I understand that but in reality they had 6 months to resolve this problem, the fact is they knew Fonte was leaving and that would always leave us 1 injury/suspension away from playing academy players. I don't buy the oh leave them alone because they must have tried line. Like i have said before i feel its only fair we commend them when they do well but when they don't they deserve all the criticism they get. They are being paid big bucks to ensure things like this don't happen.
We are a fantastic opportunity for a player. The worst part of negotiating would be the squad based place, but even then, anyone with any gumption would see its a good chance. (cup final, wow) I don't buy we couldn't get it done, we didn't do enough.
I suspect that the Board were optimistic that the Fonte thing was a storm in a teacup and would blow over, no way could they have imagined that VVD would be subject to serious foul play leaving him crocked for a couple of months. Decent CB's don't grow on trees.
The club knew how serious VVD'S injury was from the off, I heard (and posted it on this thread) almost a week ago. Les, the board, whoever, obviously looked at the players offered up by the black box, assessed what the pro's and cons (financial implications, fitness concerns, bedding in periods) and decided not to pursue to completion any deals. I think it is a big risk, not so much for the final, it always would have been difficult to get someone in seamlessly by then, but for the run in, where we are an injury or a suspension from disaster.
OK, I agree the board should have signed a CB, but for whatever reason they didn't. What's the point in going on and on about it now? We probably won't ever know why the various deals all fell through, but I don't personally think there were no efforts made at all, which some people (not you Kitch) seem to be suggesting. Yes, they deserve some criticism for not being able to close out at least one CB transfer, but my point is that it's not always the fault of the Saints board when things like that go wrong. Look at the hoops Les and co. had to jump through to land Gabbiadini for example, plus Tasci's wage demands and being injured.
Our first choice was refused as they didn't want to sell in Jan, so we moved to Tasci. They tried, but still deserve to be blamed.
Retweeted by Matt Le Tissier. This guy has been on the money before. http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1spj7nr
Agree with what you are saying,I dont doubt we tried, but a large chunk of business is risk mitigation and ot was suicidal to sanction Jose's sale without the replacement already contracted. The fact of the matter is we royally screwed up letting Jose go without this, and that is where my irk sits. People may moan, but that sits at the Board, even if Puel wanted Jose out, they shouldn't have sanctioned it. I get the whole 'Board have earned my trust' stuff, and to a degree i buy that too, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to voice our frustration at them.
No one said it's meant to be easy to sign players. I'm pretty sure we drive a hard bargain when selling. I understand players are overpriced in Jan but that's the way it is. If and I mean if we sell VVD in the summer then you can bet your bottom dollar we will have to pay over the top for replacements as we will be cash rich and teams will take advantage of that.
