January Transfer Window - The Verdict.

[Pat Mustard]

Aside from the merits of waiting to spend money on players the manager actually wants

I haven't seen a single person argue that we should sign players the manager doesn't want.  Where the fuck are you getting that from?

No, just a master on picking people up on bullshit

[Pat Mustard]

Aside from the merits of waiting to spend money on players the manager actually wants

I haven't seen a single person argue that we should sign players the manager doesn't want.  Where the fuck are you getting that from?

There are plenty of people here saying we should have signed more players in the window.  If the manager's first choices weren't available or weren't affordable at that time, then who exactly would he be signing?

[chrisw1]

Aside from the merits of waiting to spend money on players the manager actually wants

I haven't seen a single person argue that we should sign players the manager doesn't want.  Where the fuck are you getting that from?

There are plenty of people here saying we should have signed more players in the window.  If the manager's first choices weren't available or weren't affordable at that time, then who exactly would he be signing?

Yes we should.  And certainly not players the manager didn't want.  I honestly get the impression you simply haven't listened to anything anyone has said on this Pat.

[Pat Mustard]

Aside from the merits of waiting to spend money on players the manager actually wants

I haven't seen a single person argue that we should sign players the manager doesn't want.  Where the fuck are you getting that from?

There are plenty of people here saying we should have signed more players in the window.  If the manager's first choices weren't available or weren't affordable at that time, then who exactly would he be signing?

Yes we should.  And certainly not players the manager didn't want.  I honestly get the impression you simply haven't listened to anything anyone has said on this Pat.

Okay, just to get this into my tiny little brain.  We should have signed players that the manager wanted in January, even if those players weren't available.

Oh, and if you are going to criticise someone for not listening to an argument you might want to read all of what they said, not just crop one line from a wider point.

[chrisw1]

If you read what people have posted you'll see the points they are making.  And I can assure you it's not buying shit players who the manager doesn't want.

[coreyfeldman]

This is all my fault

[Dave]

Aside from the merits of waiting to spend money on players the manager actually wants

I haven't seen a single person argue that we should sign players the manager doesn't want.  Where the fuck are you getting that from?

There are plenty of people here saying we should have signed more players in the window.  If the manager's first choices weren't available or weren't affordable at that time, then who exactly would he be signing?

Yes we should.  And certainly not players the manager didn't want.  I honestly get the impression you simply haven't listened to anything anyone has said on this Pat.

Okay, just to get this into my tiny little brain.  We should have signed players that the manager wanted in January, even if those players weren't available.

If there is a player that our (seemingly very good) manager wants playing for us, then our (seemingly less good) recruitment staff should have done much better than they did to get them for him.

Player availability isn't gravity.

Is it completely impossible to consider that the people responsible for bringing us the likes of Gerrard, Bednarek and Olsen might not be completely perfect when it comes to the task of player recruitment?

[Pat Mustard]

If you read what people have posted you'll see the points they are making.  And I can assure you it's not buying shit players who the manager doesn't want.

And if you read what I said the argument isn’t about signing shit players the manager doesn’t want. It’s about getting away from making do with players who are no better than what we have and then bloat the squad and wage bill, and block the path to the first team for young players.

January this season was the first time in years we haven’t been going into the second half of the season either looking over our shoulders at relegation, or making a desperate attempt to get promoted. In those circumstances it would be more understandable to fill our squad places on the off-chance of injuries, but this time we didn’t have to do that and what we didn’t spend in January (as well as what we recouped in sales and getting wages off the payroll) gives us more scope to get who we really want in the summer.

[LeeB]

There's the other angle that said players were unconvinced by our upturn in form by January but might be if it was continued, or simply wanted to finish the season with their current club to achieve a goal before leaving.

[Drummond]

Since the window we have had injuries to Coutinho, Dendoncker, Kamara and Cash so it's not like we've been especially lucky on that front, and it hasn't seriously undermined our form.

Dendoncker is a reserve at best anyway, and Coutinho was hardly first choice under Emery. Cash picked up his injury since we last played, so it's impossible to say what effect his absence will have on our form.

Yes, but it fills your criteria of 9 players on the bench and only one goalie in that nine.

[Drummond]

Aside from the merits of waiting to spend money on players the manager actually wants

I haven't seen a single person argue that we should sign players the manager doesn't want.  Where the fuck are you getting that from?

There are plenty of people here saying we should have signed more players in the window.  If the manager's first choices weren't available or weren't affordable at that time, then who exactly would he be signing?

Yes we should.  And certainly not players the manager didn't want.  I honestly get the impression you simply haven't listened to anything anyone has said on this Pat.

Okay, just to get this into my tiny little brain.  We should have signed players that the manager wanted in January, even if those players weren't available.

If there is a player that our (seemingly very good) manager wants playing for us, then our (seemingly less good) recruitment staff should have done much better than they did to get them for him.

Player availability isn't gravity.

Is it completely impossible to consider that the people responsible for bringing us the likes of Gerrard, Bednarek and Olsen might not be completely perfect when it comes to the task of player recruitment?

What if the players we want said they'd come but wanted to finish the season with their current club? What if their clubs said they could leave in the summer but not before?

What if Emery said I want him, him or him, and they just weren't available for the reasons above (or that the fees were astronomical etc) and that he was happy to wait until the summer because he could work with what we had?

He let Bednarek go because Carlos was fit again. He let Ings go, for a half decent fee, because he knew he didn't want him longer term, he let Archer go because he was similar to Watkins and knew he was unlikely to get a game. Nakamba and Sanson never played anyway.

What's the point in trying to buy players that aren't available (or aren't for the right fee)? What if the manager has specific targets and they just weren't available?

You make it sound so easy to just go and buy the players you want. We all know it's just not that easy, unless you decide to put players on 9 year contracts and spend more than the rest of Europe together on fees.

[Drummond]

I think we're a far more attractive option now than we were last summer, or in January, or, in fact, at any time for the past 10 years. If we keep our form up until the end of the season, then we'll be in a strong position with lots of positives to sell.

[Drummond]

And on the 9 subs rule, you can only put 5 of them on the pitch. There's not much point keeping players who will likely never get a game, see Sanson, Nakamba, Bednarek, and to a degree Ings.

Yes we'd have 9 but what's point, they'd never play.

[chrisw1]

I think we're a far more attractive option now than we were last summer, or in January, or, in fact, at any time for the past 10 years. If we keep our form up until the end of the season, then we'll be in a strong position with lots of positives to sell.

This is true and we're achieving that with a thin squad.  Because we haven't suffered the injury that could have taken this the other way.  The question Corey asked was essentially now we've done pretty well do you now agree it was the right choice?  I think what Risso and I are saying is 'not really.'  We're glad we've done well but we see it as we took an unnecessary risk.  I went on to wonder that if in a similar scenario to the one you described as the player and club preferring to wait until the summer, would an extra few million quid have been persuasive?  If so, that may have been money well spent, particularly if the injury we fear happened / happens. 

[pauliewalnuts]

This is all my fault

Ha ha, that made me laugh a lot.