[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=41155.msg1143298#msg1143298 date=1280246483]
[quote author=grjt link=topic=41155.msg1143296#msg1143296 date=1280246319]
[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=41155.msg1143289#msg1143289 date=1280245956]
[quote author=Brendan link=topic=41155.msg1143284#msg1143284 date=1280245811]
Nothing, obviously. It's pointless even trying to debate the toss, because his argument is as selective as always.
I've already outlined my thoughts on this.
[/quote]
I don't get it Bren. Hodgson played down Cole talk two days before he was unveiled.
His comments re Insua were fair, I thought. The club had already decided who was surplus (which happened when Rafa took over too, re Heskey).
[/quote]
I think this is the crux Mark, but leaving the squad with zero available left backs would simply not happen unless Hodgson had agreed with the move to continue. Im not saying he had a huge amount of time to decide, but as I said earlier, there would have been detailed discussions between Roy and the club regarding the players we were looking to get shot of. If Roy strongly disagreed with any of these in the Riera/ Insua bracket then we'd be keeping them.
[/quote]
Well yeah, so maybe he was just being polite regards the lad. It's not beyond the realms, even in the modern game. I'm sure he could have vetoed the deal if he wanted to, though I'm sure the club also had a financial plan in place regards how much they could raise and which players were saleable.
[/quote]
Definitely.
There will have been an end of year review involving all the conversations and feedback from Rafa, the coaching staff and even Kenny regarding the squads stengths and weaknesses, and which players were surplus to requirements (based on performances, contract longevity, etc).
In discussions with Roy they will have mapped out where he has room to manouver, and the consequences of keeping a player earmarked for selling, Riera for example (ie takes available money away from other signings/ targets).