- Jul 20, 2011
- 4,053
- 6,808
Our transfer activity is very reminiscent of the summer we sold Bale. ITK kept citing a £50m loan from Joe Lewis / ENIC as explanation for the money we were spending, then Bale left late in the window after our business was done. With hindsight, the loan was only a very short-term boost to our cash-flow and was repaid out of the Bale money. The ITK was correct, but turned out to be less positive than we initially assumed.
I now have a very strong sense of de javu. I can't find the post or remember who posted it / exact wording, but one piece of ITK last month suggested signings were not dependent on anyone being sold first. SC widely interpreted it as confirmation that we could afford to spend without selling Kane, whereas I read it as we could buy before selling Kane - like we did in 2013. It seemed to me that the post was ambiguously worded in such a way that most of us would read it as confirmation that we can afford to invest heavily in a rebuild this summer, while discretely telling us Kane will be sold after our business is done - i.e. a repeat of Summer 2013.
If anyone can direct me to that ITK post I'd really appreciate it.
I now have a very strong sense of de javu. I can't find the post or remember who posted it / exact wording, but one piece of ITK last month suggested signings were not dependent on anyone being sold first. SC widely interpreted it as confirmation that we could afford to spend without selling Kane, whereas I read it as we could buy before selling Kane - like we did in 2013. It seemed to me that the post was ambiguously worded in such a way that most of us would read it as confirmation that we can afford to invest heavily in a rebuild this summer, while discretely telling us Kane will be sold after our business is done - i.e. a repeat of Summer 2013.
If anyone can direct me to that ITK post I'd really appreciate it.