We do get more loan spots and also able to take loans outside of the transfer windows. A great advantage. Another year in the championship wont hurt Chester. Redmond at Norwich is a good example. I suspect getting rid of our 3 remaining strikers will be a top priority and then replace them with better VFM ones.
Why ? The club is just doing what it has to do after a relegation. We wont get an offer worthy of what Chester is worth. His best option is to stay and help us get back to the PL.
Why, if Tony Pulis offered him a contract at WBA he'd be soft in the head not to take it. Same if Gary Monk offered him a contract at Swansea City.
You're backpedalling like an Allam now. You said no one rated him at the start of the season or would have cared if he had been let go which is downright bullshit. Liking a post that completely disagrees with you shows how deluded you are.
And my point was that if the club refuses to sell Chester won't get the chance to accept a good offer being made to him. The club has come out today and reiterated that none of our star assets will be sold anyway.
The haven't said that at all. This is what they've said: "Alex Bruce and Stephen Quinn avoided the cull with new contracts offered and though some big-earners will be encouraged to move on this summer, City are keen to keep the majority of the current squad intact. Bruce held talks with owner Assem Allam this week and was reassured there was no financial pressure to sell the club's prized assets." "The aim now is to retain as many of the remaining squad as possible and look to add some new faces..." http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Ambi...tory-26592522-detail/story.html#ixzz3bZaXeZqU
Allam saying there was no need to sell the prized assets isn't the club saying they won't sell the prized assets?
But it doesn't say we won't sell them. It just says we're "keen to" keep them and "aim to" keep the squad mainly intact. That's about as far from a firm promise as you can get.
Because obviously a huge offer will always be considered. They didn't have to say anything, or even could have said there was further need to trim the wage bill, but they didn't did they?
What's all this rubbish about the FA cup? How do you know we wouldn't hve conceded if Bruce stayed on? Was McShane at fault for the goal? No. What is a fact is Bruce is 50% responsible for Arsenals first by giving away that free kick with an absolutely needless challenge from behind he was never going to win. This isn't a pop at Bruce, but bringing up the FA cup as evidence that Bruce is the better isn't only wrong, it's stupid, considering Alex did more to lose us that game than Paul did.
You've also got to remember there was 'no need to sell' Shane Long, but we did anyway. If very good offers come in, we'll probably accept them - but they'd have to be offers too good to refuse, which, at the time, the Shane Long deal looked a good one.
No idea why this is even a discussion. The club has never sold a player they wanted to keep under the Allams except Long because of the offer made.
