Registered Saddler wrote:chestersaddler wrote:philthesaddler wrote:Good 3 points but the usual suspects using it as justification for us not needing a striker, whereas if you were at the game you'd see how obvious it is
Can you point me in the direction of these posts :?
Whingers are completely missing the point as normal. The point being (to spell it out for the hard of thinking) that of course if would be great to have a new striker if they were better than we have already. Shrewsbury - a team with a similar (or slightly bigger) budget than us - have been trying to find a striker all season. They've signed several, none of whom have been better than Westcarr. They had two loanees up front today; one was awful, the other missed a sitter. Give me Westcarr over that any day. If we can get a great new striker, fantastic. If we can't, then we should appreciate that what we've got, on our budget, is already pretty good.
How much money did Shrewsbury receive in transfer income during the summer? As far as I know - £0
How much money did Walsall receive in transfer income during the summer? Between £1m and £1.5m
So it's a fair assumption to make that we have a little more money rolling around to invest in a goalscorer than Shrewsbury do, therefore its a totally unfair and unrealistic assertion to make that WFC would be looking at strikers of a similar ilk to Eaves - who was, as someone else has said, one of the worst strikers I've ever seen. So where's the money gone? Unless WFC have a massive overhead that has hampered the club for 23 years. Oh, wait.