clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,296
Drives me nuts
Why did that happen ? We panicked.
Why did you panic ?
We ran out of time.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
We should have bought Krull on a one year contract..,,
- Thread starter The Wookiee
- Start date
Drives me nuts
Why did that happen ? We panicked.
Why did you panic ?
We ran out of time.
London Irish
Well-known member
Amazing that people are defending the indefensible here - no way should the last loan been used until a striker was safely signed
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,296
ha ha
Give up.
You are effectively blaming the club for not having a variety of options in the last hours of the transfer window.
.. without looking at the real issues.
I assume you are not a project manager.
The Wookiee
Back From The Dead
- Thread starter
- #24
But we used that up on the last day mate.
Wasn't I clear
Again - all on the last day when the club thought they had a striker lined up.
I presume you don't work in an industry with very tight dependencies. I do.
Leave everything till last minute and anything (and everything) can go wrong.
Forget the goalkeeper loan argument it's irrelevant. The problem was we failed to secure a striker early and I'm sure the club were fully aware of the priorities.
You are suggesting that Brighton had (after Krul) a "less than a day" window to secure a striker on loan which is frankly bollocks.
Yes they have ****ed up quite obviously - but not for the reason you suggest.
All I am saying is, we should have bought Krull, a goalkeeper in a position that we didn't need to waste a our last loan deal on, therefore giving us an option late on in the window if other targets failed !! Isn't that how other premier league teams work ? They don't sign players on the assumption other deals go through ? Hence why when a player is signed it creates a domino effect ?
Guy Fawkes
The voice of treason
- Sep 29, 2007
- 8,195
Have we? - Or is that just spin from some fans
Walton went on loan because he needs game time at his current stage of development in his career , and we need 3 keepers in the squad regardless of how the others have been doing so far for us this season as its cover for injuries, etc as the next opportunity to get a keeper if one or more of our current keepers got injured is not until January
And Stockdale decided to leave and you can't force players to stay / join as demonstrated in this window
Last edited:
The Wookiee
Back From The Dead
- Thread starter
- #26
That's my point !! Don't know why people don't get that !! Especially when we used that last loan on a player we could have paid money for !
Again hindsight is great isn't it?
Everyone wants a striker - how many PL class strikers went out on loan in the last 8/4:2/1 hours?
It reads as a loaded question but I genuinely have no idea. Who could we have had on loan?
London Irish
Well-known member
If Janssen was prepared to come here on loan (and that needs to be fact checked with by some credible operator like Naylor), then it was probably one of the most catastrophically misjudged non-deals in our history - the anti Mark Beeney
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,296
Well not really - I wouldn't defend that.
But you can't use that argument over circumstances that happened in the last hours.
It's easy to criticise what happened in panic.
Everything was obviously too late. When you place yourselves in that situation analyzing what happened within it is a bit of a waste of time. You are applying slow motion where slow motion didn't exist.
Striker should have been done much earlier. Apply flexibility and deal with the constraints of lesser proprieties.
Now that easy for me to say
But I'm replying to a belief that the Krul Loan buggered a striker loan deal. As all this happened in the last day (and shouldn't have) it's my strong belief the hypothesis is bollocks and that's not defending the indefensible.
Striker not got in earlier in the window ? Yeah rubbish, really really rubbish.
Deals take hours to finalise at the quickest. Krul's deal being confirmed happened very late, hours after he arrived at the training ground. As this was happening, I'm willing to bet the club already knew the likelihood of incoming transfers. It looks like Krul being confirmed was delayed to the point where the club knew nothing else in (on loan) was possible. Janssen refusing to come so late is a kick in the teeth, but that's the proplem when waiting so late (and Janssen himself couldn't happen until Llorente and Bony was finished, forcing Brighton to wait).
Guy Fawkes
The voice of treason
- Sep 29, 2007
- 8,195
The loan deal with Krul wasn't done until very late on the last day and we may have already agreed a fee, wages, etc with Janssen at that point for a permanent transfer when the window was moments from closing, so why would we then still keep that last loan option open with minutes left before the window shut?
Were Newcastle even willing to sell Krul is also another thing to take into consideration, they may not have wanted to let him go permanently or were asking for stupid money (presuming he'd actually want to sign permanently for us, how long is his contract at Newcastle?)
Last edited:
The Wookiee
Back From The Dead
- Thread starter
- #32
Our last loan card was played early today on a player for a position that was already adequately filled. Now tell me in your project manager experience, why waste that last card when another position wasn't secured ?
London Irish
Well-known member
Sorry you are trashing the meaning of the word hindsight. Realising that we had not signed a striker is perfectly bloody obvious foresight
London Irish
Well-known member
Because the deal was not sealed and delivered?
The Wookiee
Back From The Dead
- Thread starter
- #35
Joel Campbell from Arsenal went abroad on loan, I think he could have been a good addition
Guy Fawkes
The voice of treason
- Sep 29, 2007
- 8,195
If our time extension paperwork to get the Janssen deal done had to be in at 11pm, the option to loaning never have been possible as there was no way to submit a loan deal before the deadline when it became clear that no permanent deal was possible.
We only had a shot at his signing due to the very late deal of Llorente to Spurs, meaning the opportunity didn't even exist to us before that happened so blaming our staff for leaving it too late is unfair imo
We only had a shot at his signing due to the very late deal of Llorente to Spurs, meaning the opportunity didn't even exist to us before that happened so blaming our staff for leaving it too late is unfair imo
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,296
But that isn't what you are saying at all.
If Krul had been loaned early you and LI would have an argument and I would agree with you. But he traveled down this morning.
Anything could have happened on the last day. That's a problem.
The Wookiee
Back From The Dead
- Thread starter
- #38
I still think people are missing my point. Why did we go in and use our last loan ,early doors today,on a position that is already filled, on a player we could have bought, when our priority was a striker ??
The Wookiee
Back From The Dead
- Thread starter
- #39
We should have bought Krull !!
It's not a difficult answer to give, again: because the club had high confidence of concluding a permanent deal with (one of) their chosen target(s).
That confidence was clearly misplaced.