Bloom's Open Letter

[Bozza]

I do see it. I just think its pretty far fetched to say out of muiltiple moving parts, most of which we don't know apart. Its this one that caused that one.
Perhaps our strategy that day was signing Niasse on loan, Andone on a permanent and selling Hemed to Reading, and a keeper on permanent (who knows who that might have been)
Everton scuppered that one early on and thus the Hemed move despite Reading bidding higher and higher. They wouldn't budge on the loan, accepted a bid from Palace and that was that. (until more hiccups for CPFC later on)
So perhaps loan freed up, we moved on to Krul , who then got on a train to Brighton in early afternoon for his medical. The 3rd GK we'd planned for all summer.
And so strategy was now keep Hemed + Andone bid which was finally accepted in principle in the PM on basis of 2 incoming. One came in, one collapsed pretty late on. And then we moved onto VJ. Who first accepted and then changed his mind.

No doubt there were a whole bunch of other moving parts nobody has any idea about. So to pinpoint Krul , the poor lad, and the GK strategy seems unlikely. But yep. I get it !

There's no indication I've seen that Janssen agreed to a move to us. I've read that his agent agreed but with his client on international duty - either on the pitch or in a team de-brief at the time - Janssen himself may not have known about the proposed move until late, to which he replied something like "Brighton and Hove who? **** off, I'm staying at Spurs" and that was that.

I agree that some are putting too much onus on the "Why did we loan Krul, it stopped us getting a striker?" point, but surely there can be little argument that taking Krul on loan we limited our options of finding a striker somewhere late in the evening as the other pieces of the jigsaw all came together, or didn't as the case was.

Clearly when the club took Krul on loan they didn't believe it would inhibit their move for a striker - they're not stupid.

 

[Triggaaar]

I do see it. I just think its pretty far fetched to say out of muiltiple moving parts, most of which we don't know apart. Its this one that caused that one.

No one is saying it's the only one. You mentioned bad luck, incompetence, planning, agents etc - many things attributed to not getting any of our main striker targets over the summer. However, having not got any of our main (striker) targets over the summer months, as we approached the end of the window I do think there's a good chance that not being able to get a PL striker on loan stopped us getting a striker.

Perhaps our strategy that day was signing Niasse on loan, Andone on a permanent and selling Hemed to Reading, and a keeper on permanent (who knows who that might have been)
Everton scuppered that one early on and thus the Hemed move despite Reading bidding higher and higher. They wouldn't budge on the loan, accepted a bid from Palace and that was that. (until more hiccups for CPFC later on)
So perhaps loan freed up, we moved on to Krul , who then got on a train to Brighton in early afternoon for his medical. The 3rd GK we'd planned for all summer.
And so strategy was now keep Hemed + Andone bid which was finally accepted in principle in the PM on basis of 2 incoming. One came in, one collapsed pretty late on. And then we moved onto VJ. Who first accepted and then changed his mind.

And that's my point, even if everything you've put there is true, we'd have known that a striker deal wasn't done until it was done, and we'd have known that it may be necessary to get a striker in on loan. We chose to take on a keeper instead of keeping that option open.

So to pinpoint Krul , the poor lad

Poor lad? I'm not criticising him one bit. It's not his fault we offered him a loan deal.
And it's not the GK strategy in isolation, it's the overall recruitment strategy I'm criticising. We had 2 decent keepers, we could have picked up a lower rated keeper as 3rd choice for not much money, and kept another loan option open just in case.

 

[chaileyjem]

There's no indication I've seen that Janssen agreed to a move to us. I've read that his agent agreed but with his client on international duty - either on the pitch or in a team de-brief at the time - Janssen himself may not have known about the proposed move until late, to which he replied something like "Brighton and Hove who? **** off, I'm staying at Spurs" and that was that.

Yep.. Agreed. Looks like his agent (and Proppers as it happens) agreed deal not VJ personally. My typing. Whilst he was still on the pitch losing 4-0 to France according to Naylor.
http://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/alb...er_pain_leaves_Hughton_with_an_uphill_battle/

 

[chaileyjem]

Poor lad? I'm not criticising him one bit. It's not his fault we offered him a loan deal.
And it's not the GK strategy in isolation, it's the overall recruitment strategy I'm criticising. We had 2 decent keepers, we could have picked up a lower rated keeper as 3rd choice for not much money, and kept another loan option open just in case.

Sorry "Poor Lad" - turn of phrase. Of course its the overall strategy you're criticising. Self evident there were flaws. I agree.
And agreed, as [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] said, the overall point that we had fewer options with no loans left at 9pm still trying to get a striker is an obvious one. It did.
I'm not sure in Janssen's case it would have made that much difference. Sounds like he's a stubborn sort and wants to play for Spurs u23s this season as his way of getting ready for the World Cup that Netherlands might not even qualify for despite Proppers efforts.

 

[Machiavelli]

Who knows what the truth is but I don't think the Krul theory is that far-fetched. I think it was fairly obvious we didn't want our 3rd keeper to take up one of our loans from the PL. We know about the Pau Lopez interest and there were also reports of another keeper turning us down after we'd made an 8m euro bid. I also think the timing of the Krul announcement perhaps suggests we were waiting until we were 'sure' we were getting a striker in permanently before using up our loan. He was only announced just before 11 when you'd assume we had the initial agreement of both Spurs and Janssen to the permanent deal. If we hadn't had that, would we have had a final go at Niasse on loan from Everton (or someone else) - I think we possibly would.

As I say, who knows but I wouldn't dismiss the suggestion that a loan keeper from the PL was not our ideal option and that Janssen may have signed on loan rather than permanent if given the choice - I know if I wasn't 100% sure on leaving one company and joining another, I would love to do so for a shorter time period so I could properly check it out at pretty much zero risk to me.

Yup. I'm with you all the way on this. I'm normally with [MENTION=24867]chaileyjem[/MENTION] too, who does an admirable role in responding to the doomsters on here, but this is a far better assessment than his on the final loan slot. As an addition, even though we weren't too keen on Niasse and Everton weren't keen on loaning him, we could have come in with a last minute loan offer (and, plausibly, still go for Janssen), which would have been a better situation for all three parties than they are now.

 

[Triggaaar]

I'm not sure in Janssen's case it would have made that much difference. Sounds like he's a stubborn sort and wants to play for Spurs u23s this season as his way of getting ready for the World Cup that Netherlands might not even qualify for despite Proppers efforts.

I'm not sure it would have made a difference, but I think there's a fair chance it would. Honestly, why would you sign a 3 year deal with a club you know nothing about, who are favourites to be relegated? Going on loan for a few months is a much easier decision though, right?

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

I found it bizarre that people are still claiming that the loan of a goalkeeper ruined the chance of a loan striker.



Sent from my LG-K520 using Tapatalk

Why is it bizarre?

We're allowed only two loans in total. By signing a third goalkeeper on loan, it ended any possibility of getting a striker in on loan..

What position was more important - a third goalkeeper or a striker?

 

[ac gull]

1st Jan we can:

- sign Krul on permanent deal
- get Janssen or any other forward in on loan

 

[clapham_gull]

... but surely there can be little argument that taking Krul on loan we limited our options of finding a striker somewhere late in the evening....

Would only make sense if there were loan strikers available that late in the evening.

Whilst leading up to deals there was utmost secrecy, it quote obvious in the last 24 hours the club were being more open (to the press) to appease fans.

The last of the transfer window has become like a game of football in itself. The argument regarding Krul is a bit like "if only smith has passed to Robinson"

He didn't.

 

[sydney]

Why is it bizarre?

We're allowed only two loans in total. By signing a third goalkeeper on loan, it ended any possibility of getting a striker in on loan..

What position was more important - a third goalkeeper or a striker?

wouldn't you need to be dense to find it bizarre...

 

[Gully Forever]

Are you talking about Janssen?

If so, my reckoning is that issue wasn't wages as reports suggest that Janssen's agent agreed to the deal and surely that's only likely if he considered the money right for his client. It did just seem to be the case that Janssen didn't want to play for Brighton.

I wasn't really referring to Janssen as an example. But surely our whole approach to wages has to change if we survive this season.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I wasn't really referring to Janssen as an example. But surely our whole approach to wages has to change if we survive this season.

Why do you think our 'whole' approach? Some of our most sort after players have signed new contracts, other than forwards, we appear to have landed all our other targets, most of which we sorted out fairly early. Seemingly 2 of our most sort after forwards weren't decided on personal terms with the players, but falling down on medical grounds and the selling club pulling out. Janssen didn't just turn down us on the last day, so the assumption has to be it wasn't just about salary. Not sure why people are making such generalised conclusions.

If anything, our whole approach to wages needs to remain consistent, and build upon success and a sustainable funding model for our owner. We as a club surely should be the last to jump onto the splash the cash at whatever cost bus.

 

[Machiavelli]

Why do you think our 'whole' approach? Some of our most sort after players have signed new contracts, other than forwards, we appear to have landed all our other targets, most of which we sorted out fairly early. Seemingly 2 of our most sort after forwards weren't decided on personal terms with the players, but falling down on medical grounds and the selling club pulling out. Janssen didn't just turn down us on the last day, so the assumption has to be it wasn't just about salary. Not sure why people are making such generalised conclusions.

If anything, our whole approach to wages needs to remain consistent, and build upon success and a sustainable funding model for our owner. We as a club surely should be the last to jump onto the splash the cash at whatever cost bus.

Sought of agree with this

 

[Gully Forever]

Why do you think our 'whole' approach? Some of our most sort after players have signed new contracts, other than forwards, we appear to have landed all our other targets, most of which we sorted out fairly early. Seemingly 2 of our most sort after forwards weren't decided on personal terms with the players, but falling down on medical grounds and the selling club pulling out. Janssen didn't just turn down us on the last day, so the assumption has to be it wasn't just about salary. Not sure why people are making such generalised conclusions.

If anything, our whole approach to wages needs to remain consistent, and build upon success and a sustainable funding model for our owner. We as a club surely should be the last to jump onto the splash the cash at whatever cost bus.

Oh for the love of God, Don't you think I know this, But that doesn't change the fact that it could well work against us.