by RoyalBlue »
05 Jun 2015 15:35
No matter how the apologists try to gloss over it, this is another poor piece of business by the club.
People say we couldn't re-sign him on wages that we can't afford. True, but then it does come down to the definition of affordable and whether wages are considered merely as a loss or as a necessary investment. Besides, will he being going for that much more than we can afford elsewhere?
Like Feds and Jem, Pearce had tremendous value to us as a player and will be very difficult to afford to replace with a similar standard player within the club's budget. Also like Feds and Jem, Pearce would have had financial value to us, had we got him under contract. Seems to me that we have thrown both types of asset away.
It's likely that as we seek to find suitable replacements for these players we will see a similar situation as with Fods - i.e. we will be outbid (wages) by other clubs and our interest will mysteriously wane.