West Ham were planning in waiting until the summer, it was us moving earlier that almost got the deal done, he is after all rumoured to have had a medical and in principle agreed terms before West Ham can in with a late bid.
Totally irrelevant. So we now determine "early" based on West Ham?
Our transfer policy shouldn't, and isn't dictated to by West Ham.
We made the move when we did off our own bat.
Today's the 19th. Window opened 1st. A reminder as to what I actually said;
Move earlier? Why did we drag our feet? Did Coleman's injury prompt?
Move later? Force it through deadline day.
Move quicker? It did seem to drag on. Compare our effort with Southampton's for Austin.
All up for debate, but personally think there was no benefit to going public. Keep schtum until a deal is done. We switched narrative on this one.
None of my points above can be refuted, they're all valid questions, debate prompting.
My own opinion, which can be refuted, is that as a Club we shouldn't have commented publicly...
We didn't make it public, we just answered questions about it when it was reported from Leeds end. It would also have been in both Leeds and Bryam agent's interest to publicise it to drum up the competing bid. At no point did Martinez suggest that the deal was done, think you are being a bit unfair about how we handled it tbh.
Makes no odds who made it public, as a Club we should have standards above Cellino's Leeds.
Our/the manager's narrative changed. Who are Leeds to dictate our response?
Your selected quote is ONE quote. Martinez told plenty of outlets and reporters different things. Here he is, talking to the BBC and talkSPORT saying the deal should be done today;
Players are always put to the manager, he usually bats away with "I'm not prepared to talk about a player under contract..."
We publicly declared our intent and expectation before a deal was done. We never do that and it's not a precedent I'd like to see us continue on.