If you look at other posts I've been making you'll see I'm far from happy with the squad, in particular as soon as Roberts had explained his contract situation on MOTD I said we should look to sign him. I've also said we should have been after Connolly who's also joined Reading because as he can play aywhere along the back line and is good in the air he'd be better cover for Hobbs and Rosenior than Cooper and East are. (Cooper covering Chester is a different matter to him covering Hobbs). The difference in our views is I don't automatically assume we're being lied to, especially when the lie makes no sense. My opinion is that BARMBY THINKS the squad is good enough. It makes no sense for him to lie about it. In the short term the main issue is depth, we don't have enough defenders and we have too many strikers that all do the same thing. In the short term he doesn't need to worry about upsetting the players by saying he wants to bring in a defender or two, or a big man up front (it'll upset Adebola but he must know Barmby's thoughts on him anyway). In the long term, at some point Barmby is going to be looking for a job. He does not want to be on record saying he's happy with this squad if he's not, because if the season falls apart because Rosenior breaks his leg or something the fact he didn't see a problem with the lack of depth will shine through as a huge failing by him. Equally he's not going to say he's got money he doesn't want to spend for the same reason, at least without mentioning the money he could claim in interviews he was working with limited resources. The fact is it makes no sense for their comments to be anything but the truth. The fact they're wrong is a different matter, and it's not even debateable. If Rosenior (as one example) gets injured long term there is no cover for him, therefore we shouldn't be happy with the squad. Being unable to find suitable players is different, but there'd be no negative effects come from saying that so why would they lie?