Great finish by Bamford

coluka said:
Only one man responsible for his sale and it wasn’t Pulis. Uncle Steve accepted the money NOT Uncle Tony, he just made sure the player wanted to sign (Imho)
Click to expand...
I completely disagree.
We effectively swapped Bamford for Saville. Gibson allowed pulis to spend £20m.
Bamford would be still here and we might not be.
 
bear66 said:
Kanes's is almost the same as Bamford's. Get rid of both to the Championship as they're clearly rubbish. (Kane 1 goal for 5.7 shots, so sightly worse than Bamford.)
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough, I looked at Britt, 1 in 10 shots result in a goal.
 
JM14 said:
Anyone who knew football could see Bamford would be quality once he was given a run of games, well almost anyone...


Wonder how much of a cut he got for the transfer?
Click to expand...
I often wonder how Pulis' contract was incentivised around player sales after wages etc.
 
Laughing said:
Interestingly enough, I looked at Britt, 1 in 10 shots result in a goal.
Click to expand...
Both Fletcher and Assombolonga are only 1 from 6 INSIDE the 6 yard box.
Bamford was sold by pulis to fund the purchase of Saville and loans of Hugill, besic et al.
Gibson is guilty of allowing pulis to do what he wanted to do.
And is paying for that stupidity as we speak.
 
indeedido said:
I completely disagree.
We effectively swapped Bamford for Saville. Gibson allowed pulis to spend £20m.
Bamford would be still here and we might not be.
Click to expand...
It is fine to disagree 😉

I totally accept we effectively swapped Bamford for Saville as an outcome, but not the reason. As Zorro rightly says, nothing happens without Gibsons agreement.
As owner, Gibson is the only man at the club with a cast iron veto. He could have said no, he didn’t. Bamford joined Leeds 31/07/18 it was a further 31 days till Saville came in when I suspect panic had set in at Gibson HQ. I think the reason we are where we are on transfers, and many other matters is predominantly down to poor recruitment and retention rather than poor coaching (Monk, Woodgate and Strachan excluded as that was seemingly clueless coaching)

I firmly accept that in order to generate money for transfers, a sale was probably needed. Bamford was the only asset with a bid and for a potential profit at that time (imho). I think the henchman that made the transfer happen was Uncle Tony, but in doing so was following orders from on high as he agreed to accept Leeds offer, not TP. As you know several players have come in where managers have stated they did not buy them or implied they were not their personal choice, more gifts. Alves, Forshaw, Rhodes, Downing, Howson said on video that the deal was agreed before end of previous season and therefore before Monks appointment. Woodgates ‘powerpoint’ trio of Dijksteel, Bola and Browne were never his talent spotting ideas. Managers have input but imho do not have carte blanche freedom on signings or sales. There will be others. Every purchase or sale has to be agreed by Gibson. If Gibson wants it to happen it does, if he doesn’t it doesn’t. It is his club, his money, his right to do so, as you know.
 
coluka said:
It is fine to disagree 😉

I totally accept we effectively swapped Bamford for Saville as an outcome, but not the reason. As Zorro rightly says, nothing happens without Gibsons agreement.
As owner, Gibson is the only man at the club with a cast iron veto. He could have said no, he didn’t. Bamford joined Leeds 31/07/18 it was a further 31 days till Saville came in when I suspect panic had set in at Gibson HQ. I think the reason we are where we are on transfers, and many other matters is predominantly down to poor recruitment and retention rather than poor coaching (Monk, Woodgate and Strachan excluded as that was seemingly clueless coaching)

I firmly accept that in order to generate money for transfers, a sale was probably needed. Bamford was the only asset with a bid and for a potential profit at that time (imho). I think the henchman that made the transfer happen was Uncle Tony, but in doing so was following orders from on high as he agreed to accept Leeds offer, not TP. As you know several players have come in where managers have stated they did not buy them or implied they were not their personal choice, more gifts. Alves, Forshaw, Rhodes, Downing, Howson said on video that the deal was agreed before end of previous season and therefore before Monks appointment. Woodgates ‘powerpoint’ trio of Dijksteel, Bola and Browne were never his talent spotting ideas. Managers have input but imho do not have carte blanche freedom on signings or sales. There will be others. Every purchase or sale has to be agreed by Gibson. If Gibson wants it to happen it does, if he doesn’t it doesn’t. It is his club, his money, his right to do so, as you know.
Click to expand...
Of course it's fine we disagree.

pulis was given carte blanche to do what he saw fit.
Of course Gibson has the ultimate veto, but when he has publicly declared his absolute support for pulis and asked for his complete overhaul of the club "from top to bottom" then he would go along with selling Bamford and back his idiotic manager.
It was the single most stupid decision we have made about a player on our books since letting Mark Schwartzer walk away for nothing.
 
indeedido said:
Of course it's fine we disagree.

pulis was given carte blanche to do what he saw fit.
Of course Gibson has the ultimate veto, but when he has publicly declared his absolute support for pulis and asked for his complete overhaul of the club "from top to bottom" then he would go along with selling Bamford and back his idiotic manager.
It was the single most stupid decision we have made about a player on our books since letting Mark Schwartzer walk away for nothing.
Click to expand...
I accept and understand the comments Gibson made re Pulis and why you think (and you may be right) he had carte blanche to undertake his assessment across all aspects of the club. Gibson said it. Is all that glitters gold though?

Any astute businessman would not employ a proven liar and failed football manager to undertake that process though, astute people would employ experts in that field, maybe a Kenyon type, very few managers are astute on areas away from the training pitches. An astute businessman might employ a proven liar and failed football manager to act as a frontman for such a charade and pay them handsomely to do so, a human shield say, while actually making the decisions oneself. Teflon coating oneself for the fans yet again by so doing. Just a theory I heard.
 
festa5 said:
Gibson might have signed off on it, but I find it pretty hard to believe he was sold without Pulis input. In fact Pulis' comments since suggest he very much made the decision. "Our only saleable asset" etc. Not to mention the fact Pulis has happily taken credit for all our other sales.
Click to expand...
Do people think that Gibson sold Bamford? I mean obviously what happened was Pullis had a phonecall telling him Bamford had been sold to Leeds. Not sure why anyone would think the opposite.

Wait, is it because it is preposterous nonsense?
 
coluka said:
I accept and understand the comments Gibson made re Pulis and why you think (and you may be right) he had carte blanche to undertake his assessment across all aspects of the club. Gibson said it. Is all that glitters gold though?

Any astute businessman would not employ a proven liar and failed football manager to undertake that process though, astute people would employ experts in that field, maybe a Kenyon type, very few managers are astute on areas away from the training pitches. An astute businessman might employ a proven liar and failed football manager to act as a frontman for such a charade and pay them handsomely to do so, a human shield say, while actually making the decisions oneself. Teflon coating oneself for the fans yet again by so doing. Just a theory I heard.
Click to expand...
You know I think Gibson is Mr Teflon in the eyes of many and I am sure that his public image is very important to him. He had had a period where his Supportive chairman image has been impacted, with the quick dismissal of Karanka followed by the quick turnaround of Agnew and Monk. I think when he got pulis in, it was with the lure of a horrendous salary £85k per week for his 18 months, plus the air cover to do what he wanted.
That pulis was so willing to sell players from day one with Christie, Forshaw etc showed how poor the recruitment had been, how much Monk had over-spent and how pulis was being remunerated.
Of course Gibson could have vetoed the sale of Bamford, but it appeared very much a back me or sack me situation, which would have been very expensive for Gibson.
 
festa5 said:
It's not like people are bemoaning his sale with the benefit of hindsight. Plenty of us were furious at the time.

And the suggestion Pulis had nothing to do with it? Give over, the bloke didn't rate Bamford as a striker that was blindingly obvious. Gibson might have signed off on it, but I find it pretty hard to believe he was sold without Pulis input. In fact Pulis' comments since suggest he very much made the decision. "Our only saleable asset" etc. Not to mention the fact Pulis has happily taken credit for all our other sales.
Click to expand...
Of course he was sold with Pulis’s input. Someone had to get their hands dirty to make it happen. Pulis will have been very well paid to do exactly the job he was employed to do. That will no doubt have included accepting flak from transfers. The complexities in organisations generally are not always straight forward, but within a football club........... The public facing front and the inner goings on are, well, much darker and less obvious.
 
indeedido said:
You know I think Gibson is Mr Teflon in the eyes of many and I am sure that his public image is very important to him. He had had a period where his Supportive chairman image has been impacted, with the quick dismissal of Karanka followed by the quick turnaround of Agnew and Monk. I think when he got pulis in, it was with the lure of a horrendous salary £85k per week for his 18 months, plus the air cover to do what he wanted.
That pulis was so willing to sell players from day one with Christie, Forshaw etc showed how poor the recruitment had been, how much Monk had over-spent and how pulis was being remunerated.
Of course Gibson could have vetoed the sale of Bamford, but it appeared very much a back me or sack me situation, which would have been very expensive for Gibson.
Click to expand...
Both Christie and Forshaw were profits on transfer dealings (salaries excluded) they generated money and freed up salaries for incomings and both were good deals tbf as Christie is as bad a RB in modern football as there is, and we have had a few. I totally see your point on the back me or sack me bit, I just think things were maybe a bit more ‘complex’ than that from the snippets I have been told. I think both viewpoints are plausible, the truth i doubt will ever be published, non disclosure contracts will prevent that i’m sure.
 
He is gone ........why are people obsessed with the bloke , clubs buy & sell all the time , some right ......more often get it wrong !

Go watch leeds not Boro if you want to watch Bamford week in & out , far too many threads about a ex player .......just my opinion mind
 
coluka said:
Pulis will have been very well paid to do exactly the job he was employed to do. That will no doubt have included accepting flak from transfers.
Click to expand...
What, like a "manager"?

It's almost like Gibson was letting him do the job he was employed to do, the calculating batsard.
 
festa5 said:
Well in a full season playing for Karanka, in a side that was a lot less attacking and finished lower in the table, Bamford managed more goals in fewer games than his best full season under Bielsa.

But yeah, all down to Bielsa, can't possibly be that, er, Bamford might actually be a pretty good player can it? 🙄
Click to expand...

I don’t recall saying he wasn’t a good player ?

How many mangers, Karanka/Agnew included failed to get a tune out of him in the PL?
 
The thing is Warnock is kinda searching the market for a quality striker and a winger when Pulis had this in Bamford and Harrison he left them to rot on the bench
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top