Do we believe this?

For example, if Pukki had picked up a season ending injury, we'd have need another striker - so (even if a loan) we'd have needed money for that. We could not have been expected to play the rest of the season with Idah (now also injured) could we?
In any event, surely it would have been more sensible to hold some money back from the summer for later in case it was needed. None of the summer signings have proved to be so good that we could not avoid missing out on them.
Finally, who had final say on these new signings? Was it Farke or Webber? Just curious.

Posted By: Bonzo, Apr 24, 13:53:50