|The very best posts from KUMB over the years ...
Trap, I have no problem with you at all. It's the info we get.
I know you post in good faith and are unfairly at times mullered by people who have no clue how fluid a situation can be.
I love my club and it's all that matters. In that we are united
You sum it up perfectly mate, I can say no more.
Well that's it in a nutshell, isn't it? If David Sullivan himself was on here claiming ITK status he'd still get more wrong than right, simply because these things are dependent on a multitude of factors, many of which are entirely out of the clubs control. As to Trap specifically - well, you don't make it to 8000 posts claiming ITK on this site unless there's at least some legitimacy to you. Many who try are rumbled within half-a-dozen posts.
Thanks to all the bods who contributed honestly and in good faith on this thread, and to this site generally. (Cresty thing here)
Surely then it would have to be renamed the 'February/March 2012 Transfer Loan 'Window
I however, see this imminent 'window' as more of a cat flap.
I do believe we do have a budget. We spent it. All the bids for Rhodes supposedly at 5 might have been the truth but the way it was structured meant they said no. (They might still have said no with a 5M cash ~ we'll never know). If we bid 4 for Sordell why didn't we at least get to talk to the player I wonder. Maybe yet again the bid was in installments of 500K ~ who knows. But he went for well less than we supposedly bid. Something doesn't make a lot of sense to me at least.
I do believe that you post in good faith, but that you are so happy to believe what most of the time I feel is "supplied" to you without most of the time questioning the info, you do your self a disservice. Bristol with no pipeline to the club directly, seems to have been more spot on than your source in this instance.
That's almost certainly it, isn't it. We probably did bid £4m for Sordell, but with a measly £500k up front and the rest dependant on promotion and the premiership performance of the player (goals scored / no of starts). If that's all we have up front then that's all we can use as a down payment. It's hardly surprising that the three players we did signed were from clubs desperate to sell. Desperate enough to accept a tiny payment up front and gamble on our promotion to get the rest of their money.
Cuenca, it's not a competition mate between the itk's. They all supply info they think we might like to hear about the club we all love. Sometimes its right sometimes its not. Things change dont they, not just in football but in life par sey. I love logging into KUMB but itk bashing really does get on my pip. Anyway gotta go, big game to go to.
You're discounting the fact that Sordell might have said "I'm not going to any other club in this league, I want Premiership football or I'm stopping with Watford till the summer". It would be pointless to persue the player in that situation.
We might have offered Watford £4m, got wind that the player wasn't keen on us and moved on without wasting any time. Bolton might have then come in, offered regular Premiership football and the player says he definately wants to go. Then Watford are stuck with accepting Bolton's offer or rejecting it and having a very unhappy player. Fact is, we don't know. A lot can go wrong with these deals and a lot goes on behind the scenes with dodgy agents etc. (See Allardyce's column about the disappearing Portugese player!).
Can you point out what I am missing ?
I posted your quote. Bristol said we do have a budget of about 4.5 mill which appears to be spot on. You maintained we were going to spend over 10M and that our budget didn't exist. It seems that bristol was fairly spot on.
I know it's not a competition but in your absolute blind service to the club you sometimes set yourself up by not questioning your info. And damning anyone who does.
I don't doubt these things do come to fruition. There doesn't seem to have been any information that would seem to back up this "I only want PL football." That's all I am saying. No mentions of it from BFS whereas he did mention the Rhodes situation, the Jelavic (sp) situation, the original Vaz Te bid where their manager said we were derisory, in pretty much depth but nothing has come out of the Sordell exercise (for example) which leads me maybe to think that we did not either bid or it didn't warrant comment.
I think, just to qualify my statement, if you read our CEO's column today you will see just who was controlling the budget.
I am not knocking Trap as he didn't make it up, he just passed on what he was told.
We reportedly targetted 25 players in the window. Did you hear about all 25 players?
Plenty goes on that we don't hear about.
I don't get to hear nowt. But what was posted. Said we put in bids for Sordell and Rhodes and Maynard. And the Jelavic fella.
Said we had 10M to spunk. We seemingly didn't but hey what do I know. Nowt. No more than the rest really. To say we had no budget suggests that other posters who said we did were ill informed. "a myth" I think it was called.
All I ask is "Were our bids serious or were they token offers that we guessed would be refused."
That's it. Not sure quite why you want to take issue with it, but fine if you do. Maybe you know a bit more than me, I don't know.
But we didn't spend this £4Million you have attached yourself to. We actually spent far, far less.
You interprete budgets from headline figures - it doesn't work like that.
FACT - WEST HAM have no money along the lines you speak about.
FACT - The transfer fees you seem to be using are payable over the term of the player's contract.
The reality of this window is that the club have covered the costs of these moves (Up til the summer) by by saving in other areas, a good example of this is David Bentley's wages. This situation will change in the summer. I now doubt that the owners have pumped 'new money' into the club, if we get promoted they will have lent zilch as the continued payments will be covered nicely by an increase in revenue.
If we had signed a Sordell or Rhodes then others would have left the club. This is why we didn't sign them - we couldn't move the others. KB's unwise decision to broadcast discussions through the media didn't help either.
No one gives Karen Brady £4 million to spend - this isn't a kid with pocket money. To be perfectly frank, she likes to big up her role but she doesn't get involved with deciding fees as much as some people may think.
So to conclude while being respectful to others, we didn't spend £4 million or £10 million, the owners just performed some housekeeping duties .
I beg to differ. Transfer fees are paid according to the agreement between the clubs. Now ours might have done in this instance. When we flogged Bellamy iirc we got the money up front which was the reason he went where he did and not to the Spuds.
I would be very surprised if we didn't pay ManYoo the full fee for Morrison because they turned down a cash bid of approx 300K from the Barcodes. Also we'll ask bristol if we paid the money for Maynard in full or not. Barnsley turned down a derisory bid for Vaz Te so again are you suggesting that we didn't pay the 650K in cash, or whatever it was for him, and that Barnsley accepted it over 3 years or so ??
"Fact ~ we have no money to speak of," so why did you mention that we had bids in of over 10Mill and that the 4.5M that bristol mentioned was a "myth ?'
Honest mate you seem to have completely contradicted your pre-transfer day wrap up in this post.
Again what point am I not understanding ?????????
The owners were telling everyone they would pay the fees and not the club.
The end result is that David Sullivan is right when he says we haven't got the money it also means that despite the PR, the owners are pretty reluctant to give the money either.
I would be very surprised if we paid the Nicky Maynard deal in full - why would we need to? Maynard closed all other options, City had no option but to accept or look a bit silly.
No contradiction my friend, not on my part anyhow.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests