Ezri Konsa was saved from going to a Premier League top club during the transfer window and he and other talents will be protected in the future, claims Katrien Meire: Ezri Konsa
Looks like the PR guys have been earning their money.
Wyn, does seem they are getting better at presentation, even if the substance stinks. What is not clear (to me) is were there any actual offers for Konsa which were turned down ('interest' means nothing)? And is Meire trying to backtrack or reinterpret her Dublin comments on the product available to her customers?
It's very difficult to work out what is going on when one enters the Alice Through the Looking Glass world of alternative facts. I doubt whether there were actual offers for Konsa: I would expect that he is being scouted. She says on her Dublin comments that they were taken out of context, but that is a standard defence.
Pretty obvious they're simply protecting RDs future investment, if they wait and sell him when he's had more "shop window" time the money and add-ons deal will be much higher than if they'd let him go in January. They haven't held on to him to do their customers any favours.
I am no fan of the regime and have happily joined in the demos against them. However I think some of the criticisms about selling young player are unrealistic, With Lookman, to be fair, they didn't sell him to the first offer, but rightly waited until we had what was by League one standards a very good offer. All clubs and all owners have to sell players, especially when you are in League one getting offers for premiere league standard players. My criticism in the past is not who we have sold, but the players we have brought. The latest batch do seem at least seem to have a record of being able to compete at league one and in some cases Championship level. However only time will tell on that.
I think that a different regime at The Valley or almost all other League One clubs would have accepted the Lookman offer. It was also in the best interests of the player. I would agree that my concern would be the players that have been bought, although it is not easy to get value in January.
Wyn, does seem they are getting better at presentation, even if the substance stinks. What is not clear (to me) is were there any actual offers for Konsa which were turned down ('interest' means nothing)? And is Meire trying to backtrack or reinterpret her Dublin comments on the product available to her customers?
ReplyDeleteIt's very difficult to work out what is going on when one enters the Alice Through the Looking Glass world of alternative facts. I doubt whether there were actual offers for Konsa: I would expect that he is being scouted. She says on her Dublin comments that they were taken out of context, but that is a standard defence.
ReplyDeletePretty obvious they're simply protecting RDs future investment, if they wait and sell him when he's had more "shop window" time the money and add-ons deal will be much higher than if they'd let him go in January. They haven't held on to him to do their customers any favours.
ReplyDeleteI am no fan of the regime and have happily joined in the demos against them. However I think some of the criticisms about selling young player are unrealistic, With Lookman, to be fair, they didn't sell him to the first offer, but rightly waited until we had what was by League one standards a very good offer. All clubs and all owners have to sell players, especially when you are in League one getting offers for premiere league standard players. My criticism in the past is not who we have sold, but the players we have brought. The latest batch do seem at least seem to have a record of being able to compete at league one and in some cases Championship level. However only time will tell on that.
ReplyDeleteI think that a different regime at The Valley or almost all other League One clubs would have accepted the Lookman offer. It was also in the best interests of the player. I would agree that my concern would be the players that have been bought, although it is not easy to get value in January.
ReplyDelete