| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? 11:35 - Oct 31 with 7254 views | Illinoisblue |
Approx 9mill in from Waghorn and Webster.... I lost track of what he spent on bringing in his League 1.5 all stars. |  |
| |  |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 16:00 - Oct 31 with 1248 views | Illinoisblue |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 15:13 - Oct 31 by BrixtonBlue |
All you do is post bullsh!t on here, are you a Norwich supporter? |
his posting history is rather telling | |
| |
| Think he spunked about.... on 16:07 - Oct 31 with 1263 views | casanovacrow |
| Think he spunked about.... on 15:51 - Oct 31 by JimmyJazz |
Ah, that old argument that MMs teams go down after he leaves
That happens when
1. MM first gets the team promoted to the Prem
2. Team struggles at a higher level, MM leaves with the team in trouble
Neither of which is applicable to us |
Millwall? |  | | |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 16:10 - Oct 31 with 1259 views | Steve_M |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 16:00 - Oct 31 by Illinoisblue |
his posting history is rather telling |
Nerdyknowall/Pundit. The usual grain of truth and then totally exaggerated. |  |
| |
| So were the ones that left in the summer. (n/t) on 16:12 - Oct 31 with 1257 views | Bloots |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 14:56 - Oct 31 by BluePG |
Wages! Even the lowest paid squad players will be on £300,000 a year. |
|  |
| Elite Level Poster: Elite Level Supporter: Elite Level Human |
| |
| Think he spunked about.... on 16:15 - Oct 31 with 1253 views | Steve_M |
| Think he spunked about.... on 15:19 - Oct 31 by casanovacrow |
I'm probably on my own here, I think Hurst spent well. I best explain...
Hurst's players hardly look outshone by those still here from before. If anything the opposite has slightly been the case, the few goals we have had seem to be from Hurst's lot for a start.
I just think the job wasn't finished due to time and money constraints and that is why everyone is looking poor.
Everyone suffers when you have half your team suited to play one way and you bring in a handful of new guys to do the opposite, especially when those of the Mick era on the whole looked very resistant to change. Too much too soon maybe, but when the brief was to change the style of play and with so many players out the door even before he arrived I don't think he had a choice.
It could also be argued maybe to little too soon, and he should've had that extra £10m and got to replace those who were here that will never fit progressive attacking football.
I keep thinking back to what happens to all of Mick's old clubs after he leaves, they go down. Why? I'd hazard a guess at it's because they are full of limited players who are stuck in their ways. Managers don't have a chance in making their mark on things without the risks involved with a complete overhaul and that needs a shed load more than £6m to do properly anyway.
Either way it's unwise to judge anyone on 15 games in a disjointed team.
 Yep, someone fighting Hurst's corner 
Let's hope Lambert can find a system that can get the best out of them and they come good in the end |
Ah yes, Hurst's players are scoring what few goals we have and that's nothing to do with selling two strikers with 26 goals between them last season.
And how exactly have we being playing under Hurst, it's been hard to discern any style or system at all most of the time?
This has been the worst Summer of transfer dealing for the club since 2001. | |
| |
| Think he spunked about.... on 16:17 - Oct 31 with 1247 views | BlueBadger |
| Think he spunked about.... on 16:15 - Oct 31 by Steve_M |
Ah yes, Hurst's players are scoring what few goals we have and that's nothing to do with selling two strikers with 26 goals between them last season.
And how exactly have we being playing under Hurst, it's been hard to discern any style or system at all most of the time?
This has been the worst Summer of transfer dealing for the club since 2001. |
Although the run-up to Jewell's second season runs it close. |  |
| |
| Think he spunked about.... on 16:24 - Oct 31 with 1241 views | casanovacrow |
| Think he spunked about.... on 16:15 - Oct 31 by Steve_M |
Ah yes, Hurst's players are scoring what few goals we have and that's nothing to do with selling two strikers with 26 goals between them last season.
And how exactly have we being playing under Hurst, it's been hard to discern any style or system at all most of the time?
This has been the worst Summer of transfer dealing for the club since 2001. |
Yes, selling Garner and Waghorn is a big issue. But how much of that can you put on Hurst? He needed funds to replace what had already gone, the players wanted to go and in Waghorn's case especially I don't think he would fit from what we were told Hurst planned to do.
Agreed, no apparent style or system. I'd put that down to what I already said about a half finished job.
Just out of curiosity, if you had the job in the summer, you were already down about 8 players from last season due to contracts ending and loan players going back, you had to fund any incoming transfers yourself, best players not tied down on long contracts and you know they could get much more than you can afford to give them elsewhere ...what would you have done? | | | |
| Think he spunked about.... on 16:50 - Oct 31 with 1203 views | agentp |
| Think he spunked about.... on 16:24 - Oct 31 by casanovacrow |
Yes, selling Garner and Waghorn is a big issue. But how much of that can you put on Hurst? He needed funds to replace what had already gone, the players wanted to go and in Waghorn's case especially I don't think he would fit from what we were told Hurst planned to do.
Agreed, no apparent style or system. I'd put that down to what I already said about a half finished job.
Just out of curiosity, if you had the job in the summer, you were already down about 8 players from last season due to contracts ending and loan players going back, you had to fund any incoming transfers yourself, best players not tied down on long contracts and you know they could get much more than you can afford to give them elsewhere ...what would you have done? |
Get your point, but Waghorn and Garner cost a fraction of [for example] of Kayden Jackson. I would question whether the funds really were spent wisely; they appear no improvement on our own youth. I accept criticism becomes invalid with hindsight.
I personally think we needed to incorporate the stand-out players amongst our youth better than we did, brought in a couple of experienced OOC players and filter in some investment types of lower league buys. Hurst's downfall for me was underestimating this league and thinking his L1 approach was universal. He clearly had no idea. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Think he spunked about.... on 16:50 - Oct 31 with 1202 views | JimmyJazz |
| Think he spunked about.... on 16:24 - Oct 31 by casanovacrow |
Yes, selling Garner and Waghorn is a big issue. But how much of that can you put on Hurst? He needed funds to replace what had already gone, the players wanted to go and in Waghorn's case especially I don't think he would fit from what we were told Hurst planned to do.
Agreed, no apparent style or system. I'd put that down to what I already said about a half finished job.
Just out of curiosity, if you had the job in the summer, you were already down about 8 players from last season due to contracts ending and loan players going back, you had to fund any incoming transfers yourself, best players not tied down on long contracts and you know they could get much more than you can afford to give them elsewhere ...what would you have done? |
Think the main issue is who he bought, and the prices paid, rather than who he sold.
3.6m on Nolan, Jackson and Nsiala?
And then people complained that we didn't go all out and get Tilt for the 1m asking price. Maybe he would have been good value, we won't know |  |
| |
| Think he spunked about.... on 16:51 - Oct 31 with 1199 views | JimmyJazz |
| Think he spunked about.... on 16:07 - Oct 31 by casanovacrow |
Millwall? |
Think that might be put down to his first managerial role. He did make a mess of a rather good team though while there | |
| |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 16:57 - Oct 31 with 1197 views | PhilTWTD |
Worth remembering Portsmouth got 20 per cent of the profit we made on Webster and Rangers 10 per cent of what Town made on Waghorn.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  | | |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 16:59 - Oct 31 with 1185 views | PJH |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 16:57 - Oct 31 by PhilTWTD |
Worth remembering Portsmouth got 20 per cent of the profit we made on Webster and Rangers 10 per cent of what Town made on Waghorn.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Portsmouth did well to get 10% of the profit on someone that never played for them.  |  | | |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 17:00 - Oct 31 with 1180 views | BrixtonBlue |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 16:59 - Oct 31 by PJH |
Portsmouth did well to get 10% of the profit on someone that never played for them. |
Bit cheeky if you ask me. |  |
| |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 17:01 - Oct 31 with 1179 views | PJH |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 17:00 - Oct 31 by BrixtonBlue |
Bit cheeky if you ask me. |
Perhaps we can get some of the Ronaldo money? | | | |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 17:03 - Oct 31 with 1174 views | BrixtonBlue |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 17:01 - Oct 31 by PJH |
Perhaps we can get some of the Ronaldo money? |
10% of that would be niiiiiice. I'm sure Milne is on the case. | |
| |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 17:03 - Oct 31 with 1173 views | PhilTWTD |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 16:59 - Oct 31 by PJH |
Portsmouth did well to get 10% of the profit on someone that never played for them. |
Ah, Rangers added! | | | |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 17:05 - Oct 31 with 1172 views | PJH |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 17:03 - Oct 31 by PhilTWTD |
Ah, Rangers added! |
Your proof reader on holiday-you said that Paul Lambert was 29 yesterday? | | | |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 17:06 - Oct 31 with 1172 views | PhilTWTD |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 13:40 - Oct 31 by ElephantintheRoom |
You could also add in the £1million received as a lump sum for the schoolkid (Man City's hand bitten off, even though Chelski offered more in instalments). Tellingly Town are offering their academy players for sale again. |
1 Clubs have no say on where youngsters in his position go. 2 It was Tottenham not Chelsea who offered the larger sum. | | | |
| Think he spunked about.... on 17:06 - Oct 31 with 1170 views | casanovacrow |
| Think he spunked about.... on 16:50 - Oct 31 by JimmyJazz |
Think the main issue is who he bought, and the prices paid, rather than who he sold.
3.6m on Nolan, Jackson and Nsiala?
And then people complained that we didn't go all out and get Tilt for the 1m asking price. Maybe he would have been good value, we won't know |
Something we can probably agree on is the Tilt thing. We really look short of a left footed bloke back there and he can pass the ball out too. Strange decision it was to decide against sticking the extra 200k on that and leave us short.
It wont take much for Nolan, Jackson and Nsiala to be worth more than we paid. A handful of goals and most players in the championship are apparently worth more than that these days. Fingers crossed we can get the best out of them still. | | | |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 17:07 - Oct 31 with 1167 views | PhilTWTD |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 17:05 - Oct 31 by PJH |
Your proof reader on holiday-you said that Paul Lambert was 29 yesterday? |
Something like that. Usually the extra details I add in where I make errors I don't notice. | | | |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 17:11 - Oct 31 with 1160 views | chicoazul |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 16:00 - Oct 31 by Illinoisblue |
his posting history is rather telling |
you know who that is right? It's board legend Nerdy and I am delighted he's back. |  |
| |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 17:32 - Oct 31 with 1141 views | tabletopjoe |
I don’t think they replaced the nets |  |
| 'Let the ignorant argue with themselves' -- CL |
| |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 17:37 - Oct 31 with 1136 views | itfcjoe |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 12:50 - Oct 31 by Ely_Blue |
Isn’t it funny how everyone is certain on what we spent but in terms of the incoming money it’s alway “I’d guess” |
these are all best guesses - nothing sinister in it |  |
| |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 17:37 - Oct 31 with 1136 views | itfcjoe |
| What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 13:24 - Oct 31 by JimmyJazz |
You're not including Donacien? Once legal details sorted aren't we obliged to complete the transfer? |
Sorry - just missed it, wasn’t excluding it | |
| |
| Think he spunked about.... on 17:39 - Oct 31 with 1135 views | casanovacrow |
| Think he spunked about.... on 16:50 - Oct 31 by agentp |
Get your point, but Waghorn and Garner cost a fraction of [for example] of Kayden Jackson. I would question whether the funds really were spent wisely; they appear no improvement on our own youth. I accept criticism becomes invalid with hindsight.
I personally think we needed to incorporate the stand-out players amongst our youth better than we did, brought in a couple of experienced OOC players and filter in some investment types of lower league buys. Hurst's downfall for me was underestimating this league and thinking his L1 approach was universal. He clearly had no idea. |
Waghorn was an unbelievable deal, it's a shame they all aren't that easy to find.
A different approach might have worked, but then again even going that route it's going to be a tough ask to get it to work. The brief and the funds are very limiting, what you don't spend on transfer fee's you'd probably spend on wages.
I think most people can agree with him underestimating the league. Not many players step up quickly, especially with the amount of change. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
