To be fair to them, GFH are in a tricky position. They must know that the January window is a seller’s market, so why waste your transfer budget now rather than wait for the summer? Plus, with Warnock going in the summer, why not leave the budget to man who takes over from him? I don’t buy this crap from Colin that we have a small squad – we have 30 first team players, only a handful of which are injured or on loan. What we lack is quality amidst the dross. Admittedly, GFH must look at our position in the table and wonder if it’s worth taking a punt of a few new players in the hope that we squeak promotion. That’s why I reckon they’ll allow Warnock to bring in two or three quality loan signings but keep the bulk of the transfer kitty for the summer. And that, too be fair, is a sensible approach.
It's worth taking a punt on a winger or two. It's not worth throwing all the money we have at making sure every eventuality is accounted for.
Two mids, a winger, a centre back and a left back. Definitely a good striker if available. Oh, wait a minute....Chris Wood!!! That was the moment to show intent, beat Leicester to his signature. Hottest striker in the Championship, lifted a poor Millwall to the play-off places, young and lots of potential. Exactly the type of player we are crying out for, but GFH didn't even blink.
Have to agree on Chris Wood. Exactly the kind of player we should be signing - for peanuts too. But do we actually know whether Warnock wanted him?
Yip, he said in interview that he couldn't compete with Leicester. The words he used implied that he's tried.
Have you considered even for a second that Leicester, in keeping with what they normally do, offered better personal terms than we did - and that the truth is West Brom accepted offers from both clubs and Leicester beat us on wages?
I'd say that's more than plausible. I want us to compete for the signings of the top players, but I don't want us paying them a ridiculous fortune. Remember we were competing with the club that supposedly pay Beckford £40,000 a week. If Chris Wood wanted even half that I would've told him to beat it.
No-one in this league can spend the same money as Leicester. The fact we were even in for Wood makes me feel more positive.
Let's remember that GFH want sustainable success whereas Leicester merely aspire to break the bank for anyone they think will immediately get people talking about their owners and the airport retail thingy they run. They don't have a sustainable wage structure for the division and will discover, like QPR are doing, that when the chips are against them a bunch of mercenaries are not what you need. BillysStatue, you claimed to be ITK throughout the TOMA saga, so why stop now? Because you were full of merda del torro all along? I don't know the specifics of GFH's backing, but surely they do have some after what Bates said regarding the money they put into the club. They've put at least 20m into the club now without debt, so there's no problem as far as I can see. Be nice to have the gory details in the next month though, as they begin to answer the fans' mounting questions and state their case.
I don't know anything for a fact, Los Angeles might be a made up place for all I know, but press reports say they put in 2-4m for 'operating costs' (which they and Bates have both confirmed, I think), and that 17m was the initial fee for the takeover, which could double on promotion and could even rise to 52m. They said no debt, but that's bona fide. Do you dispute those numbers?
