Firstly, Hairy, at this juncture the "talking" is hypothetical; SW has said we don't need to sell and won't sell if it isn't in the interests of all parties. Sounds simple; however many bids come in for the likes of Cantwell, Pukki, Krul etc., all it needs is for SW to say No! But it's actually not that simple is it? What if a bid comes in that's clearly in, say, Cantwell's interest? Or a bid that represents a huge, late-in-career payday opportunity for Pukki? What if Emi isn't the only player to have secured "a gentlemen's agreement" last autumn?
Secondly, and relating to my post above about the implications of a repeat relegation next May, it might be possible now to convince players for whom "solid bids" have come that it's in their interest to give us another season but, unless we survive this coming season, that's not going to be a repeatable line of argument next summer. Problems deferred are not problems averted. Hence, as I see it, we are at a point where finishing 17th or better next season becomes absolutely vital.
On the other side of the coin We've shown that when we make gentleman's agreements we stick to them, thereby making other players more likely to accept us at our word. So we could for example say to Cantwell give us a season and if we don't stay up you can go. Plus side for him is have a good season and his price / wages go up and we get the player for another year, possibly more if we stay up. No real downside for us unless he has a stinker and his value goes down. Solid bids may refer to players much lower down the food chain and SW may only have said that with a view to for example encouraging any suitors for Aarons to show their hand, possibly encouraging a bidding war. SW is shrewd enough to know that it's not only the fans who will be looking closely at what he has to say in relation to transfers. All this and the window still isn't open yet, interesting discussion but impossible to draw any conclusions yet.
