Somewhat amazingly this thread is beginning to read as if had Burnley paid Brighton's (potentially over heated) valuation of Stephens, they still wouldn't have bought a striker.
Somewhat amazingly this thread is beginning to read as if had Burnley paid Brighton's (potentially over heated) valuation of Stephens, they still wouldn't have bought a striker.
Certainly not in this over heated market.We dont really buy strikers certainly not the ones that would score the goals to send us up.
Somewhat amazingly this thread is beginning to read as if had Burnley paid Brighton's (potentially over heated) valuation of Stephens, they still wouldn't have bought a striker.
I didn't set a time.What ? - Stephens would have gone to Burnley for £10m and we'd have bought a striker.
On the last day of the window ? You really think that ?
Blimey.
I didn't set a time.
Did we *not* buy a striker because Bloom didn't have enough money because he hadn't sold Stephens or not ? (regardless of when in the window this thing that the club didn't want to happen , happened)
Either it's about money or not.
If the club had enough money but didn't want to pay 'over heated' prices then it's throwing even more money away by doing nothing.
Strikers aren't getting cheaper.
So we didn't buy a striker because of the Stephens shenanigans.
It was just "staggeringly stupid" . Ok. Fair Enough.
Good. I'm glad that's cleared up.
Don't you think it's somewhat disingenuous to say the striker market is 'over heated'?
---
Either pay the money for the prize asset the squad needs.
Or generate that money
Don't you think it's somewhat disingenuous to say the striker market is 'over heated'?
It makes the club look like the first hicks down from the mountain.
Either pay the money for the prize asset the squad needs.
Or generate that money
A real blow losing him, such a key part of the set-up and we subsequently had a non-event of a transfer window, but the Championship's a great division and we must embrace it for the foreseeable...and probably way beyond that.
Of course the striker market is over-heated.
Is it? Definitely? 100% certain? How do you define that?
Yes, strikers are going for large sums of money. but that doesn't necessarily equate to the market being over-heated. It could merely be inflation.
For something to be over-heated, I would think there is a belief that some form of normality will return where, in this case, 'normal' means cheaper strikers. I'm not convinced that is going to happen any time soon, given the Premier League riches available that clubs either have or are trying to obtain.
- The striker market *is* over heated. Feel free if you want to argue otherwise.
- The club were prepared to spend - £5m or £7m etc for Pritchard - had agreed a fee with Spurs. So its disengenuous to keep denying they won't.
- Or "generate that money" - i suggest you collar Tony Bloom next time you see him on the train etc and tell him he should cough up more of his money to buy a striker, *any* striker and see where that gets you.
Is that all you care about - how we look to others? Diddums.
Of course the striker market is over-heated.
Not in your world, of course. But then, given your posts, you'd throw the mythical money you believe the club operates with, just to satisfy your salacious cravings. Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Albion don't have the resources to spend on eight-figure transfer fee strikers. Tony Bloom might have it personally, but you'd be so reckless with his money to the point you wouldn't last five minutes in your fantasy job.
If only the club had thought of that. Gobbing off from behind your keyboard about how to do a job you have no idea of doing might be great in your world, but in the real world, it doesn't quite work like that.
You've barked an order of 'generate more money' like you know exactly how to do it. You tell us how the club should do it. And bear in mind we are talking about an increase in turnover of around 30-40%. Go for it - let us know...
Don't be so pathetic, the pair of you, it's beneath both of you.
Bozza is clearly more eloquent than me, as that's the point I've been trying to make.
The striker market isn't 'over heated', it's been this stupid for over 30 years.
To be 'surprised' about it now, is disingenuous, and treating us like morons.
Keep the team together brilliant.
Improve on the team, excellent.
Hemed Murray & Baldock isn't an improvement.
I'd go so far as to say it's the weakest front line (quite possibly in the division) but for these purposes I'd say top 10 teams.
Oh and I was making this point after the 3-0 beating of Forest.
We are saying the club is currently asset rich but cash 'poor' and has known of a player shortfall for at least 12 months.
It needed to make the money work, no matter how unpalatable.
Because the consequences of not doing so are potentially disastrous.
As said on the Duffy thread:-
Any team that has more creditable centre backs than centre forwards has got it wrong'.
I do believe so.
In order to get what the quality we need, we'd need to pay more than for the equivalent-quality midfielder or defender. The demand is outstripping supply, and hence prices are going up. They may well come down again, but only when there are more decent enough strikers coming onto the 'market'.
I don't think it is. I think what you call an "over-heated market" is what I'd call "the market". Neither of us know, of course. I don't have a crystal ball and I don't think you do either.
Until such time as the Premier League/Sky bubble bursts, the market for players that could either keep a club in the Premier League and/or get a club promoted from the Championship is going to be booming.
Please, don't take this as criticism of the club though. As much as I am disappointed that we don't have a fourth striker, the club clearly did try but there were no options available to them that would improve the squad sufficiently for what they were going to cost.
I do wonder if we are slowly going to become uncompetitive however with clubs with lower half Premier League clubs, parachute cash-laden Championship clubs and those who are prepared to really "go for it" meaning that we'll need to cross our fingers with more speculative transfers more than ever before.
Is it? Definitely? 100% certain? How do you define that?
Yes, strikers are going for large sums of money. but that doesn't necessarily equate to the market being over-heated. It could merely be inflation.
For something to be over-heated, I would think there is a belief that some form of normality will return where, in this case, 'normal' means cheaper strikers. I'm not convinced that is going to happen any time soon, given the Premier League riches available that clubs either have or are trying to obtain.
Fair comment, about the quality of staff.
But the point I was, badly, making is best recruitment team in the world can't do the job if they aren't given the money.
It seems pretty clear that the recruiters aren't given 'striker' money when out shopping for a striker.
Chances are they're probably supposed to come back with change, too.