What it seems you're trying to infer here is that signing Beattie was a mistake on the basis that we eventually got relegated.
I'm sorry but I disagree on so many levels with this assumption. One man cannot solely be responsible for a team failure, nor does said players' reputation deserve to be tarnished whilst he is a member of a club that is collectively under performing.
22 goals in a season is hardly a failure
Just before I get into it, Barny you mean 'imply'. The speaker/writer implies, the listener/reader infers. I only mention this because I know it gets the goat of a few people on here!
The point that I can only assume people are willfully missing at this junction is that the signing of James Beattie was a failure. The decision to buy him was a bad one. It ended up costing us.
Look at it from this angle. What are the criteria by which we can judge a signing?
Did we achieve our aims that season?
Categorically no. The team struggled around mid table until a late but ultimately futile surge took us close to the play-offs. The aim for the season was undoubtedly to get promoted at the first attempt. We missed by miles.
Did we receive any return on our investment?
Categorically no. Forgetting wages, we actually received a smaller transfer fee that the one we paid out, even though Beattie had been scoring for fun. Why? Well I admit I'm speculating somewhat here but I think it was a cost cutting move. Beattie was simply too expensive to keep. The board didn't even have the bollocks to hold out for the full amount we had paid to Everton, all this despite the team being in the midst of a promotion chase. If Beattie was so key, why was he sold? If we hadn't paid too much for him, why was it necessary to get shut of a player who had already scored 12 goals at such a vital part of the season?
Did James Beattie play well?
Absolutely yes, other than the occasional grumbling about work rate. He scored goals like they were going out of style. But those goals didn't do us any good, at least in terms of securing promotion. Hell, until Robson was sacked those goals were barely enough for mid table! Partly this was because Robson was a terrible manager but it didn't help that we had players like David Carney and Lee Hendrie in the side. A little more balance in the squad rather than the eggs in one basket approach might have helped immeasurably.
After Beattie was sold (at a loss, let's not forget) the team finished third and then lost in the play-off final. The cycle of cost cutting and lower placed finishes went on for five years, only stopping last season (which was the first time we'd finished in a higher position than the previous season since Kevin Blackwell was sacked). The club is, or was until very recently, suffering from having to replace good players with dreck in order to balance the books, a practice that started during Blackwell's reign due in large part to Bryan Robson's transfer policy, a large part of which was the signing of James Beattie, for a club record fee.
If you idea of success was that we saw some great goals then fine, Beattie was a roaring success. If your idea is that a signing should actually benefit a club in the long run and help them become stronger then the evidence is against it.
Consider this: why was Beattie sold when he was?
A) The board are evil and want what's worst for the club
B) The board didn't consider Beattie key to the team
C) The board considered Stoke's offer too good to turn down (even though it was less than we paid and despite Beattie's form)
D) The board thought the club was fucked financially and needed to sell assets.
If we can dismiss A) then the rest all suggest that signing Beattie was a poor decision in the first place (given that, if costs needed to be cut so badly, he was on the highest wage and had commanded the largest fee). Either he wasn't good enough
or Stoke's offer was somehow considered reasonable (meaning we'd overpaid)
or signing him in the first place had meant we'd over-stretched financially.
.
