hypochondriac

Speak for yourself!

It is a presumption based on past experience but it's not particularly important, more of a side comment.

I hope so, but all I was saying was that that remains to be seen.

In fairness, no one I have seen has actually done that. Maybe one or two posters?

Selling Chamberlin in the summer would more than cover that shortfall with just one transfer.

Lallana signed and no doubt did well out of a deal but equally the club know that by signing him to a deal the value of the asset goes way up (and again, taking this into account is something they can justify even with the financial support of the Liebherr's reduced. With regards to the training ground, I have already speculated that this could have been greenlighted before the departure of Markus an thus the finance would be in place. Now I have (again) adressed your points. Please do not repeat them again next week.

Sounds encouraging. We really need a leader in the middle of the park and I hope this addresses that despite his young age.

I have addressed his points more than once on this and on another forum (as he well knows.)

If you have spent the time that I have replying to MLG's points countless times both on here and on another forum you would have the same reaction that I have.

Lallana signing- Is blatantly worth it because anything we lose in wages we would more than make up eventually due to sell on fees. Remember that not having Liebherr's billions does NOT mean that we would have no money, just that our resources would be reduced from what we had last year. Rejecting bids for Chambo- that means little. If we sell him next year or the year after, we will still get the same amount for him that we would have done this year. Spending millions on training ground- It is entirely possible that Markus had green lighted this before his untimely death. Spending money on the training ground does not depreciate our asset anyway and makes it more attractive. It is entirely possible that we could have had a tightening of our finances and still be able to spend money on these things and turn down bids for Chamberlin. I'm not saying this is what is definitely happening, simply that it is a possibility. Now regardless of whether you think that is boring or not, I think it warrants some discussion. Sorry if that upsets you.

I didn't read anything you have posted MLG but I am sick and tired of replying to you so I'm not going to bother beyond this post.

Difference is that IF that is the case (and wages wise surely he is much cheaper) then his resale value is also going to be much higher than Howard's.

Yes but we can't play the same eleven every game. I do sort of agree and it's why we will only see if my theory is correct once we make the step up to the CCC.

You could argue that but Howard is wanted by his club, Chaplow was not.

Yes but be serious, at the time we signed Chaplow he was out of favour and certainly not worth 3 million.

And if you read what I said, I never said that that is not entirely possible. All I'm saying is that Stephens is a gamble.

Then kindly ignore my comments. Something isn't automatically boring just because you disagree with it.

That's a possibility I agree. So possibly we felt that we needed to pay for proven players last year but now we have some of them, we should go for cheaper players with potential now. Perhaps that will give us some clues as to our transfer policy in the CCC. It will certainly be interesting to see that and I shall watch with interest.

We seemed to manage it last year. I'm just speculating on the possibility (and my belief) that finance or circumstances have perhaps changed.

Didn't sound like it from what derry was saying.

A young player is still a gamble. A gamble which I really hope pays off but Brian Howard is a proven championship performer, who certainly would have been more. What I'm trying to say is that I would rate Howard as a Fonte, Lambert type signing (i.e. proven) whereas Stephens is a bit more of a youngster with potential. It may be that we have changed our transfer policy since last year. I'm just speculating about the possibility and wondering aloud whether this will pay off or not. I'm not being negative so there is no need to be defensive, I just find it interesting.

I think you misunderstand my comment. What I found amusing was that there would have been a positive slant from someone whatever the club had done, had we signed someone or not and whoever we had signed.

That is really my point. We have been LINKED with a host of players who are proven succeses and many who look class in the league above. It isn't since last year that we have signed someone in that bracket IMO.

Just my opinions based on the above and with the exception possibly of Butterfield, certainly not in the same calibure as proven successes like Barnard, Lambert and Fonte.

Fair enough I don't know all the details. It does however APPEAR to be the cheap option. I'm giving my opinion based on the probability that he is a cheaper option than Brian Howard.