Fair points, DH However, as it's a Thursday lunchtime, I feel I must pull you up on your use of the word 'criteria' which is a plural. (BBC journos do it as well ) So it should be 'the first criterion' - apologies
1. The rules regarding work permits has changed in the last few weeks, while we were working on the deal. He'd have got a permit six weeks ago. There were issues with his former employees Anderlecht which hampered any move earlier in the window. Equally, there's the possibility he could get one on appeal - which I'd have thought is where we're at. So it could still happen. 2. Brady covers two positions and is therefore better value for money that buying Alonso and A N Other. 3. I agree but its understandable that the club would try to shift him entirely from the books before resorting to paying a % of his wages.
This will get a backlash but I do wonder whether the board care as much about being in the premiership as Watford Bournemouth and other teams do? 25 thousand plus every home game, waiting lists for season tickets without the risk have having to spend biggish money.
Granted the sky/bt money is massive, but to sustain a place you have to spend big in most cases. If you look at what teams like Stoke and now even west brom and palace have spent. If we are fighting promotion most seasons ala west brom a few years back, could conceivably get best of both worlds. Just an idea that my old man has mentioned a few times.
I suspect, even though you posted it, that you know it's not true. They've given significant backing to every manager where its been possible and they're doing likewise now. Imagine we overspent this summer by say £5m and still went down. That £5m would be a massive loss to the club next summer in the Championship! One that could threaten the future of the club. It is wise to spend what you have and no more. If we had a big-money backer it would be slightly different but we don't. You have to remember that both Bournemouth and Watford have more money behind them. They don't have a side who were already on PL wages either and arguably required more work on their teams than we did. Both have far more money to throw at fees. I'm not convinced, certainly in Bournemouth's case, that the money has been spent very wisely either. Full houses of 27k a week make little difference in the PL - however they are vital in the league below. No club willingly drops out of the PL because of the enormous risk behind getting back. I find it odd anyone would suggest it as a possible.
Yes, I know. It all makes sense of course. It just doesn't make me feel happy or warm inside. I just thought as we have had 4 out of 5 seasons in the PL that we would have a bit spare. Maybe stuffed under Delia's mattress or something.
I'm certainly not going to advocate lavish spending, but this is fudging the budget situation a little. What we can "afford" is relative to how we dress up our budget. You said that the club budgets to finish 18th (and I think the club have said that previously too). On the face of it, that prudence looks extremely sensible. However, that misses the point that the difference between budgeting, say, 19th instead of 18th is negligible, as is the difference between budgeting 17th instead of 16th. But the difference between budgeting for 17th instead of 18th is, literally, millions. If not tens of millions. So by changing our budget to 17th, we would all of a sudden be able to "afford" a lot more. That's the difference between a major signing or not. So while budgeting for 18th and finishing 18th means we will be prudent, if budgeting for 18th means we will struggle to finish higher than 18th, that's not actually all that sensible, i.e. if budgeting for 17th would give us a much better chance of staying up. I'm not saying the club is doing the wrong thing (though on the face of it I doubt other clubs are budgeting for 18th based on transfers so far), I'm just saying that it's not necessarily the case of "budgeting for 18th = prudent, budgeting for 17th = lavish, risky and dangerous" given that the significant gulf in respective budgets might have a very big impact on our chances of staying up (and therefore hedge against the risks of 17th).
That is sort of partly my point, being in the premiership has in a way hindered us now by having players on expensive wages that we cannot get rid off. Do you not think they might have looked at the RVW situation and even Turner who must be on high wages and think is it really worth the risk. All I am saying, not stating facts just an opinion.
Just to add, I haven't just made it up to create debate, genuinely a lot of people I talk to have said the same thing. Maybe we look at it from different angles. Think I am to pessimistic and there are too many happy clappers who would support anything the board say/do. Must be a middle ground we can all agree on.
I don't think they will spend what they 'might' never get, no matter how big or small the margins. No.
A lot of the money accumulated in that time was spent by Hughton and Adams which is why we allegedly had the best squad in the Championship. No need for despair. There is plenty of time left to sell 3 or 4 and buy 2.
Again that's partly my point, occasionally you have to take risks to be successful. I am no business expert but I think most successful clubs will have taken risks. Ok for every Stoke there has been a Portsmouth. But Portsmouth did go crazy spending.
