Jump to content

Transfer rumours


Yorkie

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, christ said:

Hoffenheim confirmed it was £40m upfront when the deal was announced.

 

£10m of that probably went towards persuading them to put that statement out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ben said:

I think using Joelinton as a signpost for transfer fees is a bit daft, in fact I don't that fee went to hoffenheim at all tbf.

Why, however its paid installments or over a number of years, he'll still cost 40m at some point.

 

Ok so is Nicolas Pepe at 72m better? Or haverts 72m, Pulisic 57m,

Haller 45m, Ndombele 55m, Naby Keita 55m, Fred 53m, Wan Bisaka 50m. There's a host of players signed by clubs for ridiculous fees. 

 

However someone "signposts" a transfer fee as you put it, be it Joelinton at 40m or Pepe at 72m, someone will pay, and ASM is a super star, he's way better than 50m or under. 

 

My opinion he's a top four winger when fit. He would possibly struggle to get in City's side regularly or possibly Liverpool's (Jota can though),  but have no issues playing or keeping a place in most other PL sides.

 

 

Edited by mighty__mag

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest reefatoon

Why did Ashley have such a chubby on for Joelinton? Something very dodgy about that deal like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, reefatoon said:

Why did Ashley have such a chubby on for Joelinton? Something very dodgy about that deal like.

 

Especially considering he wouldn't have the slightest clue who Joelinton was. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 29/07/2021 at 19:02, nbthree3 said:

Transfer related, it's a good piece in The Athletic about how our budget works. It's not fixed and it's pretty much case-by-case. 

"as things stand, multiple sources expect there will only be sufficient funds to make two loan signings and one permanent addition this window as Bruce targets a left centre-back, a defensive midfielder and a No 8."

 

"For a start, they do not have a fixed, predetermined “budget” per se. They do identify a portion of their revenue to be set aside for incomings — previously, it has been the amount remaining once operating costs are subtracted from turnover, supplemented by player sales — but that figure is flexible and can potentially be increased (or indeed squeezed) depending on which targets prove attainable."

 

"The hierarchy are unlikely to permit the signing of two 27-year-olds for £10 million each but, should Arsenal prove willing to sell Willock for around £20 million, then Newcastle may consider exhausting their resources to secure his signature."

 

"Under Ashley, the three major principles that have driven Newcastle’s transfer approach have included age (24 and under), potential sell-on value and quality. Unless those strict criteria were met, then substantial fees would not be spent on players — but, if they were, then Newcastle were willing to stretch to greater lengths to finance a deal they believed to be an attractive one."

 

"What Benitez wanted was to be told you have “£x million” and you can spend it how you see fit, be that by acquiring one player or five. Yet Newcastle told him to treat every deal individually and they would consider each target on their merits. They did not want Benitez to be fixated on a set kitty because, in theory, they may reject a request for three £5 million players, but may then permit a £25 million acquisition for the “right player”."

 

"Newcastle would not have spent £15 million on just anyone, but Lewis was 22 and being tracked by some of England’s top clubs, primarily Liverpool, which suggested genuine sell-on potential. In effect, Lewis was signed outside of Newcastle’s actual “budget” because he was deemed to be a prospect worth extending their resources for."

 

"The Norwich winger was hardly a priority target for Benitez but, because he was 22, available for an initial £10 million and deemed likely to appreciate in value, Newcastle were keen to acquire him and so the manager brought him in, in part, because it was a deal he was able to conclude." (Murphy)

 

"The owner was annoyed that Benitez did not permit the purchase in February 2019 and feared the club had missed the chance to sign the 22-year-old Brazilian, even claiming he offered to personally “pay” £23 million towards the fee. Benitez, though, wanted the soon-to-be 29-year-old, Salomon Rondon, instead. The Venezuelan impressively led the line, scoring 11 top-flight goals on loan on Tyneside, but his age (and admittedly high wage demands) meant Newcastle would not pursue a permanent move."

 

“It wasn’t even as if it was him (Joelinton) or Salomon Rondon,” Ashley told the Daily Mail in July 2019. “And we told him (Benitez) that. We just wanted Joelinton secured."

 

 

 

 

This transfer approach at least has some reasoning to it and could be somewhat feasible with a younger up to date manager that is big on player development. Why can't these morons identify such a person for goodness sake?!

 

Every single manager that has been brought in has been inappropriate for this approach to recruitment. So bloody infuriating man. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KaKa said:

 

This transfer approach at least has some reasoning to it and could be somewhat feasible with a younger up to date manager that is big on player development. Why can't these morons identify such a person for goodness sake?!

 

Every single manager that has been brought in has been inappropriate for this approach to recruitment. So bloody infuriating man. 

 

 

Did you read this bit: 

 

"The hierarchy are unlikely to permit the signing of two 27-year-olds for £10 million each but, should Arsenal prove willing to sell Willock for around £20 million, then Newcastle may consider exhausting their resources to secure his signature."

 

27 yr olds for £10m each man. Yet he was asking for £10m+ for a 30yr old injury prone striker in Gayle not so long ago. I wonder how many games he'll play for us this season on his new contract?

 

The right 27 year old would probably give you 6yrs good service for that £10m fee. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, reefatoon said:

Why did Ashley have such a chubby on for Joelinton? Something very dodgy about that deal like.

Apparently Ashley had a dodgy deal with the owner to buy shares in a media company that are in Ashley's name but used Newcastles money, similar to the Strawberry land sale 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 30/07/2021 at 09:47, jonbobson said:

What difference will that make?

 

People keep saying "an empty stadium and he will sell" on what basis? When has that ever happened in top flight football?

 

The only time Ashley will sell up is when it suits him.

1992

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jonbobson said:

Lol, no worries, but even the seasons before that, the low gates weren't the reason mckeag was forced out.

Not sure what happened there. I think I thought you were responding to Ben in regards to being relegated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1470664/Arsenal-transfer-news-Joe-Willock-Newcastle-gossip 

Ian McGarry says Newcastle have tabled an improved loan bid for Willock.

 

But the Gunners want him to stay after seeing his performances when on loan last term.

"They want to keep Joe Willock," McGarry said.

"My information is that Newcastle United have made an improved offer in terms of loan fee to take Joe Willock again for a season.

 

"Arsenal have declined that offer and in doing so informed the player and his agent that he is in Mikel Arteta's plans having proven himself in the division with Newcastle United.

"So it looks to me like they will retain Willock on the basis he will get game time and they will develop him at the Emirates Stadium rather than have him do so elsewhere.

"Not saying that it's definitely not the case he will go out on loan but at this moment in time, I think Arteta is keen to keep his options open."

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair to Muto - never thought he was that bad, but didn't strike me as someone that was going to fit into the team. Fair play to him taking a pay cut to go to Vissel, but I've got no faith that he will be replaced...more likely its the "fourth GK" slot required!

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Disco said:

He’s just hit the bar for the Arsenal in their friendly against Chelsea.

It should have been a goal. Clearly crossed the line 

 

 

 

Edited by gdm

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gdm said:

Arsenal won’t let him go IMO 


I agree. I think if we were ran like a proper top level football club and put the money down for him at the end of last season then it would have been a done deal. Should have been the most straight forward, slam dunk signing this version of NUFC could ever make.

 

He will have returned to Arsenal a different player after the loan spell. Now he’s had pre-season with Arteta and will have seen Willock full of confidence in training.

 

Arsenal know we won’t pay £20m+ for him so keeping hold of a young, English player who has shown he can make an big impact in the squad seems a no-brainer to me.

 

For his sake he needs to play though, if he gets regular football then he’ll be close to the England squad. Not many athletic, goalscoring central midfielders around. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it so bizarre there's even a debate around Arsenal keeping him. Why on earth wouldn't they want to? I know they've still got Partey who's yet to get going but they're hardly blessed at CM these days. You'd think they'd be desperate to keep a young English goalscoring CM. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...