Well the money for Brady and Meyler will not have all been paid up front so we are not -3.5m currently. Assuming that any future signings will be on a similar arrangement we could have more bargaining power than we think. Don't get me wrong it's not that we should be extravagent for the sake of it, but on those sort of terms there has to be more flexibility regarding wages etc.
I dont think we were ever going to buy a striker this transfer window, a loan deal for a striker will happen
I think we would have bought a striker. I think we would have bought Fraizer Campbell. I think the real spoiler here is Watford's £2m bid for Brady. I reckon that took a large chunk out of our January budget.
We wouldn't have bought Fraizer if he's on that money, we would have only subsidised part of his wages
What a pointless thread, nobody outside of City, know how much we have to spend so why waste time making stupid posts about it?
I think you've hit the nail on the head - Bruce will have experienced dealing with FC's old man when he bought him for Sunderland and thought here we go again - thus seemingly the lack of a bid. If he has agreed £30k on a long term deal that is staggering and no one in this league should be putting their club at risk with money like that.
Well 'suited and booted', the question about funds in the initial thread was purely rhetorical and opens up interesting dialogue. If you think it's stupid then why post. Discussions are open to everyone
The title should be How much money do you THINK we have to spend, then it would be acceptable and not stupid.
Quite right Strov., also worth remembering that when we were first connected to FC the papers were saying the Allams had countenanced a £7m swoop. Yesterday they were saying we had matched Sunderlands valuation of £600,000. In other words they routinely invent a load of bollox.
I don't see anyone else struggling with a title that is somewhat obvious. As we are not going to know the actual funds available!!
