Confused about money and promises

[alwaysleeds]

First of all; I'm no pessimist. But all of this fuzz about ownership, money, deadlines and promises - and that it always takes so much time, this gets me confused. And a voice in my head starts to grow stronger; is it really as it's said?

Do we really have any money to buy new players, as we have been informed about in media? If Huddersfield acts quicker on the market, what does this say about Leeds? If the owners say no to buy Ashley Barnes for more than 500 000, why do they say no if they at the same time have trust in McDermott?

Mark this: The only thing that has happen on the market so far is two players ON LOAN. And noone needs to tell me that our expenses is too high; we really don't have the largest squad in the Championship. To me we have a squad that is too hollow; we lack a deep in the squad - and we even have too few youngsters in the first team squad.

Two weeks left to buy some decent players, and I can say this already: Nothing exceptional will happen!

Comments? Am I too pessimistic?

(Sorry about my bad english...)

[Deleted User 2]

Do we really have any money to buy new players, as we have been informed about in media? If Huddersfield acts quicker on the market, what does this say about Leeds?

Nahki Wells is a moot point, there was no real indication he was genuinely a player McDermott wanted, people just discussed whether he would have been a good signing as a statement of intent.

If the owners say no to buy Ashley Barnes for more than 500 000, why do they say no if they at the same time have trust in McDermott?

It would appear the people who provided the promise and the cash weren't the same people who overruled the transfer

And noone needs to tell me that our expenses is too high; we really don't have the largest squad in the Championship. To me we have a squad that is too hollow; we lack a deep in the squad - and we even have too few youngsters in the first team squad.

How much you pay X players is as relevant as how much X is. Youngsters - two of them are playing regularly, a few make appearances on the bench, fair few others around 20 to 23 years old. How many do we need? Maybe the other ones in the academy just aren't good enough?

[Mellor]

We have replaced the team twice, almost, in the last 2 years. The overheads at LUFC must be as high, higher, than any club in the division (renting TA and ER) before we pay any players. Player wages must be high cos no one will leave. We throw millions down the drain (Diouf - like him or not his wage has been a total waste of money this year, there are others). On top of this we are still paying for the East stand development. At least this should add value in coming years. Selling the ground ,TA are still costing us money. Wasting money on poor/inappropriate players seems to be what we do.

[alwaysleeds]

I agree that we have bought a lot of players the last two years, but most of them have been free transfers. The wages I can't say anything about, but if we really got the figures of the costs - perhaps they're not higher than the other top teams in the Championship.

I like the new direction in going for younger players, than buying elder "has beens" on the free.

I'm quite aware of the costs and earlier mistakes financially - but the fine words, promises... There are "so many things going on backstage", that I get the impression over time that there isn't happening so much after all. Perhaps I have the wrong impression, but then again this will show in the near future. We will see how much the promises was worth by the end of the season - and even in front of next season.

I really hope I'm wrong though...

[alwaysleeds]

Do we really have any money to buy new players, as we have been informed about in media? If Huddersfield acts quicker on the market, what does this say about Leeds?

Nahki Wells is a moot point, there was no real indication he was genuinely a player McDermott wanted, people just discussed whether he would have been a good signing as a statement of intent.

If the owners say no to buy Ashley Barnes for more than 500 000, why do they say no if they at the same time have trust in McDermott?

It would appear the people who provided the promise and the cash weren't the same people who overruled the transfer

And noone needs to tell me that our expenses is too high; we really don't have the largest squad in the Championship. To me we have a squad that is too hollow; we lack a deep in the squad - and we even have too few youngsters in the first team squad.

How much you pay X players is as relevant as how much X is. Youngsters - two of them are playing regularly, a few make appearances on the bench, fair few others around 20 to 23 years old. How many do we need? Maybe the other ones in the academy just aren't good enough?

With all the rumours going on about new players it's hard to tell whose on McDermotts radar, and whose not. Only future will tell if Nahki Wells would have been right for us, or not. And I have always the feeling that we are missing someone from the academy. Our history (the last 10-15 years) don't give the right tones here. But perhaps this is a problem in many clubs, I don't know. But I really hope that the leaders today see this differently.

Again, perhaps I'm too pessimistic - and I really really hope so. Because I want the best for Leeds. Anytime!

[Deleted User 130]

Am hearing this morning that the re4cent interest in BHA's Barnes was genuine but that Haigh blocked the bidding because of no money to fund any deal - YET. As far as I know, Wells was never a target.

[alwaysleeds]

Am hearing this morning that the re4cent interest in BHA's Barnes was genuine but that Haigh blocked the bidding because of no money to fund any deal - YET. As far as I know, Wells was never a target.

Haigh: No money to fund any deal???
Wasn't it him that said that there was funds available for transfers, just some weeks ago?

[alwaysleeds]

Nahki Wells, a target or not - I don't think that's the main thing here.
The main thing is: The two weeks so far in the transfer window have given us two players on loan. And there were promises that funds were available, but no one has been bought yet (no mather any rumours about players).

[Deleted User 2]

Am hearing this morning that the re4cent interest in BHA's Barnes was genuine but that Haigh blocked the bidding because of no money to fund any deal - YET. As far as I know, Wells was never a target.

Haigh: No money to fund any deal???
Wasn't it him that said that there was funds available for transfers, just some weeks ago?

You're taking things too ad literam. Have you read this article? http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-6376046

As far as I can tell and Phil Hay is suggesting on Twitter too, Haigh represents the consortium more than it represents GFH now, and the decision to block the transfer was taken above him.

[Deleted User 2]

Nahki Wells, a target or not - I don't think that's the main thing here.

You brought it up as one of the arguments, by saying Huddersfield "moved quicker than us, what does this say?". It only says something, IF we were interested in signing him, but were outbid or outmaneuvered by Huddersfield in doing this deal. If not, then it (that single argument, not anything else) doesn't say anything about our ability to do business. That's the point.