Entirely untrue. I work with some of the most “interesting” of people. If they have something that someone else wants, be it an asset or money to pay for an asset you would be hugely surprised that any past dealings or any perceived grievances are all “just business” and completely forgotten.
If I’m honest, whether we get this deal over the line or not, the fact that we are still clearly operating the same shitty way as before is the overriding feeling of annoyance and a realisation that nothing will fundamentally change at this club until Levy is ousted once and for all - no half measures.
That's absolutely perfect sense. We've far too many players on our books and Ange has to have time to asses the "suspect" players to see of they can be turned round or need to be sold or loaned out. Only then will the club know (a) what their needs are and (b) how much money that have to spend.
Atleast he kept out the way for 3 weeks
This makes sense of Herc’s post the other day that Munn is away on club business. With Munn away, no DOF hired, and Paratici “consulting” - Danny Coys can play his favourite game; pissing off everyone.
Or perhaps take a break if knowing every minutiae of a deal causes angst and issues.
Technically speaking we didn't really need a new GK straight away we could've got a GK in later in the window as Forster did well at end of season and we didn't really need Solomon we only got him because he was free otherwise we wouldn't be after him so that's 2 out of the 3 where we could've prioritised a CB over.
While I agree but if there's 2 interested parties involved 1s Levy 1s someone you like dealing with you're not going to deal with Levy
Agree with the Solomon point, but it think it was generally acknowledged that we needed a GK as neither Loris nor Forster were of the consistent quality we need.
I did say we could've waited til later in window starting with Forster wouldn't have been the end of the world CB has been priority number 1 for 2 seasons gong into the 3rd
This is so different to how the first 3 deals were done. We were told that we weren’t messing the other side around, put a very reasonable deal on the table and stuck to it - take it or leave it. But the above harks back to the “Transfer Committee” shenanigans
I understand what you’re saying, but I believe that if we hadn’t bought Vicario, we’d be saying the same things about a GK that we’re saying about CBs - a problem position they had needed addressing for a while.
Alongside LongletI remain fully convinced that Dier will start the first game at CB
I thought Levy had stepped away from football activities... if so seems he just put people in charge who operate in the same way which means nothing will change in how we deal with transfers..
Trix' ITK is annoying, that Levy seems to be up to his meddling again, but I also agree with this. The only thing I don't agree with in this post is that Lenglet is likely as an alternative. Its possible we get Lenglet as a 2nd CB backup, but he won't be the primary CB we buy, Im almost certain of that.
One 'itk' posts something fairly vague and that's literally all the confirmation you need to believe nothing has changed , despite you having actual evidence of the club doing three quick and relatively painless deals earlier in this window ???
