So, the tiser claims 4 of the young contingent in the summer and now a fifth involved no initial fee. Fair enough, if based as claimed on appearances made. I wonder where the long contracts come from then. Clubs are actually willing to let younger inexperienced players go for nothing. But the player has a long contract which we have to pay wages for, yet there really isn?t much of a risk involved - except for us.
Whilst before we had a more stable mix of contracts with players in the main who had played some games, it is said that only one of the four has actually triggered a payment.
No disrespect to any of these players, but we really are being shown the cash strapped way this 13 now 15 intake is being paid for or not.
Mixed with the manager leftovers it has become an old vs inexperienced mismatch on the cheap, coupled with the injury prone.
And the fans are the ones being short changed.
Whilst before we had a more stable mix of contracts with players in the main who had played some games, it is said that only one of the four has actually triggered a payment.
No disrespect to any of these players, but we really are being shown the cash strapped way this 13 now 15 intake is being paid for or not.
Mixed with the manager leftovers it has become an old vs inexperienced mismatch on the cheap, coupled with the injury prone.
And the fans are the ones being short changed.

Comment