I don't say this is Bruce's fault. I think the Allam's wouldn't release the funds needed until they saw our performance against Manchester City and then Bruce convinced them we were one quality striker short of being a good side.
Another Woody Allen quote I was brought up to believe sex is dirty as ive gotten older ive found the dirtier the better!
It would take significantly more than a few million pounds to increase their chances of survival. Bouncebackability is the key to City's survival strategy for the short term future. The WBA model. Mind you, that might take a turn for the worst this season, but the parachute angle has increased, so that may help.
I think you're wrong. Bruce is very careful with his signings, players characters have to be right, he won't sign a player unless he is confident they will fit in. The Allams have supported Bruce financially in each window since he's been here and clearly trust his judgement. They backed him in January to the tune of £4.5 million when there was no money left in the pot and have backed him again this summer. I find your negativity hard to believe, this club has never had such a strong squad.
I agree that the above could be possible but Bent went on loan so it's not like he was committed for years and Bruce seemed to indicate that the wages were the problem with Bendtner rather than anything else. I agree we don't know. I'd be very worried if Long was the only quality striker that was willing to come to us though.
Maybe all is not lost and we can find somebody from overseas on loan - I understand that Bruce is good at that!
What's lost? We've played three games. Two of those away to two of the main title contenders, one of which we gave a real scare, and we stuffed it to one of our relegation rivals despite having 10 men for 60 mins. Get some perspective why don't you?
I agree that it's been difficult to judge them. Graham has had two difficult away games when he's been up front on his own and limited chances and he was the sole striker at home, too. Sagbo looked good at Chelsea before his moment of madness against Norwich. They may both be good enough especially with the support from the midfield that looks like it may be great. It would have been nice to have had the opportunity to be more confident before the transfer window shut.
Bruce is on record, and has been since the end of last season, as saying quality strikers were a must. That's where value for money would have been discussed with the Allams, within the constraints of an established budget, with I would imagine some flexibility if the right one or incrementally better one became available. I doubt that the Allams have so little trust in Bruce that they would be waiting for the 3rd game of the season.
I would say £5m - £6m is reasonable for a quality striker. You might even be able to get a good one from abroad for less. The funding would come from the £60 million TV money plus sponsorship deals and matchday income. I think getting a quality striker to complement the rest of the team is pretty constructive. Many fans have said that has been our main weakness. Every ex-player on BT Sport show after the Manchester City match said that the lack of a quality striker was our weakness. Were they being negative or was it just good old common sense?
At the top there's only four or five clubs as rivals. Outside the top few practically everybody else is rivals. They would be the only likely clubs to buy Long.
We are talking about football. If you don't sign enough quality players you get relegated. It's as simple as that. If we get relegated we will be practically giving away our best players like last time and like what has happened to other clubs. This is why many clubs have splashed out on strikers this year.
The problem with the strikers we have signed is that none of them have a record of scoring regularly in the Premier League. I agree that some of our rivals have gone over the top with the money paid out. Unfortunately, ex players seem to think that the lack of quality strikers is our big weakness.
I just wonder why WBA have changed their model. Is it because they have realised that staying up brings more stability?
Bottom line is.. We've needed a quality striker for the last couple of seasons, even more so now we're in the prem. Bruce was desperate for one and stated so several times. The Allams were willing to fund one! We put all our eggs in one basket with the Long deal, it backfired.. We cant blame WBA for what happend, the blame falls at the feet of Bruce & the Allams for deciding to handle deadline day the way they did. As soon as WBA said "you can have Long once we bring in our targets" we should have moved on and gone for other targets. Bruce has had an ample amount of time to scout for strikers who would improve our team. He will have a list with all the details, price, wages etc... Once we knew the Long deal wasnt going to be in our own hands we should have bid for the next player and moved on. This isnt about being ungrateful towards the allams, its amazing that they were willing to fund a potential £6m move for a striker. Whats annoying is that it didnt come off and its no one's fault but their own.
I agree. But the Premier League places are decided on relative quality between all the clubs not on one club's history.
If you think one shot off target, one offside goal and one cockup on a one-to-one is a "real scare" then I don't think much of your perspective. We lack a quality striker when even WBA seem able to get a team full of them.
