TLT was a very logical signing but he should never have been considered as a 2nd or 3rd choice. Maybe he could stick around for the 1st 6 months but then he needs to be out on loan playing. But then we have strange loan policy where we want to send players to the highest level possible. In theory it makes sense, but in reality it means minutes are harder to come by which is the complete point of going on loan. It's a different position but Jarvis has improved drastically from his spell in the LOI and it's not a high level but he was pretty much the first name on the teamsheet. Cartwright wasted a year on loan at two different L1 clubs and didn't play and then ends up dropping to L2 anyway.
He was illogical at that point in time, he's in the same camp as Celi for me. It was Acun trying to be too clever too quickly and run before we were walking as a club. I hope he goes out on loan in the next few days otherwise I really feel for him.
I think it's always good to try and plan for the future but there has to be a clear development plan and pathway to the 1st team and there isn't. Simons is another one that's been badly handled, but when the sole focus/ambition is the top 6 immediately you need players that can make an instant impact. It's why this change in transfer policy is quite odd, it's a longer-term approach for an owner that's been very impatient to date. I don't think it's been mentioned but considering the money we've brought in, we've not spent much (that might change this week) but these younger players will mean the wage bill is down substantially too and all the high earners are gone (bar Sinik)
We’ve probably spent over £10m plus obligations on Zambrano and Puerta that won’t be cheap. With a big money striker, 2 wingers and Meffert potentially on the way spending could pass £20m. I think they’re continuing to spend at their maximum, just under a more sustainable model.
I don't think we should be spending the maximum just for the record. We've spent £1.5m on Millar, £3.5m on Hughes and then the smaller fees (considering what we've been told) for Mehlem, Racioppi, Drameh. The Giles money is on top but I've only seen the overall package mentioned and not the guaranteed amount but I think he'll be off by Friday anyway so we'll recoup most of that back. (I know there's add-ons on the players we've brought in, but there's add-ons on the ones we've sold too). Considering we've had £23m of pure profit, I thought we'd spend more. I think the loans are very sensible but when you throw in the departure of most of the big earners, it looks like an owner trying to limit losses. There's no way, we're spending the maximum.
Depending on wages, one thing to remember is that spending even 20m may well only contribute 5-10m in terms of costs for this year. With Tufan, Oscar, Seri, etc. off the books in terms of big earners, we might not actually be as bad off as it would appear. The fact Hughes is on a 4+1 deal for instance means that of the 3.5m outlay on him we're only booking about 700k cost + wages this year.
If the window slammed shut today, top 10 would be a challenge this season. but I’ve got a feeling things will be looking very different by close of play Friday. Having said that, there are always transfers we are teased with that don’t come off so let’s see.
The good thing is, based on the current recruitment model, if they get it right, in terms of FFP (and I'm at pains to say I still dont understand it), next season, we will only be in the market for say 4 players instead of 14..
That's less relevant because we'll still be amortising all the contracts from this season next season because it's spread evenly. It doesn't really matter how many players you're looking to buy but rather if you're needing to make a sale each season. Also keep in mind we're going to be buying Zambrano next summer (assuming all goes well) along with Puerta from the sounds of things. So even though we're 'paying' 700k for Hughes this season we're still 'paying' 700k for him next season and so on. That's why Chelsea offer such long deals, so that they're 'paying' less each year for their players. I'd still think we'd be looking to make a reasonable sale next summer to help.
If that's the case, I would be tempted to cash in on Giles (who doesn't convince me as the best we can do) and re-invest on one of the best in Sweden
Believe Baz quoted Alex Neil saying it about him on 1904, Stoke were interested in Zambrano before so the link is there from Dublin you’d think
Lets be honest... Giles is not the player he was at Boro which prompted us to buy.... he seemed happy last season, but all his pals left and for me he's sulked all press season and into the season proper.. Acun said, if someone doesnt want to be here he can go, and I'd rather we tried to get the money back and invest in someone who is giving it 100%...
I don't think he his sulking but wouldn't blame him if he was. We bought him then straight away said we don't want him. That's not really going to make him feel welcome.
Really strange article, why does our relationship matter that much when we're taking him permanently? Reading it i expected some revelation about a sell on our buy back... And it even sounded like a pure loan at one point. But whatever gets us players, and having positive talks with league champions can never be a bad thing.
