- Jul 7, 2012
- 38,247
- 104,143
With respect, Dan, I feel the "other clubs fuck up as well" argument is a pretty facile one. Isn't it important to analyse the reasons WHY we might have made a "dud signing"? And if it's because once again principal targets have been missed as we've left it late in the window in an attempt to drive down the price, and then we've had to scrap around for inferior alternatives, opportunistic or panic buys, then I think people have a right to criticise. Hopefully, addressing those flaws in our transfer policy might go some way to reducing the risk of signing "duds" in the future. Not always easy, I know, but surely the logic of this approach is something you can accept?
It's a perfectly legitimate argument seeing as our rival clubs are able to pay more money than us so they have less room for error than us when it comes to transfers so how come we should be put under a microscope for failed transfers which are in the minority anyway but teams who can spend x amount on fees and wages get excused? The reason why we leave deals late is because we can't compete with the bigger clubs who pay more and players will always favour clubs who will pay them the highest wage hence sometimes we need to leave it late to get deals over the line. Our principal targets aren't exclusive to us you know, agents will hawk good players around to good teams and those players normally go to teams who pay the most money in wages and agent fees. At the end of the day it's a competitive market and we need to box clever in the way we do things and sometimes you gotta wait it out to secure a target (i.e Davison Sanchez)
The frustrating thing is that our fans fail to analyse the situation properly and would rather throw their toys out the pram and rant against the club but we're financially hamstrung in comparison to our rivals.