You're changing the statement. Not falling for that. You said "We had to sell jones. Or rather we had to sell anyone we could get millions for. Nothing about ability." . You know this as fact because ? Facts are: - we had a similar player in Egan, who appeared to have been preferred to Jones in the last couple of months of last season. - we had already signed a better player in Ajayi (although I agree his injury record is a valid concern) - Boro came in with a decent bid. The club accepted it. - Jones was happy to go there (read what he's quoted as saying). There were many moving parts in terms of money coming in and out. Jones was just part of that whole equation. I doubt anything was solely dependant on us "having to sell Jones". I assume the club deemed it good business, including that he was coming into his final year (although we did have an option of another year); I just think they thought they had, and could do better, and that £3m could be put to good use.
Jones, McLoughlin and Alzate were three of the players told to find new clubs during that international break last season lmao.
Feels like this is semantic. If we didn’t sell Jones we likely couldn’t have brought in someone like McBurnie is more the point. It’s been well reported we are at PSR limits and on a “one in one out” situation. It’s not totally out of the question to suggest at the time of selling Jones that was or wasn’t the case. Remember you like to deal in facts and not assumptions
Yes, why didn't you say something different which would have completely changed the sense of what you posted? Good question. But ... you're not a professional elite level keeper either, but you still felt able to comment on his goalkeeping? Is it possible you're a tiny bit dim? Seriously? You of all people are questioning a poster's freedom to be a knob? You? Knobbus Maximus himself?
Think the point is more that we're only now hearing players' names which is conveniently players who left.
Whether it was right to sell Jones or not completely depends on whether the replacements get on the pitch or not. Currently it looks like a poor decision, at the end of the season it might not.
?? I thought it was being argued (not by you) that he had to go so that we could pay the wages of McBurnie, Gelhardt and Lundstram? On that basis, his 'replacements' are doing very well. I don't agree with that argumentation though. In terms of direct replacement, I would say that is Egan. Nothing much to choose between the 2 imo. The issue would be if one of Hughes or Egan were injured at the same time that Ajayi and Famewo were also out injured. Hasn't happened so far.
Egan has been here since January so I don't see how he can be seen as Jones direct replacement. Surely Ajayi is his direct replacement likewise Famewo for McLoughlin. Also Hughes, Ajayi and Famewo all missed the Blackburn game.
Jones was being picked in preference to Egan. Late on last season that turned around, with Egan 'replacing' Jones. Fair enough, I forgot about Blackburn. Hopefully it doesn't happen again as it wasn't good!
That argument is fine, but if we are following it through there’s no point in even having McBurnie etc if our defensive cover is poor. We’ll do very well to get through the season with Egan and Hughes available for every match. If we can’t replace them with decent options then we’re going to struggle, regardless of who is on the pitch.
Yes of course, but as I say if he’s not available then deciding to replace Jones with him is a poor decision. It’s not like concerns about his availability weren’t flagged when we signed him either. im not yet saying it is a poor decision either, time will tell.
