So you're saying we are as good as everyone else in the transfer/loan markets? If that were the case, we wouldn't be in league 1 for 4 consecutive seasons and that is my point. Brentford took Alan Judge, Wednesdy took Antonio and Marshall, anyone we seem to have competition with always gets the player. Why is this? I don't know, but it's a common trend and one I am frankly pissed off with. I think you should as well. This also applies with permanents.
How Can the original poster talk about the 'hassle' of signing players as if it's unique to our club? We have the same hoops to jump through as everyone else it's just we are less willing to do it. It's stubbornness, and whatever else you want to call it, but we've been in league 1 for FOUR FECKING YEARS! Surely that's enough evidence that we aren't doing it right? And do you accept that other clubs have the same hoops to jump through and manage it with more success?
Let's see if we can deal with the fact surrounding your original post. You made a categorical statement that
every other club in the football league manages to compete for loans, transfers, better than we do. That suggests that you have an 'in' with these clubs, or was it, as I mentioned, just a hollow, sensationalist, comment meant to create effect? It's easy to create a headline, The Sun has been doing it for years, much of which is meaningless and attention grabbing.
As for the pursuit of Alan Judge, context helps, so again, making half-baked statements about SUFC always being second best is a poor and shoddy attempt at denigrating the club. Let me refresh your memory over this, Judge eventually signed for Brentford because they were clearly in pole position to get promotion, while we were at the other end of the table. As Clough mentioned at the time, if we'd been in a better position it would have helped our chances to sign Judge. You can't blame the player, at the time those were the circumstances and his choice of club was proved correct as Brentford went on to secure promotion.
Yes, I'd kind of accepted that we've been in this division for far too long, so we're in agreement over this. When bold, damning statements are made, it helps if, rather than just shrugging your shoulders and asking rhetorical questions, you added the meat and flesh to what
actually happened. That way it shows that you have a degree of impartiality and that being a moaner who offers 'facts' that conveniently miss out the full story isn't a title you get lumbered with.
