Q: Is having only two centre backs enough?

[Svlad Cjelli]

In theory, nothing, but in practice it may not work like that, and I suspect it would only serve to lower the price we'd get. For all the flash, money and glamour, football is an incredibnly conservative industry - things are done the way they've always been done, and that's the end of it, so I don't think any club can impose rules like this and expect them to be stuck.

And, for instance, what if Sir Alex were to offer us £15M in the final week of the window, after our deadline? Turn it down?

Anyway, for all we know there may be a deal for him already but the buyer has agreed to hold off until we've lined up a replacement - like a house-buying chain.

[Hoop Blah]

Realistically that isn't workable or enforcable because we can't dictate what other clubs do with their money and most of the transfers are knock effects from a couple of big moves further up the food chain.

I do think we should be a little more proactive in moving players on, both ones we'd like shot of and those we'd ultimately like to keep but know we're going to lose.

Holding out for the best price is great for the books but if by squeezing out an extra £500k we miss out on our preferred replacements then it might not be worth it in the long run. It's getting the balance right of course, and I trust Hammond and McDermott to get it more right than wrong but that doesn't mean we get it right 100% of the time.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Realistically that isn't workable or enforcable because we can't dictate what other clubs do with their money and most of the transfers are knock effects from a couple of big moves further up the food chain.

I do think we should be a little more proactive in moving players on, both ones we'd like shot of and those we'd ultimately like to keep but know we're going to lose.

Holding out for the best price is great for the books but if by squeezing out an extra £500k we miss out on our preferred replacements then it might not be worth it in the long run. It's getting the balance right of course, and I trust Hammond and McDermott to get it more right than wrong but that doesn't mean we get it right 100% of the time.

No arguments with any of that.

[brendywendy]

But why keep making life difficult for ourselves by allowing other clubs to pull away at the start of the season whilst we try to repair damage caused by last minute sales and wait for the next transfer window to sign replacements!

Beacuse they then get criticised for "touting players out" for sale. We can only sell when someone wants to buy.

We don't want or need to sell anyone now MM has gone, so all we can do is wait and see if buyers come along. Also if we want to sell the price we'll get will inevitably go down.

But, as I've asked before, what is to stop the club introducing their own transfer window which closes earlier than the official one?

So, for example, no one can deny that there has been interest in Long, without the club touting him. So why not let all parties, including Long and his agent, know that if a deal isn't concluded by the third week in July, he will not be sold in this transfer window regardless of price. As you say, we don't have to sell so why not take a harder line with all those concerned. If then he is sold by the RFC deadline, there is still some time to sort things out in terms of an incoming player(s) before the official window closes.

we have tried and said to people in the past thats what we are doing during windows.
its hard to make it work though when everyone except the selling club gets a dividend from leaving it as late as possible

[dogzbollox]

This guy is good.......thoughts?

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 66,00.html

[RoyalBlue]

Beacuse they then get criticised for "touting players out" for sale. We can only sell when someone wants to buy.

We don't want or need to sell anyone now MM has gone, so all we can do is wait and see if buyers come along. Also if we want to sell the price we'll get will inevitably go down.

But, as I've asked before, what is to stop the club introducing their own transfer window which closes earlier than the official one?

So, for example, no one can deny that there has been interest in Long, without the club touting him. So why not let all parties, including Long and his agent, know that if a deal isn't concluded by the third week in July, he will not be sold in this transfer window regardless of price. As you say, we don't have to sell so why not take a harder line with all those concerned. If then he is sold by the RFC deadline, there is still some time to sort things out in terms of an incoming player(s) before the official window closes.

we have tried and said to people in the past thats what we are doing during windows.
its hard to make it work though when everyone except the selling club gets a dividend from leaving it as late as possible

But it would work if the selling club proved that they had the courage of their convictions and held firm once they had imposed their own transfer deadline. Despite everyone else getting a dividend, the player can go nowhere without the agreement of the selling club.

[brendywendy]

unless any release clauses are met

[Hoop Blah]

You then might end up with a bunch of unhappy and unsettled players and eventually perhaps make players hesitant to sign for you (if they think you won't treat them fairly when their career takes off).

[brendywendy]

thats the key i think- we do manage to hold onto many players longer than we possbly could do, precisiely because we treat them well, and allow them to move upwards where they want IF the clause ammounts are met.
this unfortunately does mean that when we say we are closed for business a few days before the window shuts, that we are still bholden to thos clauses up till the last minute of the window.

[RoyalBlue]

thats the key i think- we do manage to hold onto many players longer than we possbly could do, precisiely because we treat them well, and allow them to move upwards where they want IF the clause ammounts are met.
this unfortunately does mean that when we say we are closed for business a few days before the window shuts, that we are still bholden to thos clauses up till the last minute of the window.

Fair point. So going forward we have to be smarter with the wording of the release clauses. e.g. binding offer matching or exceeding release point has to be received two weeks prior to closure of official transfer window.

In Long's case we're not sure whether a release clause even exists?

[floyd__streete]

The terrifying spectre of Bryn and Harte at centre-half tonight for half of the friendly vs some turkish outfit. Hopefully we'll ship about half a dozen goals in that half of football to really focus the need for not one incoming centre half this summer but two.

[brendywendy]

thats the key i think- we do manage to hold onto many players longer than we possbly could do, precisiely because we treat them well, and allow them to move upwards where they want IF the clause ammounts are met.
this unfortunately does mean that when we say we are closed for business a few days before the window shuts, that we are still bholden to thos clauses up till the last minute of the window.

Fair point. So going forward we have to be smarter with the wording of the release clauses. e.g. binding offer matching or exceeding release point has to be received two weeks prior to closure of official transfer window.

In Long's case we're not sure whether a release clause even exists?

yeah, if possible, why not

&
nope

svlad is a person who may know if anyone does. i dont remember it being publicised.
and i dont know if weve stopped doing them, and have simply switched to gentlements agreements between the player/club as to what everyone is worth, and therefore what we will accept for them