I don't think we need a marquee per se, what we
desperately need, to be play-off and title contenders is a second
striker who will score 8 or 9 goals (27 game season). If we then have
to designate our highest paid player marquee status to manage salary
cap constraints then so be it.
A "name" marquee, unless he is that second striker, may put bums
on seats in the short term but, if the team isn't consistently
winning the additional bums on seats won't keep coming back.
The best way to get big crowds is consistently win, especially at
home, ideally playing attractive, entertaining football i.e. build a
well balanced squad with sufficient depth to cover injuries /
suspensions, good on and off field leadership etc etc rather than pay
mega bucks for a "name".
I guess you could try and do both - balanced squad + "name"
marquee but that's clearly not financially realistic for most clubs -
especially given the realities of the current financial situation.
I agree with you but I just think the whole point of a marquee is to
create a buzz about the club and the league too in fact. But I believe
that he can be a good player too. If he's creating a buzz and playing
good football then he doesn't have to be a striker.
A lot like Fred I guess, created hype and helped play the team better.
Guess that's why Tony P has said he would take him on as marquee. I'd
love to see him come but I still think we should look at other places
rather than leaving the marquee on hold or just stretching it out with
another squad player.
I agree that if we do have to give our highest paid player marquee
status then we should, But we should still look at players who
could
fill the gap. Even if we do resort back to stretching the squad. And
if we can find a quality striker then why not offer him marquee to seal
the deal if he's worth it.
