ME: can't spend/won't spend. Mel Morris: have spent, right; you're fired! Look at Derby today: ex Chelsea and Real Madrid coach with "fresh ideas" and squill ions of pounds later and their owner has a tantrum because 'The Plan' isn't being followed, now they're managerless. FFS, you're manager spends a ton of money is doing ok and wants promotion and this twat would prefer not to go up and just drift around the championship for a bit longer. They're fcuk'd now for the rest of the season I imagine. Swap MM for ME and I'd be tearing my hair out a lot more than I am at our fairly Ltd side and unambiguous transfer activity. Maybe this is the issue for ME: you spend 25m and you're still only 5th. There's no quick fix, only slow a accumulation of belief, momentum, team spirit and progress towards promotion. There's an elusive X factor to a successful side and it's not based on pure footballing quality or investment: eg Leicester at the moment and to a lesser degree the other clubs that are doing well from years of mediocrity (Stoke, palace West Ham) etc. Would we rather have an owner that provides stability and continuity (possibly a long, arduous cycle of dull football from a bunch of journeymen and cast offs...) or a nutter that blows his cash and hits the red self destruct button just when the going gets a bit tough. If that derby side lose the faith in the club, the coaches and themselves they'll implode and be left with a major black hole in the finances. I think I'll sleep easier tonight at my teams med-long term progress, however slow and painful it may be...
It doesn't always have to be a toss up between two extremes;splash the cash or total frugality:so called champagne football or hoofball;Messi or Skuse!!There is a middle way which I think most Town fans would settle for.
Rather our approach all day long to that of Derby's. All day long. Then you have Forest/ Cardiff / Fulham / Blackburn NOT EVEN IN the top 6 blowing bucket loads of ££££ on transfers/ wages. Rhodes at Blackburn at the end was on over £50.000. Fulham spent £11 mill on McCormack plus wages. Parker is still there, probably on £65,000. MADNESS. That said, I wish we would spend £200,000 - £400,000 a bit more often on Sears and the likes from League 1. Happy enough with the free transfer approach. I don't mind season long loans ala Fraser/ Niles to add a bit, nor do I mind loans now until the end of the season. Just wish we'd at times spend a little bit more than we are doing. Mick by the most part is doing a very good job, we're lucky to have him. Style of play, sure is not what I or the majority of you want but the results for the most part have been pretty darn good.
Agree with that westy, i don't want us throwing money around carelessly but I would like to see some quality players brought in over a gradual period of time to replace the workhorses we have to improve the squad, instead we take the cheapest possible option which improves nothing. The lesson from other Clubs Derby etc of what not to do is there to be seen and I don't want us to do the same but we are not even trying when the prize is in sight and the opportunity for ME to get his money back.
As you know I don't really like a high turnover of players and I'm not bothered by price tags of players...... ...but that said I feel that by bringing in a good prospect for a decent fee ie.Dack would have gone a long way to appeasing many disgruntled fans that are starting to think the whole 'money is available for the right player' and 'Evans is still committed' and other often heard quotes..........
I agree that spending cash does not guarantee success, but on the other hand not spending any cash at all is a pretty guarantee of no success at all
I think they wanted well over £3 mill for Deck though Weighty? Rumoured we did bid £2 mill so if true that's good. No idea what is. I will try to get some answers Saturday when Ian Milne comes to Bristol Toto's for questions. Surely he won't reveal F all but I'll find out what I can. More interested in this than the match.... sad aren't I!!! Turning 30 has done me zero favours!
Just using Dack as an example.........but it does seem that we get linked with a large fee player only to hear that we have fallen short of the clubs value.....I cynically wonder if we do this purposely so that we are seen to be bidding but without risk of spending money...
An interesting theory Weighty. If we were prepared to spend 2m on one player but got refused why didn't we go in for someone else?
The madness of Derby is really quite bizarre. What is the 'Derby Way' anyway? I often joke to a Hammers fan colleague about the 'West Ham Way' which has won them absolutely nothing for 40+ years. But then Derby come out with this.. To say that the Manager was too focused on promotion this season and was not able to see the bigger picture seems utterly ridiculous. Isn't is supposed to be the other way round? The Owner wants quick wins and the Manager wants to build over a couple of seasons.. It seems that the roles have been temporarily reversed, though I expect the owner to want promotion at the end of the season regardless in a few weeks when they appoint someone like Pearson after they haven't beaten anyone for a while.
Well we have the so called " Ipswich way " - yes we may have once been the best in the land and class under Robson, played good stuff under Burley Royle but for me I'll back a manager winning games any day. There is no right or wrong way to collect three points that's all that's on offer! West Ham fans were a bloody disgrace under Big Sam.
I think having players who can pass the ball to each other and retain possession increases your chances of being able to win a game and progress as a team. I don't see academies teaching their youngsters to hoof it up the pitch all the time, so why should the tactic be different when getting to the 1st team?
