why would you be worried , we are a small club .. and we can only afford limited wages etc .. to have someone like shane long / tom huddlestone / jake Livermore want to come to us is a MASSIVE step up from a few years ago .. you need to realise we are not a big fish and enjoy the fact these names are here or flew to leeds to come to hull from and international squad meet and see that we are climbing up the ladder but its a slow thing
Of cause we don't know the full story, but I actually feel sorry for Shane Long, and this was cause by WBA not City. To allow a player to fly over, have a medical, and then pull the rug on the deal is no way to do business. It does however make you think about the Odemwingie situation, this has similar feel to it, has he been given bad press over his turning up at QPR, whereas maybe Clarke is the villain here?
exactly my thought .. steve Clarke just being a bit bitter ... again ... it seems to be the same story but not on sky sports news.... something is amiss
Whoooooooosh. You clearly didn't get what I meant. I was eluding to the fact that anyone and anything to do with Mourinho can do no wrong in most people's eyes, especially the media.
We are talking about football - the business of football. It is a very fine balancing act trying to avoid relegation and remaining solvent if it happens. I'm not sure strikers are the key to survival alone, so are these clubs splashing out on strikers solid in defense ? Not in all cases. City may have the edge on this front in enough cases. For clubs like Hull City, - the bottom feeder types (at the moment) -the key is to find the balance, assess the risks between sensible spending, salary drains/contract length that tip the scales in favour of survival, but doesn't cripple if the worst case scenario happens (relegation). That's why budgets are set. The original post of yours I responded to was talking about waiting 'til the last day to get a striker, who's move depended on the other club's recruitment falling into place on the same day.. I'm suggesting that is not what happened. Attempts were made earlier, failed, plan 'b" & 'c' etc were invoked, also failed . All were within the "sensible" constraints of the established budget to prevent financial meltdown if disaster strikes - i.e. relegation. Long became unexpectedly available late in the day, but was already on our preferred striker list with a predetermined value attached. Bruce and the moneymen went for it. Failed. Not for want of tryjng, but still within sensible parameters. Of course, certain factors are against City to start with. Unfashionable club, little history in the Big League...the list is extensive. I personally admire how they are going about this latest adventure by attempting to manage the potential pitfalls from last time which nearly obliterated them. Reckless abandon is not the way to go. Bad luck on the striker front. Good(quality) , financially sound business on every other front.
I doubt they have changed their model significantly, tweeked it more like, but the cushion of the increased positional prize money & parachute payments will give them a bit of leeway. They do have a bit of a twat of a manager, but that's only sour grapes on my part - maybe it's the sign of an astute manager following a model, who knows ?
Maybe. Probably not though. If we do, we should offer less money, after the way they messed us about.
OK I cant be arsed trawling through 41 pages, has the telegraph article about the Long incident been posted in the thread yet?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...ls-through-late-on-transfer-deadline-day.html Clarke is head coach he may not have made the decision on Long. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...ls-through-late-on-transfer-deadline-day.html
