As you know I don't bother with capitalising stuff, punctuation or checking grammar when I'm at work and in a hurry. I will never be (and have no desire to be), an A student !
And this makes it better how? Manipulating the accounting rules and using our whole budget to pay a retainer to Mogi Bayet. This is worse than just investing in a future prospect so I certainly hope this is not the case.
Keeper looks good, but I can’t see how investing in a player for next season makes much sense when we have such dire defensive options right now. You can’t trot out the line about lending Gino £15 million because we have got no money and then dismiss the fact he’s used exactly that amount of money on players who won’t contribute this season.
The irony being that we have probably already had to make extra payments already due to him playing and scoring for his country. So not only have we paid a lot for a player who isn’t ready and doesn’t play - but we have likely spent money on top of that because he has contributed to another football team.
Louza is the only deal I have an issue with and don’t understand. Otherwise a superb summer of transfers for the sums paid.
I tend to agree. But by simple maths I am sure you’ll agree that removing the two 2021 non contributors from the bundle Gino didn’t need to be lent £15m for a centre back? Which was your smug point. He pursued his own agenda with those funds so it’s not outlandish that some posters preferred some direct defensive recruitment this season.
Not sure what you mean by pursues his own agenda. I guess you mean “giving £9m to his mate” for no reason at all ? Maybe as explained above, covering the exits of Chalo and Hughes was seen as higher priority than spending on a CH and we just bought a dud ? It happens.
Do we know that we paid up front for the keeper though? Might not have come directly out of our budget for January signings
By that I mean using the whole budget on a prospect player rather than addressing the needs of our squad. Louza may turn out to be great in time (or not of course), but it’s not the point. The decision to use the whole budget on a player who was for the future when we had glaring deficiencies in defence was either poor scouting or arrogantly pursuing the player trading strategy at the expense of our first team. Shame really as some of the other work was very good on a non existent budget.
I imagine 90% of our transfer are not paid up front both incoming and outgoing, I imagine they net all those future flows before deciding on a budget for a window (although we have a tendency to borrow against the incoming flows).
Remember when you said Sallai never played on the left for Hungary, when he played every game on the left for Hungary
Louza is a good player, I think that's pretty obvious. Whether he's suited to Watford and English football is another matter.
If Louza is a dud we can recoup most of the fee when we lump him at Udinese. I think there is a decent player in him, just needs to get up to speed.
Or indeed a level as high as that. Nantes and Morocco is a step down, let’s be honest. He just would not have been signed if his agent wasn’t who it is, I’m certain of it.
We've had parts payments for those two haven't we? It's the ******* Pussetto that we have to send the baillifs for.
Louza was our first signing this season that wasn't a free or near enough a free wasn't he? I did think at the time that it was a sign we'd be willing to, if not break the bank, certainly spend decent sums, I didn't consider at the time that it was a favour to an agent!
