Alternatively and as a lot said at the time it wasted a lot of money paying for three keepers for half a season !! And meant we had less to spend on a striker
I've been told by someone who knows him from his time at West Brom that we are close to signing midfielder Okay Yokuslu. I think he turned city down in the summer to return home to Turkey but apparently he now wants to come back to England. It might not happen but as I've not heard it anywhere else I thought I would share it on here.
I'm sure a few at the time said it was sensible having three senior keepers but I never understood it.. As you said earlier Brighton only kept two and sent the others out so why didn't we..
It's the Racioppi one that makes no sense. Signing a keeper who seems to be quite high profile but not good enough to play for us. Up there with the most sketchy looking deals of the Acun era alongside the likes of Sinik and Oulad-M'Hand.
It just highlights time and again how reactionary acun has where in the space of a window we have signed plenty of players who by the end of the same window are already surplus to requirements.
So Rushworth gone and presumably Bedia too at some point. Leaves us with Burns, Gelhardt, Puerta? Space for Sorba Thomas and a left back. I know we can have for more than 5 but it always seems a bit pointless to me.
Did Acun demand that we need another keeper? Did he state that we needed him, did he scout him and sign him? Or maybe the 'brain team' went to him with their proposal that we really 'need' this further keeper, that the opportunity was too good to miss, etc and his 'crime' was actually just once again agreeing to support the 'brain' team? Why slate Acun when it's most likely the case that all he did was once again support those doing the actual job of putting a squad together? Yes, granted, he could have said no, sod off, we've got enough keepers. but choosing not to say that hardly makes HIM the "time and again ... reactionary Acun". Honest questions. No problem with critiscism of our owner for where it's clearly appropriate, but I don't get why there are these ongoing digs from some where to my mind it seems totally without justification or logic.
It does and it is. But that didn't really answer the questions. Do you think Acun spotted Rushworth and demanded that we signed him or do you think he just agreed to back his 'brains' team? I obviously don't know for sure but common sense tells me it was most likely the latter - in which case, does that really "just highlight(s) time and again how reactionary acun (is)?". Does it really justify Acun being slated? I'd say let's save our slating of Acun to times that he really deserves it, and not for when he's simply backing those who's job it is to build a competitive squad for us (whether or not we agree with their decisions).
Signing a keeper at that time wasn't the problem. We only had Pandur then. The strange thing was signing one who, as it turns out, we don't rate highly enough to actually play. We then went and signed a third keeper because we weren't happy with the two we had, one of which being Racioppi. Whoever's decision it was, we shouldn't be signing a player on a three year contract and then realising we don't rate him.
