quality.
This refusal of either party to take control of the situation has led to the sticky situation we are in. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
