I am not backtracking at all. I have answered the point in the email I was composing as you sent this email.
Selling Livermore before the other player(s) have signed is not bad business as the impact on the squad in doing that is minimal at best. And your assertion makes an assumption there was a choice about when to sell Livermore to Hull. Either the deal for the other player is/was as good as done and/or Hull City wanted to do the deal there and then and would not be prepared to wait until the end of the week. Presumably they want him in their first team on Saturday, so every day for them is crucial. Bad business would have been to hold onto a player that we could have sold and end up not being able to sell for a season. Hull may have had other irons in the fire, there is no guarantee that they would have wanted him in January even. Its especially bad business if by holding on to that player you cannot get in the second player due to monetry restrictions (transfer fees or wages). You risk the medium/long term strength of your team for a minimal risk in terms of Nicholls being out all season and the second player being hit by a bus or something. I stand by what I said, having the balls to sell Livermore was, in my opinion, a good and brave decision. It shows he is being proactive in building the squad and it shows he knows what he wants to do. Contrary to the other conclusion drawn from events that he is 'clueless'. And again I would ask you all, do you think that for one second Bates would sanction this if he considered it bad business, football or money-wise? -----Original Message----- From: Tim Leslie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 03 August 2006 11:12 To: Mark Humphries Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: [LU] Livermore SOLD Pedantry is the first sign of backtraking Mark. Saying 'good business' doesn't necessarily have to equate to financial matters! You are saying that KB is doing a good job of strengthening the squad, IF (And thats the point I'm trying to make) this mystery signing doesn't sign, for whatever reason, then we don't necessarily have a stronger squad do we? Selling Livermore BEFORE confirming the signing of this other player is bad practise, business, strategy whatever you want to call it. > Make your mind up, are you talking about good business, or improving the > squad? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Leslie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 03 August 2006 11:06 > To: Mark Humphries > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [LU] Livermore SOLD > > So it's good business to buy Nicholls, buy Livermore then sell Livermore > now that Nicholls is injured? > >> Nicholls for one. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tim Leslie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: 03 August 2006 10:41 >> To: Mark Humphries >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [LU] Livermore SOLD >> >> Sorry Mark, you talk about improving the squad (i.e. The Livermore >> Situation) .... ermmm Who's he replaced him with then??? Where is this >> wonder signing! What if we fail to agree personal terms with him, >> whoever >> he may be? It's all very well saying he bought him and then two players >> became available so he sold him. Thats only good business if Nicholls >> recovers and Ronhaldinhio signs ;o) >> >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ 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 :-)
