by RoyalBlue »
26 Aug 2013 09:55
One8Seven1 RoyalBlue winchester_royal FTR, it seems that most have forgotten the fact that we haven't actually sold anyone yet this summer, unlike the 'big spending' QPR and Wigan, therefore our net spend is probably one of the highest in the league.
Might have been more sensible to have sold one or two, in order to rebalance the squad! What's more, we did release two strikers who were more proven for us than McDermott's star January buy - Blackman!
We didn't release Church or Hunt, they turned down new contracts and chose to leave. Hunt was offered a one year deal, and Church was told to sign a new deal before the January transfer window or we would sell him.
Semantics. The club decided that they didn't want to keep either of them. How often will a player sign up for a one year deal when they know that plenty of other clubs will give them better? Could have kept Hunt with a better offer.
Ian Royal For ten years people have been moaning "where has the money gone?". For ten years they've been repeatedly told and shown, but it makes no difference. They're either too stupid, or too willfully ignorant to take any notice.
Suggesting that the club need to be prepared to compete more in the financial stakes if they want to stand more chance of competing at the highest levels in the league is different from asking where the money has gone.
As for those (not you) who say that the club are right not to pay above the market rate for players - that's not the issue. The issue is that the club seems so reluctant to pay the market rates (always seem to think they can undercut). The market rate is what someone can sell a product at i.e. what other clubs are prepared to pay for players!
