"On the playing side Hammond has been an unmitigated disaster. Player after player has been approached and turned down the club. Those that were interested found themselves in protracted negotiations before eventually stumbling over the line. Every rejected has led to days and weeks of inactivity, almost as if the shock of not immediately getting a player to sign has frozen Hammond in fear until the shock wears off and he tries again."

Virtually everything in this paragraph is made up or unsubstantiated, and then tops it off with blaming Hammond for the things that they have just made up. How does the writer know there has been "inactivity"? What does this inactivity look like? Just people sitting around reading the paper? Who knows why players have turned us down? Is it because Hammond has really bad BO or because the money wasn't right, they didn't fancy it, their agents advised against it or they got a better offer?

Let's get this right - we could sign ten players TODAY.
They would inevitably be shit and we'd be lumbered with them and their wages for 4 years.

Good players both cost more, aren't automatically interested, and also will consider their options a lot more.

So it's going to be a process. I'd rather wait 6 weeks for a good player than sign a shit one in 10 seconds for the sake of it. That article is drivel frankly.