Jump to content
cambridgeshire canary

Slaven Bilic says he wont replicate our approach to recruitment, claiming we 'haven't even tried anything'

Recommended Posts

We did not spend money, WBA will. We will see who's strategy is best. Bilic said something and as is normal in modern day society rather than discuss it and move on people shout abuse and call him names.. bit silly really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

We did not spend money, WBA will. We will see who's strategy is best. Bilic said something and as is normal in modern day society rather than discuss it and move on people shout abuse and call him names.. bit silly really?

If someone in his position says something derogatory and blatantly ignorant about another club, then it is no surprise people react badly to it. 

As for your "We did not spend money, WBA will" comment - we did not have money, certainly not what WBA will have to spend.  This is where the rebuild comes in to the thinking after our previous relegation, when we had so much money tied up in big wages. We had to clear all that, start again - and what money we did have at the start of the PL season, couldn't buy the players we would have wanted.

Why is it so many people don't understand that? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

West Brom are rumoured to be keen on signing Cenk Tosun from Everton (who is currently injured, ACL) and Lawrence Shankland from Dundee United (totally unproven beyond the Scottish Championship)...looks like he's trying something (probably to get the sack before Christmas). 🤣

Apples

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kenny Foggo said:

We did not spend money, WBA will. We will see who's strategy is best. Bilic said something and as is normal in modern day society rather than discuss it and move on people shout abuse and call him names.. bit silly really?

Apart from on Fahrmann, Roberts, Amadou, Duda, Byram and Rupp you mean?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Apart from on Fahrmann, Roberts, Amadou, Duda, Byram and Rupp you mean?

I never got this ****e about spending money.....imagine if we’d signed all the above and paid the going rate at the time before seeing just how poor they were for us! Would have cost us in excess of £50 million had we bought them all last August! Now we’d be stuck with high earning players with big debts! I just don’t get that argument, we just can up short like Bournemouth and Watford, but we move forward with a good young squad with a settled set up, we should be looking forward to next year, not how much WBA are going to waste on trying to stay up, chances are either way they will be back here next season!

Edited by Indy
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Indy said:

I never got this ****e about spending money.....imagine if we’d signed all the above and paid the going rate at the time before seeing just how poor they were for us! Would have cost us in excess of £50 million had we bought them all last August! Now we’d be stuck with high earning players with big debts! I just don’t get that argument, we just can up short like Bournemouth and Watford, but we move forward with a good young squad with a settled set up, we should be looking forward to next year, not how much WBA are going to waste on trying to stay up, chances are either way they will be back here next season!

Not true Indy, because if we were looking to buy players then we'd be looking in a totally different pool. Players like Amadou, Fahrmann, Roberts and Duda are all available because they aren't needed/good enough at their current clubs, you can argue that we'd have wasted money if we'd bought them. I'd argue that we loaned them precisely because we knew we could send them back if they didnt work out or improve the team, whereas if we're buying the money would have been spent far better on players who perhaps showed a little more desire to help the team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

Not true Indy, because if we were looking to buy players then we'd be looking in a totally different pool. Players like Amadou, Fahrmann, Roberts and Duda are all available because they aren't needed/good enough at their current clubs, you can argue that we'd have wasted money if we'd bought them. I'd argue that we loaned them precisely because we knew we could send them back if they didnt work out or improve the team, whereas if we're buying the money would have been spent far better on players who perhaps showed a little more desire to help the team?

Help me understand what you're saying here.

 

Because the players listed were loans, we thought it didn't matter if they weren't very good, but if we'd bought rather than loaned, we would have tried harder to get good ones?

 

Or is it that clubs only loan out rubbish players, but if they sell someone, they're good?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

Not true Indy, because if we were looking to buy players then we'd be looking in a totally different pool. Players like Amadou, Fahrmann, Roberts and Duda are all available because they aren't needed/good enough at their current clubs, you can argue that we'd have wasted money if we'd bought them. I'd argue that we loaned them precisely because we knew we could send them back if they didnt work out or improve the team, whereas if we're buying the money would have been spent far better on players who perhaps showed a little more desire to help the team?

Really you think a newly promoted club like ours would have been able to attract better players? What would we needed to pay for that? Given we had to pay 8 million and £40,000 a week for Naismith, what price on say a Godfrey? Would 25 million plus £60,000 a week be about right?

I don’t think we had much choice unless you’re willing to pay well over the odds, but that’s just my opinion. You may well be right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

Not true Indy, because if we were looking to buy players then we'd be looking in a totally different pool. Players like Amadou, Fahrmann, Roberts and Duda are all available because they aren't needed/good enough at their current clubs, you can argue that we'd have wasted money if we'd bought them. I'd argue that we loaned them precisely because we knew we could send them back if they didnt work out or improve the team, whereas if we're buying the money would have been spent far better on players who perhaps showed a little more desire to help the team?

In fairness to the loans, did many of them get much of a chance to show if they were worthwhile? Seems like Farke decided pretty quickly they weren't up to it so it was mostly a waste of money. Not sure what different a pool we would be looking in for permanent transfers, we agreed a fee for Amadou from what I remember. Clearly he's in the pool of players we were looking in for permanent deals. I do think though you have point that sometimes loan players do have different attitudes to maybe a permanent signing as it's a temporary thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Help me understand what you're saying here.

 

Because the players listed were loans, we thought it didn't matter if they weren't very good, but if we'd bought rather than loaned, we would have tried harder to get good ones?

 

Or is it that clubs only loan out rubbish players, but if they sell someone, they're good?

Restricting yourself only to loanees limits the pool of players you can sign.

If we had £50m to spend we very likely wouldn't have spent it signing Duda, Fahrmann, Amadou and Roberts permanently.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, king canary said:

Restricting yourself only to loanees limits the pool of players you can sign.

If we had £50m to spend we very likely wouldn't have spent it signing Duda, Fahrmann, Amadou and Roberts permanently.

Maybe King, but we went after a young French lad who said no thanks!

I don’t think a club like ours is as attractive a proposition as us fans think. Duda prime example had we signed a full international with his stature in August who would have complained at 25 million?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Indy said:

Maybe King, but we went after a young French lad who said no thanks!

I don’t think a club like ours is as attractive a proposition as us fans think. Duda prime example had we signed a full international with his stature in August who would have complained at 25 million?

There was also the Scottish lad that turned us down in favour of Celtic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, king canary said:

Restricting yourself only to loanees limits the pool of players you can sign.

If we had £50m to spend we very likely wouldn't have spent it signing Duda, Fahrmann, Amadou and Roberts permanently.

To an extent yes, but surely a proportion of potential loanees would be for sale for the right price?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nuff Said said:

To an extent yes, but surely a proportion of potential loanees would be for sale for the right price?

I had to check in case my memory was failing but we agreed a purchase option in the loan agreement for Amadou so clearly he was for sale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, seanthecanary said:

I had to check in case my memory was failing but we agreed a purchase option in the loan agreement for Amadou so clearly he was for sale

We did he was 9 million euros, Duda had a tag of 25 million euros so that’s two players who on paper were peak age and better than we had in our squad! So how much for better? 
 

It’s more about finding the right player to suit Farkes system attitude and young enough to develop into a good player, pretty much how we’ve gone about it this summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Indy said:

We did he was 9 million euros, Duda had a tag of 25 million euros so that’s two players who on paper were peak age and better than we had in our squad! So how much for better? 

Well that's a hard question to answer isn't it because the truth is, no matter how much you spend, there are no guarantees. I suppose it may increase the odds but you never know for sure. Who would have guessed that getting Sanchez in a swap deal for a player they didn't want would have worked out so badly for Man Utd. 

Edited by seanthecanary
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think our complete collapse after lockdown had anything to do with how much we spent at the beginning of the season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

To an extent yes, but surely a proportion of potential loanees would be for sale for the right price?

Yes they would be, that is kind of my point. They would be available but so would a number of players other clubs likely wouldn't want be open to loaning out. The pool is much bigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hogesar said:

How much have West Brom spent so far?

Let's see when what the figure is when the transfer windows finishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lake district canary said:

If someone in his position says something derogatory and blatantly ignorant about another club, then it is no surprise people react badly to it. 

As for your "We did not spend money, WBA will" comment - we did not have money, certainly not what WBA will have to spend.  This is where the rebuild comes in to the thinking after our previous relegation, when we had so much money tied up in big wages. We had to clear all that, start again - and what money we did have at the start of the PL season, couldn't buy the players we would have wanted.

Why is it so many people don't understand that? 

 

Totally understand and did not say I did not. For someone who is sometimes criticised as being too positive, it's strange you spend so much time on a negative issue.

As was very much clear... We spent next to little last season whilst in the top flight, WBA have said they will. Whether they are more successful with that approach we will see.

Surely you understand that?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Herman said:

I don't think our complete collapse after lockdown had anything to do with how much we spent at the beginning of the season. 

We will never know but we were bottom before lock down too, so you could argue that the lack of quality was an issue and normally with football, they only way to solve that is to buy better players, who cost more.

The teams with bigger squads probably had an advantage after lockdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There tends to be reason whilst players are allowed out on loan -

1. Young need playing time

2. Surplus to requirements by their current club. Not seen as good enough

3. Fallen out with manager / owners

4. Need game time recovering from injury.

Hence a lot do not work out. But those that do (Hucks, Crouchy...) Can be real assets. Don't like them myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

There tends to be reason whilst players are allowed out on loan -

1. Young need playing time

2. Surplus to requirements by their current club. Not seen as good enough

3. Fallen out with manager / owners

4. Need game time recovering from injury.

Hence a lot do not work out. But those that do (Hucks, Crouchy...) Can be real assets. Don't like them myself.

Same, I'm not a huge fan of loans, especially as much as Roeder was 😂. Picking up a hucks is great though. What bothers me is the belief that because a young player is signed to a higher league/bigger club they are by proxy an improvement on what you have or could sign permanently. I can't remember his name but Roeder signed some young striker from Portsmouth on loan and I've heard so little of him since that I'm guessing he went into witness protection. 

Edited by seanthecanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Totally understand and did not say I did not. For someone who is sometimes criticised as being too positive, it's strange you spend so much time on a negative issue.

As was very much clear... We spent next to little last season whilst in the top flight, WBA have said they will. Whether they are more successful with that approach we will see.

Surely you understand that?  

Of course, but the implication of you saying that "we did not spend money" is that we should have done - but we did not have much money to spend!  Money does not grow on trees.  We may have had a little money (in PL terms) if the right player was available - talk was of £15m - but if the right player was not available, then it could easily have been wasted and for what? Just so we could say we spent some money??   Have we not learned from the RVW and Naismith fiascos, not to mention Drmic?

The bottom line is we have to be very careful with what money we do have - and because we have been careful in the last three years, we now have the assets to build the squad up more.  Yes, it made the PL a difficult campaign, painful at times, but given the way it finished with the lockdown and restart, I think more importance can be seen to why we have stuck to the principles of  good housekeeping. 

We could have spent that £15m, could have even speculated on future earnings by buying another couple of players - still got relegated and then been stuck with these expensive signings and their high wages, lo and behold back to where we were three years ago, in debt, any money coming in going to paying wages to expensive flops and no money to buy new players.

As it is we have seen some fabulous football over the last two years, the promotion wonder season, the Man City game never to be forgotten, as well as some of those cup games, this season.  We have some brilliant talent, money to spend, money to come in from selling some of the nurtured talent, so yet more money to spend on players. The future is bright. Why?

Because we didn't spend money we didn't have.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

There tends to be reason whilst players are allowed out on loan -

1. Young need playing time

2. Surplus to requirements by their current club. Not seen as good enough

3. Fallen out with manager / owners

4. Need game time recovering from injury.

Hence a lot do not work out. But those that do (Hucks, Crouchy...) Can be real assets. Don't like them myself.

Fraser Forster and Angus Gunn both excellent loan players who kept goal for a season.

Farhmann could have been another but ultimately we didn't need him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

Of course, but the implication of you saying that "we did not spend money" is that we should have done - but we did not have much money to spend!  Money does not grow on trees.  We may have had a little money (in PL terms) if the right player was available - talk was of £15m - but if the right player was not available, then it could easily have been wasted and for what? Just so we could say we spent some money??   Have we not learned from the RVW and Naismith fiascos, not to mention Drmic?

The bottom line is we have to be very careful with what money we do have - and because we have been careful in the last three years, we now have the assets to build the squad up more.  Yes, it made the PL a difficult campaign, painful at times, but given the way it finished with the lockdown and restart, I think more importance can be seen to why we have stuck to the principles of  good housekeeping. 

We could have spent that £15m, could have even speculated on future earnings by buying another couple of players - still got relegated and then been stuck with these expensive signings and their high wages, lo and behold back to where we were three years ago, in debt, any money coming in going to paying wages to expensive flops and no money to buy new players.

As it is we have seen some fabulous football over the last two years, the promotion wonder season, the Man City game never to be forgotten, as well as some of those cup games, this season.  We have some brilliant talent, money to spend, money to come in from selling some of the nurtured talent, so yet more money to spend on players. The future is bright. Why?

Because we didn't spend money we didn't have.

 

 

Whether valid or not, fans always judge ambition based on money spent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, seanthecanary said:

Whether valid or not, fans always judge ambition based on money spent. 

Depends on the Fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, lake district canary said:

Of course, but the implication of you saying that "we did not spend money" is that we should have done - but we did not have much money to spend!  Money does not grow on trees.  We may have had a little money (in PL terms) if the right player was available - talk was of £15m - but if the right player was not available, then it could easily have been wasted and for what? Just so we could say we spent some money??   Have we not learned from the RVW and Naismith fiascos, not to mention Drmic?

The bottom line is we have to be very careful with what money we do have - and because we have been careful in the last three years, we now have the assets to build the squad up more.  Yes, it made the PL a difficult campaign, painful at times, but given the way it finished with the lockdown and restart, I think more importance can be seen to why we have stuck to the principles of  good housekeeping. 

We could have spent that £15m, could have even speculated on future earnings by buying another couple of players - still got relegated and then been stuck with these expensive signings and their high wages, lo and behold back to where we were three years ago, in debt, any money coming in going to paying wages to expensive flops and no money to buy new players.

As it is we have seen some fabulous football over the last two years, the promotion wonder season, the Man City game never to be forgotten, as well as some of those cup games, this season.  We have some brilliant talent, money to spend, money to come in from selling some of the nurtured talent, so yet more money to spend on players. The future is bright. Why?

Because we didn't spend money we didn't have.

 

 

I made no implication. It's a simple statement of facts. I have however said, on a number of occasions, that the current owners have done a great job in keep the club going but I would like to see someone have a go at getting us to higher levels and I believe that's possible.

I don't think you can achieve our potential without more investment. I find the plans to hand over to Tom worrying as well as their statement on not looking for investment.

You however, believe the owners are the best we can get and no one can achieve more than they have. You mention the Nasmith issue like it was someone other than our owners who were responsible, or indeed bringing us to the brink of bankruptcy (Needed the Maddison sale....)

Saying that, I am glad the owners have a plan (would have been great to have had it in 1993 when they bought the club) and let's hope they are true to their word and they strengthen the squad this year. Gibson would be a start in my opinion and a potential excellent signing.

The majority of clubs our size have significantly more cash flow. It's achievable and as for the future, it could be even better if we did not continuely have to sell our best players every year.

At least we can agree to disagree whilst hoping for the best....

Edited by Kenny Foggo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, seanthecanary said:

Whether valid or not, fans always judge ambition based on money spent. 

If you are in a sport were you can only achieve being in the top flight by investment then to decide not to is a statement in itself. A lot on here believe we are so much better than other clubs because of it... I don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...