Think our squad looks weak

[Terminally Yellow 2,448]

5 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Nobody is saying that we can't put out a decent XI with everybody fit and no suspensions.

But how often does that happen. People talk about our severe injury crisis last time, well two teams had an even worse one - Watford had 11 players out at one point.

This, incidentally, is why my title says "squad" and not "team". 

The problem isn't that we don't think Cantwell and Pukki are capable of doing well in the Premier League, its more justified doubts that Placheta or Hugill could when one of those gets injured.

The squad lacks a depth of quality across the pitch. 

And "a chance of winning some games" is damning with faint praise is it not?

Of course it lacks a depth of quality, that's why we're still recruiting across the pitch. 

Posts like those quoted above would be absolutely spot on if posted in September. It's July. We're not the only Premier League side whose recruitment is far from finished.

Patience is key. We all know what positions the club are hoping to recruit in and the philosophy of recruiting quality that clearly improves the squad. We also know the conditions the club are recruiting in. 

[Michael Starr 519]

What people seem to ignore is that we have much greater versatility this time around. Everyone likes to do their first 11s as if its cemented but ultimately you can see that they are now bringing in higher quality players who can cover more than one role. Which is smart for a smaller wage budget club like ours. I suspect we’ll continue to see this trend which is why players like Hugill are going to leave, why players like Sorensen are vital, why they are clearly trying to mold Placheta into something as a work in progress. Let’s have some faith!

Edited July 21, 2021 by Michael Starr

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

My final point on Buendia (I really hope so). Yes he is a genuinely talented player who I would have loved to have kept if we could have also improved the squad appropriately at the same time, but we couldn't. So far we have brought in Gibson, Gianoullis, Lees-Melou, and Rashica for a combined fee that is still less than for what we sold Buendia (and there are more to come). Is it really so far-fetched to speculate that, in pursuit of survival, the combined efforts of that four may well outweigh the individual moments of brilliance that Buendia may have provided? Burnley have survived many years in the PL without a "Buendia" figure, but a focus on the solidity and all round competence of the whole team. Now, while I don't want us to copy Burnley's style of play, I do think Webber, Farke, and co have recognised that depth of squad talent is absolutely crucial to survival. Sans beneficent billionaire, the sacrifice of one mercurial, talented player for an increase in the depth of squad quality may well prove to be the wisest strategic move made by the current management regime. Only time will tell whether that strategy will pay off, but the rationality of it is surely very apparent. It is certainly nonsense to suggest it has now guaranteed that relegation is "inevitable" as some have suggested.

The athletic quoted that, at the start of the window, we had a transfer budget of £15-20mil - after the permanent purchases of Gibson and Giannoulis. So from a financial point of view we possibly haven’t even spent our initial transfer budget yet, let alone dipped into the Buendia fund!

So I’m not sure if it is the straight-swap you paint it as unfortunately. Its why I’m expecting a fair bit more from us to come - coupled with the quotes from Webber about significantly improving / spending etc. I don’t think we’re at that point yet but plenty of time to strengthen more!

Separately to the above I also wish people would stop trying to knock Buendia down, it just feels like sour grapes to me, he improved upon his biggest deficiencies massively in the championship following the relegation and I have no doubt will prove to be a top top signing for Villa and a bargain for what they paid. 

I just love the change in tone from fans as soon as we sell a player, Buendia goes from being basically god-like at football to having a very flawed game, questions of how good he will be in the premier league, how he defends set pieces (not on this thread but another), his temperament, him giving the ball away etc etc. To be fair though he is definitely ****e at set pieces. You can all have that one.

But overall it just feels really bitter, shame people can’t just call losing him the massive **** one that it is, without trying to kid themselves that he actually isn’t that good and £33mil is somehow a great price. Yes we could still end up better off without him if we spend and adapt incredibly well, but not having him in the squad puts us in a tougher starting position, I don’t think that’s a debate.

And no, £33mil is not a great price. To our credit, it’s probably the best a club of our stature could’ve got for him at that point in the window, bearing in mind we pawned him off for £££ without any gentleman’s agreement being in place (that everyone kept going on about to justify the sale by the way)… but I will continue to be unsure whether that was the right approach or not until the new signings / change in style does or does not yield results on the pitch.

However I will also be disappointed if after auctioning him off we don’t appear to reach into our pockets a bit more than we already have, as I said above we possibly have funds left over from our initial transfer budget. I respect some of the Buendia revenues will go into wages and the increases / new contracts throughout the squad, but I’m thinking we should be seeing another £15mil of spend and maybe a bit more? If we don’t then I’m not particularly sure why we chose to sell him?

Edited July 21, 2021 by Hank shoots Skyler

[hogesar 9,618]

10 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

For sure. I accept that. But after two promotions and several massive player sales- it’s time we saw a little more from the board by way of ambition. Losing out to Brentford for main targets wasn’t quite what I had in mind when Webber assured us we would be going for it. 

there is still time for that to change- but at present we have taken two steps back and only one forward imho- and I fear we lack the physicality in the middle and the creativity without emi. Not yet better than last season and with the clock ticking that is worrying me 

You are making things up. If we've decided Ajer isn't worth the amount of money he's going for weve actively decided not to pursue it rather than 'losing out'

You are absolutely desperate,  gagging for the opportunity to lay into the club and its weird as f*ck.

[lake district canary 4,531]

7 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

I just love the change in tone from fans as soon as we sell a player, Buendia goes from being basically god-like at football to having a very flawed game, questions of how good he will be in the premier league, how he defends set pieces (not on this thread but another), his temperament, him giving the ball away etc etc. To be fair though he is definitely ****e at set pieces. You can all have that one.

But overall it just feels really bitter, shame people can’t just call losing him the massive **** one that it is, without trying to kid themselves that he actually isn’t that good and £33mil is somehow a great price. Yes we could still end up better off without him if we spend and adapt incredibly well, but not having him in the squad puts us in a tougher starting position, I don’t think that’s a debate.

Anyone with any nous could see that Buendia is not yet a proven player at PL level. Yes he got good assist stats, but anyone with eyes could see the flaws in his game in the PL - he couldn't win the ball and affect games as much as he can in the championship, he was simply shrugged off the ball so often. Flashes of brilliance of course - he has that in him, but overall, not a top player at that level in that season.

Yes, he has improved since then - he has raised his game - but he needed to. So if he stayed with us, he would have gone into next season a beter player - but one still needing to prove himself at the highest level.

So he goes to Villa - I think that was a mistake, because to be at his best he needs to have a whole team around him that are top class and Villa do not have that. If they sell Grealish, he will be under so much pressure to fill his shoes that he will be found wanting. The whole point about Buendia is that he needed to go to a top side with brilliant players all around him and because he hasn't, he will spend he next three or four years at a club that constantly underachieves - it's in their dna to have one or two good seasons and then drop back again - they've been like it for years.

So because there were no takers at the top of the table, it kind of proves that he was never going to be worth £50-£60m - and that £33m plus add ons was probably around the right level. How will he do? We'll see, but flawed he is - and although he improved and was brilliant for us last season - he had an truly unselfish team player style striker to aim for with his passes and a brilliant manager coach that understands him and who knew how to handle him to get the best out of him. Will he have that at Villa? Not in my opinion.

[horsefly 4,287]

32 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

So I’m not sure if it is the straight-swap you paint it as unfortunately.

I didn't remotely suggest it was a "straight-swap" of Buendia for those four,  my point is meant to be a comparison between the money that we got for Buendia and the fact that for less money we have purchased 4 PL quality players who may well collectively contribute significantly more to our chances of survival.There will also be more quality incomings.

Edited July 21, 2021 by horsefly

[hogesar 9,618]

27 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

 

However I will also be disappointed if after auctioning him off we don’t appear to reach into our pockets a bit more than we already have, as I said above we possibly have funds left over from our initial transfer budget. I respect some of the Buendia revenues will go into wages and the increases / new contracts throughout the squad, but I’m thinking we should be seeing another £15mil of spend and maybe a bit more? If we don’t then I’m not particularly sure why we chose to sell him?

Because, according to Webber and now according to Farke too, Emi made it very clear he wanted to leave and one of the very few 'small wins' the club has in this league is the collective attitude of the players and the methodology within the club - that Webber and Farke have built - which to them is paramount.

[Midlands Yellow 3,943]

2 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Anyone with any nous could see that Buendia is not yet a proven player at PL level. Yes he got good assist stats, but anyone with eyes could see the flaws in his game in the PL - he couldn't win the ball and affect games as much as he can in the championship, he was simply shrugged off the ball so often. Flashes of brilliance of course - he has that in him, but overall, not a top player at that level in that season.

Yes, he has improved since then - he has raised his game - but he needed to. So if he stayed with us, he would have gone into next season a beter player - but one still needing to prove himself at the highest level.

So he goes to Villa - I think that was a mistake, because to be at his best he needs to have a whole team around him that are top class and Villa do not have that. If they sell Grealish, he will be under so much pressure to fill his shoes that he will be found wanting. The whole point about Buendia is that he needed to go to a top side with brilliant players all around him and because he hasn't, he will spend he next three or four years at a club that constantly underachieves - it's in their dna to have one or two good seasons and then drop back again - they've been like it for years.

So because there were no takers at the top of the table, it kind of proves that he was never going to be worth £50-£60m - and that £33m plus add ons was probably around the right level. How will he do? We'll see, but flawed he is - and although he improved and was brilliant for us last season - he had an truly unselfish team player style striker to aim for with his passes and a brilliant manager coach that understands him and who knew how to handle him to get the best out of him. Will he have that at Villa? Not in my opinion.

Even if Man Utd, Man City or Liverpool had signed him you’d still have stated he’d have been better off at Norwich. Buendia was probably the best player Norwich have had in four decades so let’s not suddenly pretend otherwise. 

[chicken 2,604]

24 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

I just love the change in tone from fans as soon as we sell a player, Buendia goes from being basically god-like at football to having a very flawed game, questions of how good he will be in the premier league, how he defends set pieces (not on this thread but another), his temperament, him giving the ball away etc etc. To be fair though he is definitely ****e at set pieces. You can all have that one.

But overall it just feels really bitter, shame people can’t just call losing him the massive **** one that it is, without trying to kid themselves that he actually isn’t that good and £33mil is somehow a great price. Yes we could still end up better off without him if we spend and adapt incredibly well, but not having him in the squad puts us in a tougher starting position, I don’t think that’s a debate.

And no, £33mil is not a great price. To our credit, it’s probably the best a club of our stature could’ve got for him at that point in the window, bearing in mind we pawned him off for £££ without any gentleman’s agreement being in place (that everyone kept going on about to justify the sale by the way)… but I will continue to be unsure whether that was the right approach or not until the new signings / change in style does or does not yield results on the pitch.

However I will also be disappointed if after auctioning him off we don’t appear to reach into our pockets a bit more than we already have, as I said above we possibly have funds left over from our initial transfer budget. I respect some of the Buendia revenues will go into wages and the increases / new contracts throughout the squad, but I’m thinking we should be seeing another £15mil of spend and maybe a bit more? If we don’t then I’m not particularly sure why we chose to sell him?

No change in tone. And the vast majority of fans are in the same place - good fee, you say it is not a great price, what would you say a great price would have been? And please don't start the BS chorus of "if we had dragged it out longer we could have got more for him" line... there is no evidence that this is ever the case, in fact as time pushes on, players often become less valuable rather than more as teams drop out of a protracted transfer saga. It wasn't like there weren't more teams interested either. And who else would you expect to be interested in him? It's just fallacy, and again, a slant used to attack the club - it needs to be binned as nothing more than negative pie in the sky thinking.

Clearly no one else out there prepared to pay that much... at which point you have to ask why. As I stated before - I'm not slagging him off, just stating what the stats, his coach and largely accepted picture of him as a player is. He has been a very important part of our team but that isn't without flaws. That's the balanced, grounded view. 

That isn't bitching about him, that's admiring his strengths whilst accepting his weaknesses. You do that as a coach. You have to. As I have said time and time again, last season was by far his best. He may well kick on and be brilliant.

World class? Not yet. Argentina don't think so. As good as Grealish and Maddison - clearly not. De Bruyne? Dream on. Is he a bad player? An awful player? No. But then no one is saying that. He's merely not the Messi a lot of fans who want to be bemoan the club make him out to be. It's really that simple.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

4 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Not remotely suggesting it was a "straight-swap" my point is meant to be a comparison between the money that we got for Buendia and the fact that for less money we have purchased 4 PL quality players who may well collectively contribute significantly more to our chances of survival.

Okay sorry you didn't specifically say that, but alluding to even as a comparison indicates a trade-off, a 'one or the other' type scenario, whereas based on the Athletic it would appear that 'both' would seem achievable (obviously probably not Rashica if we kept Buendia but an equivalent spend elsewhere on the pitch).

[lake district canary 4,531]

1 minute ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Even if Man Utd, Man City or Liverpool had signed him you’d still have stated he’d have been better off at Norwich. Buendia was probably the best player Norwich have had in four decades so let’s not suddenly pretend otherwise. 

No I wouldn't. Stop assuming stuff.

[chicken 2,604]

3 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Even if Man Utd, Man City or Liverpool had signed him you’d still have stated he’d have been better off at Norwich. Buendia was probably the best player Norwich have had in four decades so let’s not suddenly pretend otherwise. 

"Probably"... four decades?  Since 1980?

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

6 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Because, according to Webber and now according to Farke too, Emi made it very clear he wanted to leave and one of the very few 'small wins' the club has in this league is the collective attitude of the players and the methodology within the club - that Webber and Farke have built - which to them is paramount.

We all knew of his desire, but how many players in our team would also jump at the chance to move to a Villa or Arsenal or other top side and effectively triple their wages? 

Obviously we don't know the ins and outs, but the way fans initially painted it was that Webber absolutely had no choice as a result of the 'gentlemen's agreement', which I found tough but definitely respected. Then Webber came out and said there was no gentlemen's agreement, and given the 'come and buy Buendia' type motions from Webber at the very start of the window I think its fair to say that both parties were willing and contributing factors in initiating the transfer.

Maybe the overall team harmony is that strong a reasoning to justify it, but this is a bit of an intangible so hard to gauge how much this could actually f us up. 

Either way, until we see it being proven the correct decision I reserve the right to feel a bit hesitant about our policy for the sale, I just can't get excited about us auctioning off our all-time best player as some fans have been able to! 

[chicken 2,604]

9 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Okay sorry you didn't specifically say that, but alluding to even as a comparison indicates a trade-off, a 'one or the other' type scenario, whereas based on the Athletic it would appear that 'both' would seem achievable (obviously probably not Rashica if we kept Buendia but an equivalent spend elsewhere on the pitch).

Wishful thinking.

If Gibson and Giannoulis are already accounted for before the £15-20m on top of that, do you really think we could sign 4 PL level players with that on top of what we have already signed?
- Gunn £5m
- Lees-Melou £3.75m
- Gilmour loan
Should we call that £10m?
Forget Rashica... ok.
That leaves £10m plus whatever from the Buendia sale. Can you see a trend there? Would they have announced we would be breaking our transfer record several times over this summer if Buendia was not sold? The answer is no.

Around £8m is our transfer record. So we couldn't sign the four players they are after now by breaking the transfer record several times. The maths doesn't add up.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

Southwell’s article this morning appears to be us being lined up for “we go with what we’ve got” so far as CBs are concerned.

worrying if so. I don’t see how you can be confident of keeping your centre backs fit when three of them are Gibson, Hanley and Zimm and two are already injured in pre-season. 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

23 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

My reading of the situation, going by the steers that Davitt et al seem to have been getting, and more recently by what Farke himself has said, is that he and Webber have become increasingly concerned, as the summer has gone on, that Pukki may not quite be the player he was.

Either because of injuries/fitness or a waning of his goalscoring powers, or a combination of these things. Hence the need for another striker moving up their priority list, as certainly seems to have happened. I would not be surprised if that has overtaken or at least moved alongside the idea of another central defender as a priority.

I think what has happened is that posters have simply cottoned onto this shift in priorities, rather than wanting or meaning to write the obituary on Pukki's career!

From Southwell today:

That will cost money. In the case of a striker, it may end up proving a substantial sum. So there is a trade-off at play for City, do you spend a significant sum of cash on a defender that isn't an improvement on your current options or do you use that money to strengthen other areas of the team? Opinions will differ on that question, but it appears the powers that be currently view the latter as the answer. 

[horsefly 4,287]

11 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Okay sorry you didn't specifically say that, but alluding to even as a comparison indicates a trade-off, a 'one or the other' type scenario, whereas based on the Athletic it would appear that 'both' would seem achievable (obviously probably not Rashica if we kept Buendia but an equivalent spend elsewhere on the pitch).

Well of course in some sense all transfer dealings involve some sort of trade off unless you have a super-rich owner with limitless funds. You sell one player (willingly or unwillingly) and make decisions about how that player will be replaced. All the evidence points to the intention to bring in another 3 quality players (at least). Thus, if you want to call it a "trade off" I would argue that the trade off is best described as being between a strategy of developing a squad that has far greater quality in depth than last time, and a strategy of being largely reliant on the sporadic genius of one particularly talented individual. As much as I agree with you that Buendia is probably the most talented player I have seen play at CR, I am also convinced that a greater depth of quality in the squad (significantly enabled by his transfer fee) will turn out to be a "trade off" that enhances our chances of survival. Come the end of next season the stats will be in to see who's "educated" speculation proved to be most accurate, but I'm happy to put my neck on the line and suggest that this time round we will make more chances, score more goals, concede fewer goals, and accumulate more points. Whether that would turn out to be enough for survival is moot, but if those stats are achieved it would certainly increase that likelihood.

[Fuzzar 1,702]

20 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Southwell’s article this morning appears to be us being lined up for “we go with what we’ve got” so far as CBs are concerned.

worrying if so. I don’t see how you can be confident of keeping your centre backs fit when three of them are Gibson, Hanley and Zimm and two are already injured in pre-season. 

It doesn't look as bad if you count Sorenson as a spare in that position and potentially a PL loan.

[king canary 7,580]

36 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Southwell’s article this morning appears to be us being lined up for “we go with what we’ve got” so far as CBs are concerned.

worrying if so. I don’t see how you can be confident of keeping your centre backs fit when three of them are Gibson, Hanley and Zimm and two are already injured in pre-season. 

Yeah, going with what we've got feels a huge risk to me. 

We're basically banking on Hanley making a later career step up, three defenders who have spent decent spells out injured staying fit and a promising teenager making a seamless step up. Doesn't fill me with great confidence. 

[Terminally Yellow 2,448]

35 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Southwell’s article this morning appears to be us being lined up for “we go with what we’ve got” so far as CBs are concerned.

worrying if so. I don’t see how you can be confident of keeping your centre backs fit when three of them are Gibson, Hanley and Zimm and two are already injured in pre-season. 

It doesn't say anything of the sort.

In fact it says repeatedly a CB remains on the list. It's just not as high a priority as before.

 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

2 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

It doesn't say anything of the sort.

In fact it says repeatedly a CB remains on the list. It's just not as high a priority as before.

 

Read between the lines. We’ve been priced out for our targets and are going to play Big Andy and use the money for a striker. Webber feeds this stuff to Archant for a reason, to get it out there and get fans used to the idea before it becomes reality. As has been said above I suppose Sorensen is also an option there.

 

Edited July 21, 2021 by Jim Smith

[Badger 2,405]

1 hour ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

The athletic quoted that, at the start of the window, we had a transfer budget of £15-20mil - after the permanent purchases of Gibson and Giannoulis. So from a financial point of view we possibly haven’t even spent our initial transfer budget yet, let alone dipped into the Buendia fund!

Gunn, Melou, Rashica, Gilmour loan fee, + agent and signing on fees  +U23 signings - we will have easily have spent the £15 to 20 million.

Transfer Market estimates (I don't think anyone really knows other than the clubs) as follows:

Rashica £9.9 million

Melou £5.4 million

Gunn £5.27 million

That's over £20 million before Gilmour loan, agent fees, Clarke etc.

They tend to be low in their valuations as well - e.g. Aarons £19.8 million and Ajer £6.3 million

Edited July 21, 2021 by Badger
Added extra information from Transfer market

[Terminally Yellow 2,448]

2 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Read between the lines. We’ve been priced out for our targets and are going to play Big Andy and use the money for a striker. Webber feeds this stuff to Archant for a reason, to get it out there and get fans used to the idea before it becomes reality. As has been said above I suppose Sorensen is also an option there.

That's not what I read at all. 

It's mentioned no less than 4 times in the article that a centre back is still wanted. If you want to "read between the lines" you can infer what you want from anything 

I take from that article that before we felt we absolutely needed another CB. Now it's felt we would like one but only if it's the right player at the right price.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

Gunn, Melou, Rashica, Gilmour loan fee, + agent and signing on fees  +U23 signings - we will have easily have spent the £15 to 20 million.

Yes agreed plus the contract extensions, hence why I did say ‘possibly’, the point I was trying to get across though was that we’d hardly spent much from the Buendia sale as yet.

[chicken 2,604]

2 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

We all knew of his desire, but how many players in our team would also jump at the chance to move to a Villa or Arsenal or other top side and effectively triple their wages? 

Obviously we don't know the ins and outs, but the way fans initially painted it was that Webber absolutely had no choice as a result of the 'gentlemen's agreement', which I found tough but definitely respected. Then Webber came out and said there was no gentlemen's agreement, and given the 'come and buy Buendia' type motions from Webber at the very start of the window I think its fair to say that both parties were willing and contributing factors in initiating the transfer.

Maybe the overall team harmony is that strong a reasoning to justify it, but this is a bit of an intangible so hard to gauge how much this could actually f us up. 

Either way, until we see it being proven the correct decision I reserve the right to feel a bit hesitant about our policy for the sale, I just can't get excited about us auctioning off our all-time best player as some fans have been able to! 

So you are accusing some rumours to be BS and then suggesting your own thinking is of greater merit? Just stop.

All we have to go on is that Webber and Farke both said in various interviews and neither gave "'come and buy Buendia' type motions". They stated that to invest in the squad, to improve it and make it more competitive at PL level, one of our top players would probably be sold.

We don't know, but it is plausible that the interest in Buendia had already begun. But when Webber says the player wanted to leave, that's what he means. They have made it very clear at various points where we have sold players over the last few seasons, as to why they are going. Why would they start lying now?

As for it being "the correct decision" - just no. If a player wants to go, you think it's really just a case of telling them to stay and buckle up? We already know that he "lost focus" at the start of last season, yes he stayed on and helped us to get back to the PL, but I think it's fair to say that we probably would have faced the same again and in a league where fine margins can be the difference between 20th and 17th, that is a risk.

It is rarely a choice in the sense of a very straightforward "do we sell, or do we not sell?"

As it stands, if we had not sold Buendia, we'd have £5-10m left of the transfer budget that the Athletic suggests we had post Giannoulis and Gibson and imagining we didn't get Rashica. You are not going to get the four players we are after now. For that sort of money. You'd be lucky to get three. And then it is likely people would point out that they are huge gambles and not evidently improvements on what we already have. 

[chicken 2,604]

2 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Yes agreed plus the contract extensions, hence why I did say ‘possibly’, the point I was trying to get across though was that we’d hardly spent much from the Buendia sale as yet.

No - your point was to say we could have both kept Buendia AND signed the four players we are after now AND the players we have already added. 

[Badger 2,405]

13 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Yes agreed plus the contract extensions, hence why I did say ‘possibly’, the point I was trying to get across though was that we’d hardly spent much from the Buendia sale as yet.

👍

If, as reported, we want a full back, centre back, CM and a striker, it works out iro of £7 million on average per position. Therefore the willingness to pay 3 or 4 million over our valuation for Ajer (estimated as worth 6.3 million  Transfer market) is totally understandable!

[hogesar 9,618]

24 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yeah, going with what we've got feels a huge risk to me. 

We're basically banking on Hanley making a later career step up, three defenders who have spent decent spells out injured staying fit and a promising teenager making a seamless step up. Doesn't fill me with great confidence. 

I thought it read like we were definitely after a CB still, but perhaps our primary focus is now on a striker. Almost as if to say, they don't think a better option is available for the £10m or so we were going to spend - but we may be able to really improve up front with the right player.

I also think, generally, if Farke has decided Omobamidele (did I get that right?) is ready then he's got the record to be backed on that. I guess it could be more that we don't think we can sign anyone better than him for the money, as opposed to him definitely being ready for the step up - and it'd be putting an obstacle in the way of his development for a player who's not much if any better.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

In fairness I think Omobamidele probably is ready to play on the basis he’s not looked any worse than any of our senior centre backs when he’s played.

I suppose my nervousness is whether those senior centre backs are in fact good enough or alternatively can stay fit enough. 

[Dean Coneys boots 1,398]

Boils down to the fact that, in the short term at least, our self sustaining model cannot compete financially with the model used by all other clubs