I don't think it is possible to piece together the club's transfer 'strategy' from the list of players we signed, or even from the list of positions where an upgrade was not signed.

We would need to see the list of players the club enquired about and/or tried to sign but ultimately did not, the proportion of our budget we were prepared to commit to the fee and wages, plus understand the reason each of those deals did not progress in order to understand the club's priorities. We don't have that information, and never will.

None of us know if the club, for example, went hell-for-leather in pursuit of a new right-back only for that player to get a better offer at the last minute. Or if we were in advanced talks with two right backs, one as backup to the other. Or three. Or ten, only for all of them to knock us back, or ask for silly money, or move somewhere else, or get injured. The absence of a new right-back alone tells you nothing about what the club wanted to do, tried to do, how hard they tried etc.

The best we can see is general trends over the medium term. It seems evident that, generally speaking, we have moved from spending money we don't really have on established top-flight players with European experience (Cabeye, Sakho, Benteke, PVA etc) to having no money to spend (the original Roy years) to signing young players with potential sell-on value that will have to be sold sooner or later (Olise, Eze, Dacoure, Guehi etc).

Outside of overall trends, an opportunity to sign someone might be attractive for any number of reasons. Like most, I've no idea why we signed Henderson, for instance, but then I don't work at the club in a senior position. Maybe Johnstone wants to leave. Maybe the club think one or other goalie can be sold at a profit somewhere down the road. Maybe they just feel that, following Guiata's tantrum, having two top-class keepers is essential and couldn't get a cheaper one. Christ knows. One thing is for sure though, the thought process will not be the same as that which led to the signing of Lerma, which in turn will not be the same as the thinking behind signing Franca. Each deal will have its own set of circumstances, and may or may not adhere to the general trend.

Edited by TheBigToePunt (31 Oct 2023 2.46pm)

Paddy and Ray next season is very unlikely to happen. They don’t appear to get on. Many of you will not have noticed the incident in the Bournemouth game last season where Ray ordered Paddy to sit down when he tried to approach Roy during the match. This did not go unnoticed in the Director’s Box and Ray was subsequently confined to the dugout. To show his annoyance Ray wore long trousers in the Forest Match.
There seems to be an uneasy peace between them now. It appears to me that Paddy is responsible for the forwards, an area Roy has admitted on several occasions he does not coach (and it shows), with Roy and Ray marshalling the midfield and defence. The introduction of the three younger players happened after a chat with Paddy. Could it be that Roy’s comments not only show his frustration with the Club’s transfer inaction but also a backhanded jibe at the imposition of Paddy as assistant manager?

Leaving aside that we did sign Ferguson, Clyne, and Richards in that time, neither of us know if we did try to sign Walker-Peters, or if we did, how hard we tried, or why we didn't get him. Very hard to be critical of Palace without that information, and that's my point really.

Maybe we did bid for Walker-Peters but were outbid by Southampton, or he wanted to leave London, or they offered more in wages, or he fancied his chances of being first choice for them more than for us.

Maybe the club didn't think much of him (I personally don't). Who knows? Either way, if we are looking for players that were seemingly feasible signings you can take Walker-Peters and times him by at least a hundred over the last few years I'd guess. Each will have a story of its own that we will never know.

he's a Southampton player, so not sure how they can outbid us. They've just been relegated so are hardly handing out improved terms, and in WPs case he has 2 years left of a 5 year contract.

It is probably as simple as, if we enquired, they asked for a higher transfer fee than we were prepared to pay so the conversation ended. They also sold another RB to Newcastle so didn't want to lose 2 in the same window.

Clyne was signed as a stop gap when AWB left - 4 years on he's still here, as a stop gap. That sums up our transfer policy

It's easy to say we should release X and Y, but you have to have a better player to replace them with first, or else you become weaker overall. Painful as it might be at the time, it is better to have Benetke than nobody, or (more realistically) better to renew Benteke's contract than to spend millions of pounds on a transfer fee for a player who will be no better.

As per my posts above, none of us know what attempts were made to buy a new forward before the decision was taken to renew Benteke for another year, so none of us can say that the club 'preferred' to keep the player they had.

What we do know is that footballers who are good enough to improve the (roughly) 12th or 13th best team in the best league in the world don't grow on trees. They cost the earth, will be highly sought-after, and we will not be their first choice option in most cases.

Agree, some posters seem to believe running a club is the same as playing Football Manager online. Buy him , cancel his contract etc it’s not reality. It was widely reported Hall was coming on loan from Chelsea, we extend Olises contract, then Chelsea block Halls loan as a result. Zaha kept us hanging on for weeks, then decides to go to Turkey, leaving very little time to get a replacement.

It’s not as easy as people think, there are so many variables.