Summer Transfer Window 2019/20 Season

[Brunners 7,982]

9 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

Why?  We've signed young players recently, it's not a new thing.  I want us to sign some good players, yeah it'd be handy if they weren't 33 or whatever but being good should be our priority not age.  How much did we pay for George Miller?  For Ashley Fletcher even?

Absolutely everything the club has been saying suggests they want a team or young hungry players with potential, so I think it's a good sign that the first two players we are really linked with seem to fit that mold..

Do you have to argue with absolutely every post on here?

[Changing Times 12,347]

Just now, Brunners said:

Absolutely everything the club has been saying suggests they want a team or young hungry players with potential, so I think it's a good sign that the first two players we are really linked with seem to fit that mold..

Do you have to argue with absolutely every post on here?

Only the one's I disagree with.  I think it'll be a good sign when we sign some good players who fit in with however we are going to play.  Their age matters less to me than that basic point because that's where we've struggled recently in my opinion.  If you're going to be happy at us signing younger players simply on the basis that they are younger then that's fine but I am going to disagree with that unfortunately.  Nothing is meant by it I'm just looking for something else ?

[Brunners 7,982]

Just now, Changing Times said:

Only the one's I disagree with.  I think it'll be a good sign when we sign some good players who fit in with however we are going to play.  Their age matters less to me than that basic point because that's where we've struggled recently in my opinion.  If you're going to be happy at us signing younger players simply on the basis that they are younger then that's fine but I am going to disagree with that unfortunately.  Nothing is meant by it I'm just looking for something else ?

The club have outlined the kind of players they want at the club and I'm saying it's good the players we are linked with seem to be of that mold rather than us saying one thing while doing another thing like we have in the past.

Are you saying you disagree with that?

[DanFromDownSouth 1,706]

14 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

That's fine if you want to end up like say Brentford but I'm assuming our ambitions go further than that.  I hope so anyway.

As an educated guess, I imagine we will have a medium between the two.

As an assumption maybe Woodgate still sees Shotton and Friend as our starting fullbacks. So this summer we may be targeting younger fullbacks with the intentions of them pushing for a first team place.

Whereas we have no real wingers for our starting positions, so this summer we may be targeting more established wingers. 

[Changing Times 12,347]

6 minutes ago, Brunners said:

The club have outlined the kind of players they want at the club and I'm saying it's good the players we are linked with seem to be of that mold rather than us saying one thing while doing another thing like we have in the past.

Are you saying you disagree with that?

No, I'm saying it's not what I think our priorities should be, sorry I thought I'd made that clear.

[Brunners 7,982]

2 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

No, I'm saying it's not what I think our priorities should be, sorry I thought I'd made that clear.

But it is what the club seem to think their priorities should be, so I suppose that's what matters isn't it.

[Changing Times 12,347]

5 minutes ago, DanFromDownSouth said:

As an educated guess, I imagine we will have a medium between the two.

As an assumption maybe Woodgate still sees Shotton and Friend as our starting fullbacks. So this summer we may be targeting younger fullbacks with the intentions of them pushing for a first team place.

Whereas we have no real wingers for our starting positions, so this summer we may be targeting more established wingers. 

So after reading that back could you explain to me what's different about what we have been doing as compared to this new approach?  Football gets complicated by people who want to show their value/importance.  Sign decent players for an appropriate fee and wages, hire good coaches/managers and you will basically have a good side.  It's when everything is muddled up that things don't work out and that's been our biggest problem over the past few years.  It's bloody obvious to me that there have been different factions at work within the club and that's not ideal.  I assume that this new start will remove that but then some of the same people are still involved and I believe they were responsible or partly responsible for what has been happening so I don't have a great deal of confidence in them.

[Changing Times 12,347]

3 minutes ago, Brunners said:

But it is what the club seem to think their priorities should be, so I suppose that's what matters isn't it.

I'd say what matters is what gives us the best chance of success.  You're going to tell me that the club feel this represents that and then I'm going to say what makes it different to the other things they thought were right that were quite clearly wrong. 

I've told you what I think we should be doing so what do you think we should be doing?

[Brunners 7,982]

Just now, Changing Times said:

I'd say what matters is what gives us the best chance of success.  You're going to tell me that the club feel this represents that and then I'm going to say what makes it different to the other things they thought were right that were quite clearly wrong. 

I've told you what I think we should be doing so what do you think we should be doing?

I think we should be doing what we appear to be trying to do and trying to build an attacking foundation at the club that is built on young hungry players. I think we should have the potential to move players on at a profit on future while remaining competitive. We need to find a way to make some money in future with parachute payments gone.

[Changing Times 12,347]

Just now, Brunners said:

I think we should be doing what we appear to be trying to do and trying to build an attacking foundation at the club that is built on young hungry players. I think we should have the potential to move players on at a profit on future while remaining competitive. We need to find a way to make some money in future with parachute payments gone.

That's fine, I just think it should be built on good players who fit our preferred style of play instead ?

[BearSmog 1,382]

2 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

3 minutes ago, Brunners said:

I think we should be doing what we appear to be trying to do and trying to build an attacking foundation at the club that is built on young hungry players. I think we should have the potential to move players on at a profit on future while remaining competitive. We need to find a way to make some money in future with parachute payments gone.

That's fine, I just think it should be built on good players who fit our preferred style of play instead ?

What's wrong with doing both? 

[Changing Times 12,347]

1 minute ago, BearSmog said:

What's wrong with doing both? 

I didn't say there was anything wrong with doing both.  My own positivity about signings won't be based much on their age though, that's all ?

[Brunners 7,982]

5 minutes ago, BearSmog said:

What's wrong with doing both? 

Then he wouldn't be able to disagree with people on here.

[scotty189 931]

linked with Yearwood where abouts please ?

[Brunners 7,982]

1 minute ago, scotty189 said:

linked with Yearwood where abouts please ?