Nothing has changed.

nsno-chris · August 31, 2017

@davek you'd be in your element tonight, Everton messing everything up and Bobbys Red Devil's scoring for fun

mccole · August 31, 2017

#Changes

davids · August 31, 2017

Lanolin said:
So we're ignoring the crux of the point to try and pick holes in the 'worst case scenario' aspect of it. Sounds about right.

It's a game of wait and see,keep Lukaku...does he have another +20 goal season or pull a Lescott.Same with any want away player.If you were a manager who job was riding on the outcome, what would you do? The players have all the power (or did you miss Bosman) Or even..."For the first time since leaving Chelsea in 2004, having made 12 appearances and picked up £10m over four years, the Dutchman opens up about his time at Stamford Bridge".....Winston Bogarde?

Lanolin · August 31, 2017

mascoq66700 said:
It's a game of wait and see,keep Lukaku...does he have another +20 goal season or pull a Lescott.Same with any want away player.If you were a manager who job was riding on the outcome, what would you do? The players have all the power (or did you miss Bosman) Or even..."For the first time since leaving Chelsea in 2004, having made 12 appearances and picked up £10m over four years, the Dutchman opens up about his time at Stamford Bridge".....Winston Bogarde?

I get that, I really do. It would be a risk.

What I meant by focusing on the worst case scenario though wasn't the worst that could happen if he stayed, but him staying being the worst case scenario.

The point is we should have identified a quality replacement who would come, and then sold him. If we couldn't identify such a player, we should have kept him. In answer to your question, that is unquestionably what I would do if my job was on the line. If the player doesn't perform, people will blame him, if you fail to replace the player, people will blame you.

davids · August 31, 2017

Lanolin said:
I get that, I really do. It would be a risk.

What I meant by focusing on the worst case scenario though wasn't the worst that could happen if he stayed, but him staying being the worst case scenario.

The point is we should have identified a quality replacement who would come, and then sold him. If we couldn't identify such a player, we should have kept him. In answer to your question, that is unquestionably what I would do if my job was on the line. If the player doesn't perform, people will blame him, if you fail to replace the player, people will blame you.

Can you name the player who we should have targeted to sign and more importantly, who would have come to us?

bilyaletdinov_ · August 31, 2017

Inclined to agree

Lanolin · August 31, 2017

mascoq66700 said:
Can you name the player who we should have targeted to sign and more importantly, who would have come to us?

It's a daft question, because it's entirely subjective. I name a player, you say 'too expensive', I name another, you say 'would never come here', a third and you say 'he's rubbish'. This isn't my first rodeo.

4737carlin · August 31, 2017

Big net spend while as it stands Arsenal and Spurs are in profit, yes everything has changed, even our new goal keeper cost more then Chelsea's current net spend, anyone who still thinks that things are like they were really has either no memory or they have there head buried in the sand

Kantareller · August 31, 2017

My bed still won't get dry.

longers · August 31, 2017

4737carlin said:
Big net spend while as it stands Arsenal and Spurs are in profit, yes everything has changed

Believe it or not we have regularly had a larger net spend than both arsenal and spurs, going back several years now

toffee matt · August 31, 2017

We've spent big no denying that , just not as well as we could have.

davids · August 31, 2017

Lanolin said:
It's a daft question, because it's entirely subjective. I name a player, you say 'too expensive', I name another, you say 'would never come here', a third and you say 'he's rubbish'. This isn't my first rodeo.

So whats your answer then? I mean we are being told Giroud didn't come because his wife said no!

Petit · August 31, 2017

toffee matt said:
We've spent big no denying that , just not as well as we could have.

We haven´t really spent big.

windymiller · August 31, 2017

mascoq66700 said:
Can you name the player who we should have targeted to sign and more importantly, who would have come to us?

We have a man, who is paid a great deal of money, who's job is to do exactly that. If he fails to do so in the next hour or so then Mr Walsh should be held accountable. Six months (minimum) and tens of millions to spend, if he can't adequately replace a departing first team player under these conditions then what is the point of him?

davids · August 31, 2017

windymiller said:
We have a man, who is paid a great deal of money, who's job is to do exactly that. If he fails to do so in the next hour or so then Mr Walsh should be held accountable. Six months (minimum) and tens of millions to spend, if he can't adequately replace a departing first team player under these conditions then what is the point of him?

So who do you think we should have gone for?