shurlock

Or as MLG put it, time to get concerned is when we sell players to teams around or below us Cue some rambling defense of the decision that Cork was only a bit-part player all while justifying sales in order to increase squad depth.

Probably knows as little as you then - surprising that Puncheon was short listed for their player of the season award. Along with Speroni, Ward, Jedinak, Delaney, Punch is one of their most important players, especially as the others are all defensively-minded.

Poor decision if it happens. We experimented with Cork, Victor and Morgan towards the end of last season and it made us incredibly tough to break down. With the frailties and uncertainties at the back, the combo could come in very handy this season and that's even assuming Morgan stays.

Edit

Exactly you don't have an intelligent response. Know your limits pal - stick to the asset-stripping thread and your pea-brained hatchet job: maybe next time you'll be able to dredge up a few more posters rather than quoting the same ones over and over.

Not at all - a serious point that stands, as others have pointed out.

I could reel off many more examples of successful foreign buys. Note I didn't make the Costa/Sanchez reference because we're playing in that market- just saying that they too represent massive gambles. Obviously they're not gambles in the sense that they won't get goals; but they are gambles insofar as they're expected to score enough goals to win a title. Still this hasn't stopped the likes of Chelsea or Arsenal going foreign on unproven prem players.

Agree to some extent, though it's partly a problem of our own making. Perhaps we would have had more room for manoeuvre if we hadn't been so keen to dismantle a prem battle-hardened team and then fill it with unproven talent. Now we have done so - I guess we're hedging our bets -that's not to say prem strikers always work out (Graham, Bent etc)- and as a result having to pay over the odds. Seen a lot of Long - he brings consistency in terms of work rate but that shouldn't mask what is a distinctly average finisher with a suspect first touch.

Why is a striker with prem experience now a sudden requirement? Did it stop Chelsea when they bought Costa or Arsenal when they bought Sanchez or Swansea when they bought Bony or Villa when they bought Benteke or Wigan when they bought Kone etc etc etc. £12m spent wisely should get you more than 7-8 goals a season -and before you ask, that's the job of the 20 man scouting team not mine.

And you forgot to deduct the wages out.

??? Scored more goals in a single season than Long has ever done, even though he played through injury - (remember him up at Stamford Bridge - was unplayable). If that makes him a flop, dread what it makes Long. Would have him in a heartbeat if he wasn't such a money-grabbing ****.

Not sure if he can play outside left, struggles with the ball at his feet (his first touch is pretty poor) so can't see him picking the ball up in deep positions or running at players. Much better when the ball is played in front of him. Could link well with Pelle; but as Pelle doesn't drift as much as Lambert, preferring to stay central (almost to the point of being static), there is a risk that Long would get isolated unless he was also played through the middle.

Baggies fans I know for starters... Of course, you're proving -rather than challenging- my point: Hull narrowly avoided relegation by 4 points, so there was nothing comfortable about their survival. They urgently needed firepower in Jan and were willing to pay what was needed to get the job done which proved a worthwhile investment. But why that should influence our valuation of the player is beyond me -suffice to say, that fee has now been passed onto us with a very tidy mark-up. Ultimately, if you want to singlehandedly attribute Hull's success to Shane Long's 4 goals, fill your boots. Next thing you'll be claiming we should go in for Jelavic who also racked up a mighty four goals. My view is Long will bring something -while his first touch is generally poor, he has movement and pace that we've been crying out in Jrod's absence- but it's not close to £12m of something.

Will cut you a bit of slack because you are clearly out of your depth but: (I) The fact we're paying over the top for players is partly our own making, for not lining up replacements when we let others go. Building up a war chest first is only going to signal to rival clubs we have money to burn, (II) We desperately needed a striker in Jan as we knew Osvaldo was off, so we had ample opportunity to act if we wanted to. Of course, many pointed out at the time that £7.5m for Shane was excessive, reflecting January's inflated prices and Hull's own panic buying. (III) The TV money came into force for the 2013/14 season, so it would have already been priced into transfers, if it had any effect at all. The additional 25% is made up guff. My offer to help you with a new avatar/ID is still on the table.

Not going to pull any trees out but was certainly more impressive than Long last season in a woeful Cardiff side. Enjoyed a full season, without injury. Remind me how many times £800K goes into £12m?

If he was 21, not 28 or thereabouts, I'd agree.

Works very hard for the team too - typically shrewd Pulis signing.

Yep, better than nothing.

If true, that takes some of the sting out of the Long story.

Missed an absolute sitter from point blank range? I also remember his performance up at the Hawthornes when he didn't have Lukaku and co. around.

Jeff stomping his feet about and making a tit of himself again?

Hasn't stopped people rattling off the maximum amounts for outgoing players when justifying the club's sales. No one knows how those deals were structured too.

Yep, should have gone for Fraizer Campbell at £800K.

Sturridge went for £12m.

Nobody's disputing that; nobody's disputing Hull's right to bleed us dry - they're just disputing why the club sees it fit to pay so much for a distinctly average player.