No one could have imagined our incredible run of injuries but which of the above three would have made the biggest difference to our season (if healthy). Shane Long...the 12 mill. looked good but we lost a pacey striker who put pressure on defences, paired well with Jelavic, and scored goals. In exchange we paid 10 mill. for an injury prone unfit Hernandez who has rarely troubled the opposition and is not much of a goal scoring threat. Long by all accounts wanted to go but would he have been the better option. George Boyd....has been an ever present with Burnley since his 3 mill. transfer. Scored some key goals, works his socks off, and is durable with a great attitude. Not sure why we sold him to a relegation rival. He liked it here and added skill and pace at LW or up front. We really miss him now IMO. Charlie Austin....what might have been. Scoring for fun in a weak QPR team, wanted to come here on a 6 mill. deal. Docs turned him down at last second on injury concerns. He could have made a huge difference. Take your pick. Personally I found Bruces decision to sell Boyd the least understandable. Would Austin have scored 17 in our setup. I doubt it.
I'm going with Boyd. Just WTF were they thinking? He's been the best player for Burnley - and we sold him for **** all - £3m? We got in his place the prodigal twat Ben Arfa and the balsa wood Ramirez. Breathtakingly bad business, though the Long deal pushes it very close.
Long has hardly had any game time since he left and was missing sitters against trencin just before he did. Charlie Austin still an accident waiting to happen. Boyd was struggling to get on our bench when all players were fit and is not a striker
We dont know what would have happened had we brought Austin to the PL a year earlier than he did. He could have not scored and in the past summer sold/loaned out to a Championship club without that year of confidence building he had in the Championship last year when scoring goals for fun. Of course, he could have been a cult hero who regularly hit hatricks and scored in the cup final. We just don't know but we can't keep mentioning how we didn't/should have signed him because things would have almost certainly played out differently in his career.
Apart from one season in the Championship Shane Long has not scored more than 9 goals in a season. He's not a prolific goalscorer. We got a good price for him & it was right to sell him. George Boyd's move to Burnley was a good move for both us & himself. £3m was a good whack for us & as you say he's played every game for them. He'd have been sat on the bench for us for long periods. Austen failed his medical, right move to pull out. If we could live our lives in retrospect we'd all be happier There were no mistakes..
I was always a big fan of Boyd - but he wasn't getting in our team. From the start of the season I wanted players like Boyd and Quinn in the team, but Bruce is only just getting Quinn in there after pretty much being forced to play him by default. It would have been the same for Boyd. So, it wasn't so much a mistake in letting Boyd go. It was a mistake of not playing him in the first place, and prioritising the bigger name/smaller impact players.
I would say Boyd, but we did use the money for Boyd to get Diame and no one is to say Boyd would'nt of got injured either! I think the sale of Long was good to be honest, pressured defences as much as Hernandez does and with the correct midfield, Hernande could be quite a player! ....I feel most gutted, that we ended up getting Jelavic instead of Austin tbh!
In hindsight Austin was a mistake, but it was done for the right reasons, these things happen. Boyd wasn't going to be a regular for us, he's better suited to Burnley than he was us, though there's no doubt we could do with him now. Long for £12m was good business, the issue was not the fact that we sold him, it was the fact that we spent all the money on Hernandez, if we'd spent that money on Deeney or Rhodes, things may well have been very different. Fact is, Bruce is much better at signing defenders than he is strikers.
Good point on Diame for Boyd. If he'd stayed healthy at the price we got him for that looked an excellent exchange at first. Unfortunately it looks like Mo could potentially be out for the season and Georgie would have been great in the line up every week.
For what we got for Boyd, we got Diame who is a much better player. Austin failed his medical and we all know what happened with Bullard... 12m for Long is impossible to turn down. No mistakes.
I think people need to get over the long deal, it was good business. He's hardly prolific and without checking I don't think he gets into double figures with the goals so we'd have still needed a striker
Little point in mulling over this, but for the record I don't think there's many who at the time would have done any different than what the club did.
without hindsight Boyd was a good sale , and the replacements - even the actual band would be expected to be better
