i don't think there's anything mysterious about needing to sell before we can buy. we shelled out for lafferty and grabban to the tune of around £7m so that's the snodgrass money accounted for. o'neil is a freebie. we still have two or three very big wage earners on our books who look increasingly unlikely to move because of their high demands. we aren't a rich club. we have parachute payments but they are to cover the lack of premier league finance - we still have to cut our cloth accordingly. we can't just go out and spend loads of money that we might need next season if we don't go up. that's why rumours about buying the likes of rhodes and deeney were so laughable. but that still doesn't mean you sell one of your biggest assets for a paltry sum, especially to a rival.
I apologize I completely misconstrued the tweet. They were speculating that's why we might be selling, read it too quickly in rage. Still can't get other what a **** deal this is.
So if we hadn't have sold Snodgrass we wouldn't have any money to bring anyone in? Even more unlikely we you think we didn't buy anyone last January. I would expect at least £3-5 million left in the kitty baring in mind we've broke even on transfer fees this summer.
Not really when you think that the club's income has plummeted c.£30m (if not more) from relegation. That money left over from January merely plugs some of the funding gap.
we spent a lot on wages in january, even if not on fees. i would guess the money they held on to at that time has been eaten up by relegation. edit. rob had already answered before i sent my post
Makes it even more puzzling why we would than sell one of our better players for peanuts to a rival. I think we are going to struggle this season unless we really sort something out. I expect a signing at the very least if we sell Pilks. Also what you were saying on another thread Supers was Adams isn't the cheap option. I agree but still think it was a really bad call baring in mind Mackay and Lennon are still out of work, appointed on sentiment rather than pedigree, sounds like a Delia decision to me.
i strongly disagree with anyone who thinks the board actively sat down and thought 'lets spend as little as possible on a manager'. they didn't do that - they've appointed the man who impressed them and thought was the right man for the job. that i and others totally disagree with that decision doesn't suddenly make him 'cheap'. the whole structure around him will have cost a lot to implement and they've invested heavily on two players he wanted. they've backed their man - there's nothing to say malky mackay, for example, would have wanted to spend more money than adams has or neil lennon (who wasn't even a candidate) would have either. there is a difference in this case between being the cheap option and being the (perceived) wrong choice which is my view. we needed an experienced man or at the very least someone who could kick some arses and stop the general malaise around the place. adams is never going to be that man
If Fer Hooper Redmond Olsson or Hooper leave i will lose all faith in the people that run our club, it makes us being the most expensive team to watch and one of the only ones debt free look like we are being taken for mugs. I don`t want to see us spend crazy money on new players just keep the players we have, the money we paid for all of these players was very reasonable even by Championship standards so replacing them with the same standard would be impossible. They might want to leave but tough ****, we own their contracts so unless we have over inflated buy out clauses that can trigger a move then they have to stay put until January at least.
He just doesn't seem to have any man management skills. Olsson didn't look he wanted to be there, Pilks going is a huge blow, for no apparent reason he has been forced out.
Big loss can't believe we have sold him but if I was buying I'd struggle to pay anymore than a million with his injury record
I'm not so sure - he clearly has some good man management skills, e.g. Hoolahan. Olsson has always had a red card in him, but he was horribly exposed against someone as quick as him on Saturday. Frankly, the error there is Adams' reading of the game and team set-up.
The way big wage earners are being frozen out stinks of wolves from 2 seasons ago... Look how that worked out!
Hoolahan was a good move, but at the same time, we've lost a player who is younger and perhaps has more to offer. The tactics against Wolves was horribly wrong, I really hope we don't see the diamond again this season. I would stick with the 5 man midfield myself and make sure Redmond is out wide. Not sure why he was playing up front. My problem against Wolves is I didn't feel there was any leader on the pitch. Might change with Howson, O'Neil and Fer in midfield who I imagine will be first choice but I don't think Russell Martin is much more than a yes man myself. He certainly isn't in the ilk of Holt or Snodgrass.
I have no problem seeing the diamond used again, but it should be sparingly, and at home or against a team away where we can spring a surprise. Not telegraphed for about four weeks to a team who were clearly going to be very much up for it. Tactical flexibility is key. 5-man midfield is fine, particularly away against the stronger teams, but bear in mind that would kind of negate Adams earlier claims that we would play attacking football (somewhat making his own bed there...) I completely agree about the lack of a leader. It was what we missed all last season and what seems to be still missing. I had hoped that Gutierrez might fill that role, but injuries put paid to any chance of success there. Let's hope O'Neil or someone else can step into that void. I actually don't have an issue with Redmond up front - it pushes the defence deeper and he doesn't really create much for others anyway.
