You don't need to replace like-for-like if the gaps in the squad are elsewhere and you think you have enough cover for the player lost.
That’s a fair point. I’m happy to agree perhaps this is more a case of conflicting preference then negligence (a preference I still maintain and believe would have been the better option).
spending even a little bit more than we have makes no difference… [there is] little competitive advantage against the insane spenders
Again, I really don’t think you can look at the argument in this manner. You can’t say bringing in a more experienced striker would not have had any benefit, and you can’t justify aversion to higher investment in your own club because others out spend you. You can still use nous to acquire your signings, whatever the cost.
you can go insolvent for any sum of money if you don't have that sum.
While this is true, it’s taking it to the improbable extreme and the point therefore has little impact.
Brendy:
1. After Gylfi left we looked like a team bereft of creativity. And the notion we were desperate in defence is a little embellished – ok we shored things up in September and we all tipped our hats to the mastery of the transfers, then October onwards we weren’t exactly reaping the benefit, and November was awful.
Meanwhile, Gylfi picked up player of the season at Hoffenheim, scoring in nearly every game he played. Are you really suggesting we wouldn’t have been a better side with him in it?
2. You don’t think Reading are more cautious than other clubs at our level? In context, I say we are “playing it safe”. And actually, I don’t think either viewpoint could be considered “stupid”.
3. This argument reminds me of trying to get my dog to eat a worming pill. Maybe if I coated actuality in luncheon meat you’d swallow it. Oh looks like Svlad has already tried. Never mind.
4. No problem, I did my best. Perhaps you will understand when you get older. In the meantime, I won’t join in the celebration of our chairman on the one hand fighting to keep players that on the other, nobody wanted. The inconsistency kinda dampens my enthusiasm.
Vision:
I get your point and I too love our turd-polishing policy; but turds do take time to polish – it’s a strain when the campaign needed something shiny straight away.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing for bias towards transfer over nurture It’s this particular case in which a vital leg falls off our comfy sofa and we just wedge an old book under the wobbly corner. Not to mention how sad it is to see what we have nurtured released without much of a fight.
Which returns me to my original point – a bit more flexibility in our tightly run finances would, in my opinion, benefit the club in the long run, whereas over-stringency may actually be doing more harm then good. But I appreciate my point does kinda bulk me in with the ‘JM OUT, WHERE’S THE MONEY GONE’ brigade. But only in the eyes of critical fundamentalists.
