The bbc are reporting that mon has accepted the safc job.......but with shorts insistance of a pragmatic fiscal approach to the transfer kitty.....ie not a lot to spend........i do think we are running a tight ship financially but we do need a striker a winger a good midfielder''and a left back and this costs....do folks think that mon has accepted the job under rhese conditions........and if so why...and also if the reverse is the case and short is willing to personally finance some decent transfer cash......do people think it would have been better to pay bent his 20000 extra and this mess would have been avoided....or is it just great to be rid of bruce?
Dont understand how we have a lack of cash, spend it in Jan and the Summer then worry about the FFP in the next 2 years. I think wages were a part of Bent wanting to go, but i think Capello never coming to the SOL and the fact he told him to move, then after 2 games, with 20 touches in each, and a goal in each inside the 6 yd box, he says he is a lot better player for them, than us, bollocks. So i think even if we offered him £100,000 a week he would have still pissed off tbh. But we have a wage cap, lets say its £50,000pw for each player, we sign players and we do have a relegation release clause in their contracts, so its probably only fair for the better players to have a, I need to be paid the same as the top earner in there, with a wage cap thats fine and dandy, but as soon as you break it, you are asking for trouble. lets say we give bent a £30,000 pay rise, but 5 others have that clause, thats an extra £180,000 a week you have to claw out. Thats an extra 9,360,000 a year in wages. I am not ITK sono one might have had that in their contracts, but if they did, I can see why we didnt bend over for Bent
its not just bent though(steady)its the failure to sign zoggy and the gyan move and the failure to pay for a proven striker.....i know its in the past now but it did leave bruce in the ****!you might say that short was not willing to give bruce the money .....but to start the season with one (not even proven )striker in bentner is bizzare.......give it a few months and bruce may spill the beans!
I think we are too concerned with the FFP to spend anything, and get the wage bill down, our turnover is crap, but only way to increase that is success on the pitch, the more succesful you are, the more cash you bring in, but to get success, you have to spend some cash, and even that doesnt guarantee success, so its a catch 22 situation we just have to trust Short, (we cant do much else tbh) but i hate to say this, he looks like an Ashley Mark II, just not as big and a lot quieter about what hes doing, but the end result is the same. We will see in January though, if we sell to buy, then Ashley Mark II, if we just buy and spend a bit of cash (20-40 million) then we know the BBC were talking ****e, but only the next 2 months will tell us.
Do you really think the BBC has cited the contract if it exists! An ex News of the World reporter might have hacked his cell to write the story but I think it's more of a fishing expedition hoping to catch the big one.
can't accept we've got nowt, o'neill wouldn't have taken the job if he had no funds imo, he's no puppet like as he proved at villa. BBC talking ****e again
