The club never came out and said he was not for sale either.
Clement has also contradicted himself on the events too. Which version do we believe?
What we can agree on is without Gylfi going, there was no money for new players.
Agreed Vetch - given the increase in TV monies, there surely should be money for transfers?How do you know that ? That scenario never played out. ( Last paragraph )
Agreed Vetch - given the increase in TV monies, there surely should be money for transfers?
So there should be something north of £45m - unfortunately, I suspect the (net) outlay will be south....

Agreed Vetch - given the increase in TV monies, there surely should be money for transfers?
So there should be something north of £45m - unfortunately, I suspect the (net) outlay will be south....
The issue Vetch is that the owners promised that they'd invest in the team. They haven't invested a penny into the club.

Even IF they "promised", so what ? Who did they make the promise to, and what were the circumstances ? Have you never broken a promise ? Everyone has.
Is there a law against them not investing a penny into the club ?
How do you know that they haven't invested said penny ?
Are you privy to all their financial dealings ?
I think "the issue" is that you have expectations above your pay grade.
The owners have no obligations to satisfy your demands, and the sooner you accept that, the happier you will be. Maybe.![]()
![]()
I've never broke a promise to 20,000-40,000 people. I, and every supporter should expect to see the squad improved each season. A football club is nothing without it's fan base.
We are going around in circles and come to this from different directions.
I would NEVER take as gospel anything, a) that a player says, even their contracts are usually meaningless bits of paper, or b) what a Club owner says.
I agree on players. But the owners should be held to account.
I cannot believe the spineless Trust didn't opt for the legal action. The amount of apathy from our fanbase is staggering.
Maybe getting relegated this season would be a good thing and the entire lot of them sod off and we have new owners who aren't here to make a quick profit.
[
It's a bit early to hold the owners to account. They haven't failed yet.

We'll find out over the next 2 weeks![]()

I take your point Vetch.It is surely irrelevant whether there is money available for transfers. If the owners don't want to spend it, then that's their prerogative.
I just don't get this football fan insistence that owners of Clubs have to do their bidding, i.e., spend a shed load of money on players who may, or may not, be ultimately worth the outlay.
Nobody would dream of walking into Tesco's, Boots, W.H.Smith's,etc., and demand that they behave in a certain manner re the running of their stores.
It's sheer lunacy. Football fans are just customers at the end of the day.
In fact, the customer gets a better deal from the High Street stores, in as much as they have redress if the purchased product is substandard. Football fans have no such redress. A crap game is just that, and no refund.
Just look at what's unfolding at Cardiff re the purchase of Cornelius.
![]()
They can't fail in the next two weeks. That's insane. They may fail to live up to your expectations, but that would not be failure. Relegation would be a failure.![]()
If they fail to invest in the next two weeks we'll get relegated. Our squad isn't good enough and we've just lost our best player.
They could invest and the team still get relegated. You have no way of knowing what will happen next May.
I take your point Vetch.
However, when the season tickets were sold, it could be argued that there is/was an implicit "promise" that, assuming the Club was successful in avoided the drop, it would strengthen to avoid another "flirtation" with relegation.
I understand and accept that no one can guarantee a successful season, and no one can guarantee that a signing will be successful (Baston springs to mind) ....
