Erm, Rich at that stage he hadn't bought Nicholls. One would assume Nicholls becoming available was a bonus. Remember he bid for Nicholls and Howard together and it got rejected, then they sold Howard.
Also, for all we know there may have been interest in someone buying Bakke - maybe Oleary had made enquiries? Then that falls through or nothing materialises (OLeary gets the sack) so we now have Bakke until at least Jan. The point about little money is that he has to generate the money before he can spend it. From all the facts he had at the time, Livermore was a solid player to buy, because he would be first cover for midfield, but also could play defence and wide left. We then get Nicholls, and another midfield player (Cisse?). The german defender also looks like a good player, so if he gets a deal (or Foxe) then we have defensive cover. So on balance, whereas Livermore was a solid signing before Foxe/German/Nicholls/Cisse/? Now he isn't. Hull came in for him, so it makes perfect sense to make a bit of room in the budgets to replace Livermore with a 1st team midfielder. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Walker Sent: 02 August 2006 08:47 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [LU] Livermore! bleating on about how little money we have. Why would you pay 3/4 of a million for a player who if everyone was fit wouldn't get a game. _______________________________________________ the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. Leedslist mailing list [email protected] http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist oh alright then :-)
