can u imagine if we had the management/owners we have now and still had Turner. it would be just like what birmingham are doing, keeping their best defender unless someone bids stupid money. £2.5m for Turner was just ****ing laughable, remember browny after Turner was sold ? he was gutted, you could tell the decision was made without him.
Danns is a good defender, but I suspect they won't get £12m for him. Turner went for £4m, it was just that we didn't get £1.2m of it due to sell-ons, he should never have gone for less than £6-7m(Obviously he should never have gone at all if we had any aspiration to stay up).
To be fair the first time Mcshane came here on loan he wasn't that bad. It was when we signed him up that he turned to Kamikazi Paul.
£4M plus the unofficial reduction in McShane's transfer fee which went from bids of £2.5M to signing him for about £500k without us having to pass on any of the savings to Brentford and Charlton.
wasn't it rumoured that we were forced into selling Turner for a small fee as a creditor had called in some debt? otherwise why would we have rebuked Liverpool & then accepted Slumberland's smaller offer?
That's the story, but who on gods earth would actually value McShane at £2.5m? They only paid £1.5m and that was before they realised he was ****e and wanted rid, I don't think he was valued over £1m(unless it was by Duffen's agent mates).
Liverpool didn't ever actually make a formal bid for Turner. They made a verbal enquiry of the possibility of a deal that could rise to up to £6m, based on appearances. Brownies response - 'We've had a verbal offer from a club in the Premier League but there's been no firm offer through communications at boardroom level. That was nowhere near our expectations. I'm still adamant that it would take a big offer to prise Michael away, no matter who that club is. We've got a prized asset there and I will guarantee that no player will leave the club on the cheap.' Thanks for the guarantee Phil.
Reuters: Birmingham City FC say Hong Kong police questioning owner Carson Yeung in money-laundering case
Based on his form for us on loan £2.5M wouldn't have been unrealistic, and it was pretty much our standard bid for any player at the time.
You can tell it had nothing to do with Brown. Not even he was silly enough to sell his best player for a small fee. I suspect it was Mr Duffen who sealed this deal. Brown did appear to be generally pissed with the deal. I think the only thing he managed to back the deal with was "He was only signed for a small fee anyway" which translates as "I can't think of any positives out of the deal, so I'm going to go with the 'We managed to make a profit' bullshit."
