Correct me if I'm wrong Steve, but Welbeck had just got injured around that time and was predicted to be out for 4 weeks. Campbell wasn't going to be fit until April and he let Healy go aswell, leaving no backup for Gyan. The case of Everton should have sent alarm bells ringing that you can't avoid a slide down the table without strikers in the team. We are so lucky that Sess managed to step up to the plate to save our season. We were damned lucky not to end up embroiled in the relegation dogfight last week.
SUNDERPITT,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, RIGHT ON THE HEAD, we were dicing with relegation, now I suppose its ok??????????? bollocks it is.
Welbeck may have been out for 4 weeks, but our run of games were such that not many were giving us any hope anyway of even getting 1 point (and that was before Bent left), but welbeck was due back, so was campbell a couple of weeks later, so the 3 fit strikers were enough, problem was, welbeck got re-injured and campbell had complications (out for next season as well), and now i know you are clutching at straws, about Healy, he done nowt for 3 years since keane bought him, I would rather he played Noble tbh. We still could not get another loan player in from the PL, it was impossible, thats why we needed to buy, clubs seen we just sold bent for 24 million, they knew welbeck/campbell was out, they knew we only had gyan for the next 4 weeks or so, so they hiked the price up to silly figures, and it may not have just been the transfer fee, the players we were seemingly looking at (fuller etc) are in the twilight of their carears, so may have wanted a big pay day and signing on fee. It obviously depends on how much they were wanting, but you cant get held to ransom all the time, other clubs see that and think we are easy push overs, so everytime we want a player they stick an extra 3-4 million on the price tag. I say good on Bruce. Quinn and short for sticking to their guns.
Well to a certain extent all well that ends well. I just think the management took a gamble, it came off JUST...and having gone through it do you think they would really make the same decision again! Whatever they say I doubt it! A couple posts above mentioned that bringing loan players in was not possible cos' we had our quota, well presumably we could have got round that i.e buy Elmo, send Mensah back do not bring in Muntari etc. or point out number of long standing injuries etc to the FA. All I am saying there is always some deal to be made, letting Bent go to Villa saved there season and nearly cost us ours, we all know that it was a close run thing..We should not have been in that position. But I guess Bruce/Quinn have learnt from their mistakes
You said bring a PL player in, we had our qouta of PL players in on loan, so it was impossible to bring in carew/agbonlahor etc in on loan. and before anyone says we shouldnt have got the PL qouta full, hmm members on here still want nedhum and welbeck on proper deals, we wont get them, well not welbeck but when they did play they were good for us, its not like they were complete flops and everyone wants to get rid of them. And injuries only have a loophole for keepers hence why fullop went to man city, there is no loophole for outfield players.
I can't blame Steve Bruce for this. With the silly money being chucked about for Torres and Carroll at that time, Sunderland was always going to be taken to the cleaners. Sod it, I think he did the right thing for the club.
Campbell resumed light training in March and wasn't expected to reach match fitness levels for 4 to 6 weeks, taking us well into April. As for clutching at straws, I was doing no such thing. I was pointing out that despite our striker predicament, SB still allowed yet another striker to leave, even though he knew that Gyan was the only fit forward we had. As for Noble, he also had his season disrupted by various injuries, the most high profile of them being the ridiculous decision to play him in a youth game 3 days before the Fulham match, when Gyan was out injured following the Wigan match, leaving us with no recognised strikers. I'm obviously not going to convince you that SB was wrong and you're not going to convince me that he did the right thing, so we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
but who is saying that a new striker of lets be honest the quality that was bandied about at the time, would have done much for us anyway, in no way shape or form would they have been a direct replacement for Bent, and would have been lucky to get 3-4 goals by the end of the season anyway. it would have been another stop gap signing aka killgallon, and we would have been stuck with them for 3-4 years, you cant just give someone a contract for 6 months to cover injuries. and obviously Healy just wasnt good enough, yes at international he seems to have something about him, but i dont think he has ever done it at league level, not PL anyway. you also have to remember we got bit part payments for Bent, we didnt get 24 million up front, and 6 of that went straight to spurs anyway, so lets say we got 5 to keep, there isnt a lot out there for that type of sum. You cant blame it all on Bruce either, Short and Quinn must take some responsibilty (if there is any) for what happened.
If they had bought a new striker there was no guarantee they would have come and started scoring goals straight away. I believe Bruce and Quinn would have had a look around and couldn't find value for money. And if it's a choice between getting someone like Doyle in January for £10-15m or in the summer for £6-8m, you'll take the summer, as it means the money saved can be re-invested. I'd rather have a top quality striker (to adequately replace Bent) and a mediocre one in the summer, than a mediocre striker in Jan for the same price. I find it refreshing the club take value for money seriously, as it means we maintain a stable business footing and won't do a Leeds/Pompey. ...Saying this, if we don't get a top-quality striker as well as a couple of decent squad strikers this summer, and end up just getting someone like Bothroyd/Carew as our 'Bent replacement', I'll retract everything I've said and be very angry.
It does frequently say in the article "we" so I agree with you. It was obviously a joint decision between manager and chairman.
