Us selling bamford to Leeds

zorro_mfc

Well-known member
I know it’s been a while but I don’t think I’ll ever understand the reasoning for this. Watching him here and talking about poss eng caps etc.

For me one of if not the most stupid decision we’ve made in a long time.

I thought it was madness then and it looks even worse now. It’s not like got a king ransom for him either.

Nope I’ll never understand it.
 

BoroBen92

Well-known member
Money.

We made a profit on him, we could never make a profit on Assombalonga after what we spent on him.

It'll always go down as a big mistake, he's got so much more about his game, but the decision will have been almost purely financial.
 

joeydiaz

Member
He’s a quality player no doubt about it, but I feel like he’s currently too casual. Also takes a fair few chances for him to bury one.
 

zorro_mfc

Well-known member
But what did we do with that money so in real terms financially it made no difference.

So we didn’t really make money at all.

Prob spent the cash on loaning Hugill and van la parra as well.
 

festa5

Well-known member
He was sold because Pulis didn't think he was good enough and wanted to replace him with a big lump of a striker.

In his eyes Bamford was too lightweight.

This. The dwindling number of Pulis apologists use the money argument but it's nonsense when you look at what he spent that season.

Pulis didn't fancy him as a striker and preferred players like Hugill or Gestede. Expensive squad player I suppose but I've very little doubt football guru Pulis forced him out for playing reasons. Looked crazy at the time, even more so know. Unfortunately Gibson thinks the sun shines out of Pulis **** so that was that.
 

BoroBen92

Well-known member
Did that actually happen!? - I must have somehow missed that one LOL.... But it sounds like madness.

Yeah, they tried to buy him just after we were relegated.
In fairness, we weren't really to know just how big a waste of money he would prove to be at that point.
The worst he'd done was that missed header against Swansea.

But then we also brought in three more expensive strikers whilst keeping him, some utterly baffling decisions have been made in the last few years.
 

chickenrunner

Well-known member
Unfortunately the Bamford sale smacks of a large conglomerate business in financial trouble. They usually end up divesting themselves of the good bits that other people want and keeping all the cr*p.
 

Cardiffdaffs

Well-known member
You know in 60 years time there will be wizened old men sat in the corner of a pub playing digital dominos and audibly bemoaning the fact that we once sold Bamford and kept Gestede.

They will have moist eyes as they stare into the past, barely concealing their anger and frustration that once the Boro had a striker that was good enough for England but not good enough for Pulis. Schoolboys will ask them what was he really like and the moist eyes would swell into floods of tears as they recall his grace and beauty and the glove wearing.
 

UKLL1981

Well-known member
At the time wasn’t it suggested his wages were too high for us? Thought I remember hearing we couldn’t really afford to turn the bid down because of ffp. Pulis was a dinosaur but he was also trying to balance the books after Monks shopping spree.
 
Top
X