StudentOwl

So without following links and literally spending 20 seconds skim-reading this thread, there have been ~70 signings so far across the football league (~70 teams), by all accounts we've signed Börner and Odubajo and are simply yet to announce... and some are complaining about lack of signings? We're double the average ffs!

Didn't you repeatedly say we paid far too much for Reach?

I'm pretty sure when he's 50 and owns a pub we'll still see summer reports about us interested in signing him

Used to say this to my girlfriend all the time We're no longer on speaking terms

I think the biggest factor is us not having a pot to pi$$ in to be honest

Steady on on the assumptions, his youth career was in the south west at Bristol... for all we know he's just visiting his parents!

I would be reyt miffed if we lose both Wildsmith and Dawson on permanent transfers but sign Andy Lonergan. I can understand selling one of the young keepers, I can understand selling one and loaning out the other (and then making Lonergan a smart signing), but going from a goalkeeper pool of Westwood, Dawson, Wildsmith to Westwood, Lonergan would feel like a decrease to quality available in that position and a drastic increase in average age for what doesn't free up enough resources to improve elsewhere on the pitch. Maybe it does, and the signing of that guy from Basel depends on the re-jigging cost-saving measures back there? Pure speculating on speculation, but I guess the point is that if at any point over the next two months we do something in the market, it has to make sense in relation to the squad as a whole. Fingers crossed things are a-changing at Wednesday and we can start doing that sorta stuff right again.

Exactly... what evidence is there that the clause definitely exists? Have the club ever said the clause exists, or is it just conjecture? If it's just conjecture, then you can't exactly kick off at Norwich for not agreeing to the asking price they've quoted in the press

Well on the one hand we've got the Sporting Director saying that no such agreement was in place. On the other, there seems to be consensus that such an agreement was in place... I assumed that that must have come from Bruce because people seem certain that it was. I'm trying to establish if he said the, because I don't remember him saying that. Did he say that?

So Norwich are definitely lying, whereas Bruce's word is infallible and he couldn't possibly have made a mistake/been misinformed? Has Bruce even actually equivocally said that they pre-agreed a fee?

But it's not what the press says, it's what the Norwich City Sporting Director has said. Or am I missing something?

Rhodes is for sale, it's no secret. Norwich want him, it's no secret. However, that's very different to having an option to buy. I can rent out a holiday home and make it very clear that I'd be interested in buying the place at the end of my lease, and the current landlords are very interested in selling for the right price, but that doesn't mean there was an option written into the letting contract that allows me to do so once my tenancy is up, and equally it doesn't mean a pre-existing price was agreed. Norwich have come out and said no such agreement was in place but that it's still something everyone wants doing... just depends on agreeing the price

If you continuously overprice the items you're selling, you don't make any sales. Hence why we've had to effectively mortgage out the shop.

Your explanation isn't incorrect, but I don't believe it's accurate to the goings on at Wednesday. Simply because we've had to sell the ground, and the only sales we've made over the last 4 years that weren't for a pittance was Jack Hunt to Bristol City. One sale in four years and the sale of our historic ground is indicative of our starting position in a negotiation is just too high. You'd of course be right... if we were making a reasonable amount on player sales. You wouldn't say the entrepreneur whose starting price for selling his Snickers bars was £2 (one sale in four years) was a better negotiator than the entrepeneur selling his Snickers Bars for £1 (five sales in four years).

F00k me this is revisionist history on steroids. I'm not arguing we didn't start slowly that season, but costing us automatic? Give over... We were 15 points (plus goal difference) off automatic that season. We also coincidentally got 15 points in our first 10 games. So the statement "our poor start cost us promotion" is exactly the same as saying "Because we didn't win our first 10 games we didn't get promoted". You don't want much do you... The start we had obviously didnt help, but it was the whole season that meant we didn't get automatic, not just a "meh" start.