The value of player is subjective and depends on how we plan to utilise him: I think Jerome is more suited to Pulis style of playing than Shane Long ...who hasn't exactly been prolific ...so I can understand the comparison. I also agree with what Browett implies that Hull paid too much for Jelavic and he would not sanction that type of a deal.

What's the odds that either Jelavic or Long score against us ?

Let's not forget we have Jack Hunt and FFS to come back. That's 2 new signings straight away.

I agree with both sides though, yes of course we wanted signings to be made on Jan 1st, and I actually expected that too. However, we have to applaud the owners for sticking to their guns and refusing to break the strict wage structure we have here to ensure it doesn't all go t!ts up financially again. It's a gamble that we all know isn't worth it.

I have faith in Parish and Co, they haven't let us down yet have they.

What IF we sign two strikers and a midfielder on reasonably hefty contracts, £5 mill a piece and one breaks his leg getting out of the bath, the other turns into Shefti and the third is reasonable but we still get relegated?
We've lumped out £15 on players, umpteen £'s on wages and we're in the championship pit that all agree is hell to get back out of - look at the money QPR has spent and they aint assured of getting back up. They are forunate in that they have an endless supply of money - WE DON'T.

Look at Bendtner from ths Ar$e, we nearly had him on dumbass ages and now he's long term injured, just what we'd need.

I'd far rather BUSINESSMEN that know what they are doing, with guidance from the likes of Moody et al, carry on running the club like they are rather than spending money for the sake of it.

Edited by paperhat (23 Jan 2014 10.42am)

Clinton is Clinton. I have known him for a long time, I know his mother... Simon Jordan

Two points:

1. I'm not remotely interested whether Browett (or any of the board) think Jelavic is no better than Jerome. But if Pulis feels he isn't then that's good enough for me. So as long as TP and not he board made the decision, I'm fine with it. But I wish Browett had said "Tony thinks..." rather than the way the OP here phrased it ("the board think...).

2. I don't know if you guys are medically aware at all, but Murray's injury was a major one. It's generally considered sensible to give it a year before returning; it's quite possible to do it in 9 months but that doesn't make it advisable. Anyway, my point is that anything we get out of Murray this season should be considered an unexpected bonus. We really should not be relying on him returning in any way.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

If Long and Jelavic start banging in the goals then you may have a point.

Or they could do a 'Bent'. Who, interestingly, was going to be be our 'star signing' in the summer. Now, had I asked in the summer who everyone would prefer, Bent or Jerome, I think Bent would have been the first choice. Ask the same question now and I bet It'd be Jerome all day.

Finally, your conjecture that the board need to stay out of football matters is just that- conjecture. For all we know Browett may have asked Pullis and Moody about whether Long should be one of our targets. To which they said he's no better than what we have already.

Someone's got to be the mouthpiece, the conduit of information at Palace. I don't want to see Pullis or Moody wasting their time either constantly updating the media or spending time online answering questions. Let the people doing the actual work get on and do it, while members of the board keep up the updates.

However, if you don't like the updates, I maintain its conjecture to blame the messenger as the one one who is responsible for the implications of the content.

When the time comes, I want die just like my Dad - at peace and asleep.
Not screaming and terrified.
Like his passengers.