Londonccfcfan
Well-Known Member
Frank really wanted Bamford.
Its not about what Frank wants. Its what Doug and Austin wants. Should be at least be consulted.
Frank really wanted Bamford.It's really easy to bring players in.
It is bringing in the players you really want that is harder. Because
Yes but not sure what that has to do with him not having to actually live in Coventry if he ever did come back.Yes but he is still playing in the Premier League and drawing a Premier League wage.
No, Frank wanted an extra player as all managers will do.Frank really wanted Bamford.
Its not about what Frank wants. Its what Doug and Austin wants. Should be at least be consulted.
Its fine if we get 3 capable of starting and lose 2 who are only bench warmersThink ideally, it needs to be a net gain of 3. Not sure that's going to happen, mind.
It's no use if 3 come in and 2 go out. Need to have a net gain at the end of the window. Unless we are replacing average quality with better quality.
I can't see 5 coming in. That's just not realistic. 5 in, 2 out. That rarely happens in a January window, where it's notoriously harder to do good business.
Have no idea how this window is going to pan out, but I would assume 1 or 2 may well be leaving.
Yes but not sure what that has to do with him not having to actually live in Coventry if he ever did come back.
imCUMMINGInCOMING….
Like Franks had an abundance of incomings. Franks not asked for anything hes still in negative NET spend.No, Frank wanted an extra player as all managers will do.
Doug as per his job as Chairman decided that the funds were better spent on other players who we will sign this window. Funds are not unlimited.
As he is on a rumoured 35k to 40k at United I can see that argument.
Youre right. Were not going to get 5 in, its not realistic. But it is realistically what we need. Which is why ive said all along, we were 2 or 3 signings light in the summer. Meaning 2 or 3 additions now would be all we need.Think ideally, it needs to be a net gain of 3. Not sure that's going to happen, mind.
It's no use if 3 come in and 2 go out. Need to have a net gain at the end of the window. Unless we are replacing average quality with better quality.
I can't see 5 coming in. That's just not realistic. 5 in, 2 out. That rarely happens in a January window, where it's notoriously harder to do good business.
Have no idea how this window is going to pan out, but I would assume 1 or 2 may well be leaving.
I think we have to remember that the level of player we want will also be attractive to a lot of other clubs...more than likely some above us and capable of paying much more...Would have thought we'd have had people lined up ready to go as soon as the window opened. We've got to be an attractive proposition right now. How often do players get a chance to come to a side leading the league with a realistic prospect of getting decent minutes?
Similarly with the top loan players, surely we should be at the front of the queue for a change.
The longer we go through the window without bringing players in the more nervous I become, don't want to be scratching around for anyone we can find when the window is about to close.
Exactly this . We aren't the only club in Europe needing new players so competition for talent is at a premiumI think we have to remember that the level of player we want will also be attractive to a lot of other clubs...more than likely some above us and capable of paying much more...
Makes things even more tricky.... especially with the January premium.
The new copium is "we are looking for better players therefore if Doug fails thats ok"Youre right. Were not going to get 5 in, its not realistic. But it is realistically what we need. Which is why ive said all along, we were 2 or 3 signings light in the summer. Meaning 2 or 3 additions now would be all we need.
But people were so blinded by the stadium announcement, they failed to see or just didnt want to acknowledge we were 2 or 3 short in the summer. In fact, they banded around words like bed wetter. When we have been since the start of the season, light. FL says it in pretty much every interview.
Reality is, we're 5 or 6 short. Reality is, we'll be lucky to get 3. Reality is, Doug used the excuse of "wanting a small squad" in the summer, leaving us light. Reality is, if we fail, that will be our biggest reason for failure.
Sent from my SM-S711B using Tapatalk
Stop winding him up, any further and he might burstThe new copium is "we are looking for better players therefore if Doug fails thats ok"
Which bit is classed as his failure? Us being top of the league? Us having a hugely improved coaching set up? Or us finally having our own ground?The new copium is "we are looking for better players therefore if Doug fails thats ok"
If he fails to get any signings in this windowWhich bit is classed as his failure? Us being top of the league? Us having a hugely improved coaching set up? Or us finally having our own ground?
Think we also need to plan for what may happen if we go up.Exactly this . We aren't the only club in Europe needing new players so competition for talent is at a premium
Fail to strengthen and that question is irrelevant. Spend big this window and use summer sales as an insurance policy if we don’t go up.Think we also need to plan for what may happen if we go up.
Is what we sign going to be a burden after this season..... Why loans may be preferable!?
(And vice versa)
Given the difference in finances no one would really be a burden.Think we also need to plan for what may happen if we go up.
Is what we sign going to be a burden after this season..... Why loans may be preferable!?
(And vice versa)
Im not wound up. Im not ready to burst. Just saying it how I see it. Were 5 short. 3 of which from the summer. 2-3 now. Had we not been short in the summer, we wouldn't be so light now. We are. Realistically we need 5 or 6. Reality is we'll be lucky to get 3. I will happily eat my own words if we bring in 5 or 6 before deadline day. However, im confident I wont have to as I think we'll be lucky to get 3 over the line.Stop winding him up, any further and he might burst
Would make sense. Martinez has wanted out for a while now.Anybody else heard anything about Villa eyeing Rushworth for a summer move?
I honestly think, that unless we can convince a proven PL player to drop down a level for a few months, we should ONLY use the loan market this window for that exact reason.Think we also need to plan for what may happen if we go up.
Is what we sign going to be a burden after this season..... Why loans may be preferable!?
(And vice versa)
I assumed we’d passed on Bamford because we had better lined up. If it doesn’t materialise it has to go down as a mistake.I honestly think, that unless we can convince a proven PL player to drop down a level for a few months, we should ONLY use the loan market this window for that exact reason.
Even if we sign a winger like George on loan, he's still not likely to impress so much to get in to the Chelsea team next season, so we could maybe have a season and a half long loan from such players. And if he doesnt make the immediate step up, we've not pissed £6m up the wall on a transfer fee.
Which is why I still stand by Bamford. Yes, he's not been prolific in the PL, but he was free. Yes his wages were steeper than we'd like. But it was a risk free signing. And he's more PL experience alone than our entire squad combined. I said at the time, ill say again now. What will cost Doug more?
£40k wages a week on a free signing? Or a £6m fee, plus £25k a week wage?
Spoiler, £40k a week for 6 months is £910,000.
A new £6m signing on £25k a week is £6.5m. Plus no doubt a signing on fee of usually what? 10%
People, Doug included, maybe looked at his high wages and though short term gain rather than long term benefit. Hopefully it doesnt bite us on the arse.
Just imagine we lose in the play-off final to a resurgence from the blunts and they win 1-0 with a Paddy Bamford goal.
Sent from my SM-S711B using Tapatalk
Only time will tell i suppose.I assumed we’d passed on Bamford because we had better lined up. If it doesn’t materialise it has to go down as a mistake.
Sunderlands punt on LeFee (loan -65k PW) effectively worked out as a 3m January signing.I honestly think, that unless we can convince a proven PL player to drop down a level for a few months, we should ONLY use the loan market this window for that exact reason.
Even if we sign a winger like George on loan, he's still not likely to impress so much to get in to the Chelsea team next season, so we could maybe have a season and a half long loan from such players. And if he doesnt make the immediate step up, we've not pissed £6m up the wall on a transfer fee.
Which is why I still stand by Bamford. Yes, he's not been prolific in the PL, but he was free. Yes his wages were steeper than we'd like. But it was a risk free signing. And he's more PL experience alone than our entire squad combined. I said at the time, ill say again now. What will cost Doug more?
£40k wages a week on a free signing? Or a £6m fee, plus £25k a week wage?
Spoiler, £40k a week for 6 months is £910,000.
A new £6m signing on £25k a week is £6.5m. Plus no doubt a signing on fee of usually what? 10%
People, Doug included, maybe looked at his high wages and though short term gain rather than long term benefit. Hopefully it doesnt bite us on the arse.
Just imagine we lose in the play-off final to a resurgence from the blunts and they win 1-0 with a Paddy Bamford goal.
Sent from my SM-S711B using Tapatalk
Exactly. Take a punt on higher wages, knowing youre saving on the transfer fee. Its almost like he's robbing Peter to pay Paul. Didn't want to pay Bamfords wages, knowing full well any new signing will demand a fee AND still need wages. And if he thinks paying Paddy Bamford £40k a week is too steep, id fucking hate to see what sort of signings we can get in the PL when we're only willing to pay peanuts in wages to players.Sunderlands punt on LeFee (loan -65k PW) effectively worked out as a 3m January signing.
Then an 12 m summer signing (which was only if they went up!)
Got to love FLW
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?