Monty13 2,234 Posted May 8, 2019 As per usual reading what the person actually said, rather than what someone is saying about what they said, it turns out it was pretty reasonable in context. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ian 1,129 Posted May 8, 2019 19 minutes ago, Monty13 said: As per usual reading what the person actually said, rather than what someone is saying about what they said, it turns out it was pretty reasonable in context. "If I can offer promoted Norwich and Sheffield United one piece of advice — don't try to survive in the Premier League on the cheap." As opposed to the headline: Don't try to survive in the Premier League on the cheap' - West Ham chief warns Canaries and Blades Seems a fairly accurate representation. I imagine Karen Brady would probably not recommended shooting for the Championship title whilst reducing your wage bill by 60%, selling off 40 mil of talent and playing three young inexperienced players in defence. In other words, who cares what advice she has to offer? 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanaryChris 146 Posted May 8, 2019 Remember that season where Leicester spent £100s of millions to win the premier league? Me either Sod off you withered old hammers hag. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
splendidrush 700 Posted May 9, 2019 Was it last year or the year before that Tottenham spent nothing? Still finished above West Ham though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dean Coneys boots 1,400 Posted May 9, 2019 Tottenham spent nothing because they already had a multimillion pound squad in place who were clearly capable of competing in the top five. Hardly relevant to Norwich! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aggy 755 Posted May 9, 2019 ...And Leicester spent c.£35-45 million (depending on source) on transfer fees alone the season they went on to win the league and had spent over £20 million on transfer fees the season before, their first season up. When you factor in wages and agents fees etc. as well, those figures are a pretty big chunk out of what you’ll get from one season of TV money. I will be very surprised if we spend £20 million just in transfer fees this summer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sgncfc 1,228 Posted May 9, 2019 It's just standard lazy journalism, probably ghost written by the office junior to fill a page up. If that's really Karen Brady's opinion then West Ham have some really difficult issues to deal with when (not if, because it is when) they get relegated next. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alex Moss 2,165 Posted May 9, 2019 Reading that it is quite belittling and condescending, she is completely up her own ****. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TeemuVanBasten 3,327 Posted October 5, 2019 On 09/05/2019 at 18:59, Aggy said: I will be very surprised if we spend £20 million just in transfer fees this summer. On a scale of 1-10, how surprised were you that we only spent £1.75m by the time the season kicked off? Personally I was only expecting to see perhaps one £10m player from the domestic market, and perhaps a couple of £2.5m players from foreign leagues.... I did expect us to spend something. We effectively spent nothing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JF 694 Posted October 5, 2019 I doubt anyone was expecting to spend as little as we did but it’s done now and no amount of going over it will change it. We just have to hope we are in touching distance in January to give ourselves a chance then and bring in the players we need. I’ve doubts that firstly we will be within touching distance and doubts that we will bring much in though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aggy 755 Posted October 5, 2019 29 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said: On a scale of 1-10, how surprised were you that we only spent £1.75m by the time the season kicked off? Personally I was only expecting to see perhaps one £10m player from the domestic market, and perhaps a couple of £2.5m players from foreign leagues.... I did expect us to spend something. We effectively spent nothing. 4. Different point to the one I’ve discussed with you elsewhere though. You said we should have filled all 25 spaces in the squad and in one thread you said not doing so was unforgivable. I’ve said why it isn’t unforgivable - it made more sense to go with 23 than bringing in more loanees who aren’t good enough (Roberts) or paying sums we weren’t willing to pay. Now, whether we should have been willing to pay more is a different question. Personally, I understand why we approached the window as we did and can live with it. Yeah it would be great if we had more money, but I’m fairly content with us trying to do things conservatively. It’s a fairly academic argument in any event - there are plenty of examples of teams spending loads and doing well, plenty of them spending loads and getting in a massive mess, plenty of examples of teams not spending and doing well, plenty not spending and failing. We’ve chosen the way we’re doing things, now we need to work on that basis. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites