I'm finding this argument very confusing. You claimed that Bruce spent £80m in one season. Was that right or wrong?
They may do it to finalise an opinion but they don't rely on it. A lot of clubs now actively avoid the 'eye test' as it can be deceiving.
Oh that's ok then i will tell my friends who are always on the road they don't have to be driving around everywhere.
Clubs use freelancers/agencies more to compile scouting reports - it's just one of the ways the economy of football has changed in recent years - and there may be an avoidance of individual bias in doing it that way, but I'm pretty sure that it still entails bums on seats in stands actually watching players play.
So to summarise. Bruce spent between 40 million and 80 Million over 1 or 2 seasons( delete where applicable)got us relegated then promoted. He then walked before the new season in the prem. In the meantime we have never recovered and the city is now again full of young kids in Liverpool shirts( and that’s the bit that kills me).
I presume you were told this by Steve Bruce himself? Or is speculation only not allowed when it comes to accounting.
I can understand that at the time we went back up and at the time Bruce left that no one could have known what value some of the players he signed would eventually realise. And from the accounts it seems reasonable that 80m investment in 2 years had resulted In relegation by the end of that second season. In hindsight though, the business done under Bruce turned out to be financially astute, but I can accept that wasnt to be known at the time he left.
I have no idea if that's the case or not, but what I do know for certain, is that your claim that the club bent over backwards to keep him, is absolutely not true. In fact, it's the polar opposite of what happened.
Though it's obviously true that it wasn't possible to know what fees those players would command in the future, they had just got us promoted to the Premier League and you didn't have to be a genius to know that the likes of Maguire, Robertson, Livermore, Snodgrass, Clucas and Diame were worth a fair few quid.
It also ignores the fact that the 2 promotions resulted in guaranteed income that went a long way towards to a return on that initial investment. But again, Urika is passing on info, he wasn't the one calling the shots and has himself questioned the wisdom of getting rid of Bruce Iirc. Oh, and Maguire had hardly played under Bruce.
It isn't a claim it was what I was told by the person who bent over backwards to persuade him to stay. Your source must have been Steve Bruce himself then ?
Well then it's hardly surprising he would have that perspective, same as its hardly surprising that the account coming from the club is the opposite hahah!