Thumbheed

Free for all, by far. And it's not even close. Can easily make the argument that allowing uncapped spending would put us, PSG and City on a completely different plane to the rest of the clubs and make it even less competitive than it is now, which in itself would be total hypocrisy. Furthermore the implications of uncapped spending could be detrimental to the market and more importantly the fans. If a nation is allowed to spend whatever they want then why would they care what the fans think or want? And tbf, I did say they need updating to allow for competition to grow but not at the behest of the above.

Anyone else hoping that City and Villa don't unlock Pandora's box and allow a free for all? The rules need updating to allow for growth, but sustainability needs to underpin all of that and we do need to stop financial doping as it's essentially cheating anyway.

£16-20m for a 21 year old on the cusp of the senior squad seems risk free to me. I cant envisage a situation where we wouldnt recoup a significant portion of that back if required so on that basis this seems a no brainer to me. Having said that, I'd still love Mama based entirely on the fact he's forrin

Could say the same about alot of our players tbf

Who'd have thought that 6 months after certain relegation we'd end up signing one of the best striker in the world.

A DM would make a difference, the CBs pushing up more could make a difference but in order for the latter to happen we need more quality on the ball when we're in the opponents half and that to me comes down to having better CM's.

Nevermind

Getting in a top quality free transfer is hard enough, but getting in 2 tells me we've painted quite a picture of t future of the club to them both. I'm calling it, this summer is going to be transformational.

Can't say i watched too much of Burnley but I thought they looked good against us tbh. Better players with that style of football and I can see him doing quite well tbf. Whether he has the gravitas to get absolute superstars to buy into his principles is a totally up in the air though.

Think my only disappointment with missing out on him would be that it means we would need to syphon budget away from other areas of the field, but as for missing out on him as a player, I'm pretty comfortable with our ability to identify fantastic players so it's a bit of a meh overall.

But he is injury prone? And that was implied in the message I quoted (ie making reference to Wilson's own record as a comparative), so why go for someone who has that in there make up, when we have our pick of 95% of the strikers out there? If his injury record isn't as bad is made out, why is his goal record not as good as it should be? Something doesn't add up...

Well, we're having to replace him for that very same reason. I'd be extremely happy with a version of an injury free Wilson, however that's not the reality and it's impacting us so why replicate it?

Still don’t get this view. GK aside, which position significantly impacts our performance the most when first options are out? Fullbacks - not really, no. Centre halves - I don't think so, Burn and Lascelles have both put in shifts LW - nope RW - arguably but not to the extent that we become a poorer side, just less affective in attack. Striker - not really, but the risk comes from how injury prone our back up is Midfield- aye. If either Bruno or Joelinton are out we become a significantly easier team to beat. Midfield absolutely needs reinforcing. I will die on this hill.

It counts for less when he scored 7 and even less when not all of those games were starts or full games in a team crying out for someone of his ability.

If he's technically good enough with the ball at his feet - which I assume they've assessed - then no reason why he can't work on that side of the game. What we do know is that Pope isn't good with the ball by his feet and nor will he ever be, sadly.

We're also disrupting a direct rival team's plans as well, for balance. I'd pay a couple million to do that.

Howe's seemed to allow him to invert alot more than Tripper or Tino so I assumed he recognises those qualities too.

Can't knock him tbf. Loyalty is a rare commodity in football.

Just curious to see him play one game in midfield. Just one.

A prem proven GK at £15m would be outrageous value, especially if it means we add an extra 20m to the outfield budget. We can always revisit that position when our income warrants it. Edit: all rides on whether that valuations is right, obviously. I'm thinking not.

I think he's forcing their hand in wage negotiations and will re-sign for Chelsea but if there's any chance we should be in there.

Hmmm, not sure about that. I think he's a better dribbler in tight spaces which we really need in midfield but his (Tonali's) distribution is far better

Aye, think that's his preference but he'd be a superb signing. Can't think of a more Eddie Howe type player.

Said it before but if there's any chance we can get Gallagher we should. He's been excellent this season.

We have about 95% of the market at our disposal. I reckon we can be a little more adventurous than Ross Barkley