Is it that, or is it our club's complete ineptitude at shifting players?
I'm still not sure fans realise the impact of having no UEFA football. It really is just a game a week and all you need is a lean squad, plus youngsters.
We currently have 5 GK's, where we need 3. We have 6 full-backs where we need 4. We need to shift about 3 centre halves and buy one or two, and with the return of Gio and Tanguy the midfield is looking packed.
This is such a long term issue under ENIC. It stops us from buying that one or two quality players that can make a difference.
This accusation really is a nonsense; I don't know who makes this stuff up, but it really isn't worth repeating anymore. It really is tiresome.
Do you know how clubs actually move on players?
Firstly, of course a club can cancel a players registration at anytime; but then the player will legally be due all sums under his contract, paid in full.
Or, and normally the first step (95% of the time), it will meet with the player/agent; these days normally (the agent) after head coach/head of recruitment has told the player that they want to move him on.
His agent will have a scouting/playing profile/dossier thats's generally agreed with the club, and often now it will be loaded straight up to a trading platform, unless the agent says he'd rather handle it directly himself - all of this is generally down as soon as the season ends, not before - for obvious reasons.
The agent will then spread the word across the agents network, and almost certainly then start approaching clubs the player thinks might suit him.
The issue of course, if you are selling him for poor performance that you're 'ask' can be severely undermined from the moment the word is spread, and that's even before the club have to consider how they settle their contract, or make -up the shortfall in salary that the agent/player has to swallow. This can be substantial issue.
The 'clock' is driven by the players agent and the player, until such time, a buying club does more than say 'keep us informed of developments'...only when an offer is made (these days only after personal terms are agreed with the player), can the selling squad respond.
I could go on and on about the complexities, and there are many many more layers that have to be peeled, examined and agreed upon in a selling deal. Not least of which is what the agent(s) demands are in all this.
If a player decides to turn down a move as Tanganga did last summer, there is almost fuck all a club can do, except tear up his registration, and this is a rarity.
So please understand it is a marketplace like any other commodity marketplace where assets in demand will achieve their ask and assets that aren't can often not be sold and remain sat on the shelf, unless or until a player / his agent realises they face a season of non-playing.
It is rarely, probably 1:100 where a club takes the decision making away from a player.
This club can be held accountable for many things, but this is simply not one of them; the issue here is, the lack of clubs chasing / wanting our peripheral players/surplus to requirements.
Player agents will often extend the period of non-agreement on purpose as it obviously piles on the pressure on the selling club, and that's when you see a period of *apparent* inactivity, as you think you're seeing now.
