No we said we where not prepared to risk £5,000,000 on possibly another Bullard. DQPR did not pay that for him. I think that was sensible don't you.
Shane Long
- Thread starter TheCasual
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
No we said we where not prepared to risk £5,000,000 on possibly another Bullard. DQPR did not pay that for him. I think that was sensible don't you.
Steve Clarke: "Shane Long is a very, very important member of our squad,"
"I've always said that. I said it all through last season and ever since I came in. He's here, and I'm delighted he's here.
"I spoke to him on deadline day but I haven't spoken to him since because he's been with his country and out of respect for them he has to concentrate and do what he has to do for Ireland.
"He'll come back from there and we will sit down to have a chat and work out how we go forward from here.
"Shane has got a big contribution to make this season."
http://www.football365.com/west-bromwich-albion/8916711/Long-still-important-to-West-Brom?
"I've always said that. I said it all through last season and ever since I came in. He's here, and I'm delighted he's here.
"I spoke to him on deadline day but I haven't spoken to him since because he's been with his country and out of respect for them he has to concentrate and do what he has to do for Ireland.
"He'll come back from there and we will sit down to have a chat and work out how we go forward from here.
"Shane has got a big contribution to make this season."
http://www.football365.com/west-bromwich-albion/8916711/Long-still-important-to-West-Brom?
Fryatt and McLean out and these two in?
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11095/8916834/?
Keep us going until we go for Shane Long in January.
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11095/8916834/?
Keep us going until we go for Shane Long in January.
You offered 5m!
No wonder he accepted, he'd have been an absolute fool to have rejected it.
We offered how much they originally paid for him. If he was that vital, they would have wanted more ffs.
If we were offering £5m for someone like Matt Mills, fair enough...
How's he doing there? They seem to always be linked with new strikers, how many does Brown Envelope 'Arry need?
Roy Hodgson signed him for WBA.
If Clarke had signed him you might have had a point.
He's also in the last year of his contract and WBA are in a better position to strengthen than when they were when he originally signed (which means, although he's vital, they'd be able to replace him better with pretty much a pretty much secured PL future..
Phil Buckingham in the Fail:
Hull City boss Steve Bruce admits he would be interested in reviving a club record deal for Shane Long during the January transfer window, but knows the final decision will again rest with West Bromwich Albion. Long came agonisingly close to a deadline-day move when undergoing a medical and agreeing personal terms with the Tigers, only for the Baggies to pull the plug on a proposed £5.5m deal in the final hours of the window.
Bruce has today broken his silence on the proposed transfer which he believes left Long “high and dry”. But he is unsure whether a deal can be resurrected in the New Year.
​
“Shane is someone we like, of course, but I’m not sure whether it’s something we’ll be able to revisit,” Bruce told the Mail. “In the end West Brom chose not to sell so he’s still their player. Whether or not that will change, I don’t know. That would be their call.”
The Baggies’ late U-turn was a source of huge disappointment in the City camp during those final hours of the window. After chartering a private jet for Long to travel back from Republic of Ireland duty and into the Tigers’ training ground ahead of the deadline, the transfer collapsed when City attempted to
restructure the financial terms.
The Mail understands a £6.5m deal had been agreed in principle, before City returned with a revised offer of £5.5m rising to £6.5m based on appearances. The bitter fall-out saw West Brom’s sporting and technical director Richard Garlick last week publicly accuse the Tigers of backtracking on the original agreement for Long. Although that is a claim uncontested by Bruce, he insists City had still been willing to trade on the Baggies’ terms.
“West Brom let us know, as far as I was aware, at about 9pm and never returned any of our calls at all,” he explained. “Something changed. I don’t think it was the terms of the deal because in the end we went back to West Brom and said ‘If that’s what you want, that’s what you can have.’
“In the end I don’t think they wanted to sell him, simple as that, but it’s left the lad in a difficult position. At 10pm, Shane Long was at our training ground left high and dry. I felt for him but it’s also bitterly disappointing for us too.”
Bruce defended City’s conduct in negotiations and added: “Now it is true that after initially agreeing a fee we wanted to try and change the deal to suit us better. Let’s be fair, we only started negotiating a deal at 10am that morning. It’s pretty normal to bat things back and forth. When I got to pick him up there was a deal done in principle.
“In my experience, and I’ve been in it a long, long time, you bat things back and forward in negotiations. That can go on for days and weeks during a transfer window but we didn’t have time on our side. We were in a difficult position.”
http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/story-19784033-detail/story.html?#axzz2eJf8y5rw
Hull City boss Steve Bruce admits he would be interested in reviving a club record deal for Shane Long during the January transfer window, but knows the final decision will again rest with West Bromwich Albion. Long came agonisingly close to a deadline-day move when undergoing a medical and agreeing personal terms with the Tigers, only for the Baggies to pull the plug on a proposed £5.5m deal in the final hours of the window.
Bruce has today broken his silence on the proposed transfer which he believes left Long “high and dry”. But he is unsure whether a deal can be resurrected in the New Year.
​
“Shane is someone we like, of course, but I’m not sure whether it’s something we’ll be able to revisit,” Bruce told the Mail. “In the end West Brom chose not to sell so he’s still their player. Whether or not that will change, I don’t know. That would be their call.”
The Baggies’ late U-turn was a source of huge disappointment in the City camp during those final hours of the window. After chartering a private jet for Long to travel back from Republic of Ireland duty and into the Tigers’ training ground ahead of the deadline, the transfer collapsed when City attempted to
restructure the financial terms.
The Mail understands a £6.5m deal had been agreed in principle, before City returned with a revised offer of £5.5m rising to £6.5m based on appearances. The bitter fall-out saw West Brom’s sporting and technical director Richard Garlick last week publicly accuse the Tigers of backtracking on the original agreement for Long. Although that is a claim uncontested by Bruce, he insists City had still been willing to trade on the Baggies’ terms.
“West Brom let us know, as far as I was aware, at about 9pm and never returned any of our calls at all,” he explained. “Something changed. I don’t think it was the terms of the deal because in the end we went back to West Brom and said ‘If that’s what you want, that’s what you can have.’
“In the end I don’t think they wanted to sell him, simple as that, but it’s left the lad in a difficult position. At 10pm, Shane Long was at our training ground left high and dry. I felt for him but it’s also bitterly disappointing for us too.”
Bruce defended City’s conduct in negotiations and added: “Now it is true that after initially agreeing a fee we wanted to try and change the deal to suit us better. Let’s be fair, we only started negotiating a deal at 10am that morning. It’s pretty normal to bat things back and forth. When I got to pick him up there was a deal done in principle.
“In my experience, and I’ve been in it a long, long time, you bat things back and forward in negotiations. That can go on for days and weeks during a transfer window but we didn’t have time on our side. We were in a difficult position.”
http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/story-19784033-detail/story.html?#axzz2eJf8y5rw
Sounds like both sides have an element of truth. We tried to re-structure, but then said "Look if you'll only accept for 6.5, take the 6.5" At least that seems to be what Bruce is saying.
Last day, hours even, of the transfer window, lots of pressure, wheeling and dealing, adrenaline, things are going to go belly up now and again. Get over it.
The classy thing would have been for WBA to keep their mouths shut and sort it out (or not) with Long in private. But thats not what happens these days, so Clark feels obliged to badmouth us to journalists, who to be fair are probably pushing him to explain what happened.
Think we come out of it better, to be honest
The classy thing would have been for WBA to keep their mouths shut and sort it out (or not) with Long in private. But thats not what happens these days, so Clark feels obliged to badmouth us to journalists, who to be fair are probably pushing him to explain what happened.
Think we come out of it better, to be honest
After reading Bruce's interview it seems to me that we've done nothing wrong. we agreed, in principle, 6.5m.. once we knew thats what WBA would accept then of course we tried to pay that in a way that would suit us... they said no.. which is fair enough... but then we already had Long with us, medical done & personal terms agreed... we then said ok, we'll pay what you wanted at the start which was 6.5m... and they said no.. im guessing because they didnt get lukaku.
so basically WBA only told half the story when they put out their statement. if they added that after the allams tried to restructure the deal they were then willing to pay the larger, agreed deal... WBA would look very stupid indeed and it proves they were in fact happy to sell Long if they got lukaku.
so basically WBA only told half the story when they put out their statement. if they added that after the allams tried to restructure the deal they were then willing to pay the larger, agreed deal... WBA would look very stupid indeed and it proves they were in fact happy to sell Long if they got lukaku.
This whole mess shows that what is said as half a truth suddenly becomes the whole truth. Will we get Long at the club now. Not a chance. Will Long want o stay at a club that wanted to replace him? I doubt it. Who came out better from this mess, City or WBA? Actually no one.
No doubt this will be brought up again at today's press conference.
Still makes you wonder why this is coming out from Bruce now, rather than coming out of the club last week, if that's what happened, they should have said so.
Still makes you wonder why this is coming out from Bruce now, rather than coming out of the club last week, if that's what happened, they should have said so.
This was always obvious to anyone without an axe to grind against the Allams. Unfortunately many on here hate the Allams and wait for any opportunity to slate them.
Because Steve Bruce is pissed off with the Allams for taking so long (pardon the pun) to agree to let him spend money.
When it was reported in the press that SB was furious, I mentioned that I wondered who with. Him coming out with this is a way of putting pressure on the Allams for the next window because he doesn't want a repeat of what has just happened.
He's right, there is always a bit of bartering that goes on once a deal is agreed in principle. But if you know that, why leave it until the morning of the last day of the transfer window to even start picking the phone up, particularly when you are dealing with a slippery character like Peace.
This is like Groundhog Day! Why was Nick Barmby sacked again?
That's simply untrue.
Some are a little more suspicious(or nervous) of the Allam's actions, but I don't think a single person on here hates them.
They're still trying to sort him a new deal...
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11698/8917224/
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11698/8917224/
Whatever. We are the ones who have fcuked up here. Even if he doesn't sign a new deal, this whole affair has put it out there that he is available and I'm sure there will be competition for his signature in January.
He will either sign a new deal in which case there's no way he'll go anywhere in January, or he won't sign a deal and another club will offer him better terms than we can offer.
Like I say, we have messed this up royally.
The shame is, he is EXACTLY the type of player we need.
I agree entirely. Now the fee WBA were prepared to accept is in the public domain, I'd say our chances of signing him have reduced significantly.
Our only hope is that he seems good mates with the other Irish contingent we have, maybe they can help swing it in our favour.