Franca is the only possible bright light in all of this. Let’s hope he is as good as we are told.

I don’t really subscribe to the ‘losing’ of assets. If players are under decent contracts, which all of our best players currently are then the club always has the option of saying no. If we did decide to sell then that is a strategy decision and you would hope the money is reinvested in the playing staff. As they reach the end of their contracts that’s when you start to worry about losing them without reasonable compensation.

Roy knows he kept his best players, despite the interest in them. Keeping Eze and Olise rather than replacing them with an unknown foreigner is the preferable option.

The other side of the coin.

Who is "Palace" I wonder. Is it the manager who was quoted as saying that he needed several more players or did the chairman decide what was needed and the priorities.

We have Parish setting the budget, Freedman as Director of Football dictates the strategy in terms of players/transfers. Roy wanted more reinforcements I'm sure - don't most managers ?

All we can do is make assumptions - and I'm assuming that we didn't have the budget or appetite to sign Ekitike permanently. So PSG kept him but still signed another striker for £76m - did they sell anyone else to comply with FFP ?

I think the signing of Holding was an opportunity that came along at short notice. At £4m I would say that's a good investment.

Old, Ungifted and White

Exactly just another issue the club couldn't be assed, addressing, just keep Roy, we will worry about it next year.

Well, we've made the 'transfer window losers' article on Football365.

"There is much to be said for extending Michael Olise’s contract and keeping Eberechi Eze, Marc Guehi and Cheick Doucoure. But not replacing Wilfried Zaha, having one first-team left-back, entering another season with Joel Ward as a starter and having three largely blunt strikers to choose from says rather a lot more. Mainly about how just staying up is the target for yet another season."

[Link]

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold...

Just posted this on wrong thread....

I cannot fathom why with such wealthy shareholders (Harris and Blitzer) we dont have a raise of say £50m and dilute existing holders accordingly.
Say we value the club at £200m and raise £50m, that would dilute existing holders by 20%. (Newcastle was bought for £300m)
So if H&B put the money in it will give them 20% increase and the remaining shareholders will decrease (or participate).
If no other holders participate that would give them control eg 36% existing plus 20% = 56%
The others would reduce by 20% which would suit Eagle football who anyway want to invest in Chelsea and therefore need to reduce their stake by 10% down to sub 30%.
Bringing in £50m would have given us sufficient funds to have brought in two decent wing backs and a striker.
Add them to the players we have and with a fair wind that would have given us a squad equipped for european competition.
This would significantly add value to the club and fulfil what so many on here are stating as the needed requirement to push on.
To hell with the stadium. That is a massive overhead and turbulence which at this stage we can really do without. The ROI on the new stand is minimal compared to its inevitable cost (min. £150m).
Any of you accountants got a view on this?