More transfer rumours

[Guest reefatoon]

This thread is going to be like pure unadulterated crack all summer. We won’t be able to get enough. We’ve dreamed of a proper summer transfer window for donkeys years. Hope we can all cope. 

[The College Dropout]

2 minutes ago, macphisto said:

I think it's more they don't want him as a player than his wage demands. It's better for the club to say they don't want him as his wage demands are too high as it helps to dampen the expectations of  the market heading into the summer. Maybe I'm looking too much into these things.

 

 

 

I would think it's a bit of both, At 50k per week, Lingard's a very good signing. Almiron and Fraser will be on similar and Lingard is a step above. At 100k... not so much. Especially if we have targets at decent buy, sell and wage values.

[TRon]

12 minutes ago, Paully said:

 

 

If his wage demands are too high for us, I can't see how West Ham will agree to them. Unless he's willing to lower them in order to be in London, in which case they can have him.

[Manxst]

1 minute ago, TRon said:

 

If his wage demands are too high for us, I can't see how West Ham will agree to them. Unless he's willing to lower them in order to be in London, in which case they can have him.

They offered 200k pw to Declan Rice, who turned them down. Bruno is our top earner on around 125k. Lingard earns 100k at the moment so I guess would be wanting 150-200k? 

[relámpago blanco]

3 minutes ago, reefatoon said:

This thread is going to be like pure unadulterated crack all summer. We won’t be able to get enough. We’ve dreamed of a proper summer transfer window for donkeys years. Hope we can all cope. 

Just ordered a new keyboard for the summer to ensure no F5 failures

[Geordie Ahmed]

1 minute ago, TRon said:

 

If his wage demands are too high for us, I can't see how West Ham will agree to them. Unless he's willing to lower them in order to be in London, in which case they can have him.

I think it's probably more a case of them not being warranted

 

Lingard is probably demanding huge wages since he's on a free but the reality is he's had a total of 12 months of decent football in a decade, he can't justify demanding such wages and I'm glad we won't pay it

[The College Dropout]

8 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

If his wage demands are too high for us, I can't see how West Ham will agree to them. Unless he's willing to lower them in order to be in London, in which case they can have him.

West Ham pay Zouma 125k and hav offered Rice 200k.

 

Rice won't sign for anything though unless there's a reasonable release clause if he's smart. He can stay another year, get another season of Europa football under his belt and move on for a more reasonable 50-70m fee at the end of next season. I would be all over that.

 

I think they have to take the money next season. They may even offer him a Delph type deal at some point. 

 

Anyways point is West Ham can afford to pay Lingard the 100-150k he'll be after. He might be worth the 6 additional points or the odd win in Europe that might get them into CL the following season. 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2022 by The College Dropout

[54]

 

 

[Keegans Export]

52 minutes ago, macphisto said:

In fairness to the local journalists who are all saying the same thing, I do think they have been briefed by the club to quote these figures. I'm over the moon with the ownership but I do think their comms strategy needs to be looked at. To be actively encouraging the £50 million budget & evolution over revolution whilst then contradicting themselves about competing within 5 years & the Champions League comments from Bruno, etc just makes everyone look stupid. 

 

I'm not sure of the answer because if the club said no comment then everyone would assume they'd spend a load of money. Obviously if they do only spend £50 million then their other comments about challenging just look ridiculous. 

 

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, we're talking about one transfer window. If we can spend £50m+sales this summer to get us to 8th, then £100m+sales the next summer to get us to 5th, suddenly you're a fringe CL team on the up and you can attract the sort of players a side hoping to compete for titles would need. If the aim is to compete at the top end within five years, we can't cash all our chips in during the first proper transfer window when a load of our top targets will turn us down because we aren't in Europe.

[ponsaelius]

I don't think a wage structure will rigidly prevent any signing on 100-150k a week. It will just be reserved for players that deserve it, or are of an age where their value will hold.

 

I definitely am not sold on the Lingard idea at the wages discussed tbh. 

[Guest]

He’s a £70-80k a weeker definitely, Could see a Villa/West Ham/Everton giving him £100-120k a week since there’s no transfer fee but I’d steer clear. Can’t see many foreign clubs paying him what he seems to be expecting either.

[Manxst]

3 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

He’s a £70-80k a weeker definitely, Could see a Villa/West Ham/Everton giving him £100-120k a week since there’s no transfer fee but I’d steer clear. Can’t see many foreign clubs paying him what he seems to be expecting either.

Maybe Milan, after we buy Leao from them…??

[Cronky]

17 hours ago, TheInfiniteOdyssey said:

Agree with some of the comments here on Howe. There will be higher expectations going forward and hammerings like we endured at the weekend won’t be tolerated for much longer I don’t think.

 

He will rightly be given time, but likewise if people are expecting the board to have unlimited patience will be in for a shock. 

 

My feeling is that Howe's more aggressive style has improved our performances against sides of around our standard, but we've come unstuck against teams like Spurs and Man City who are able to defeat our press. You could argue that we should have been more cautious against those teams, but at the same time I can see why Howe would want to retain a certain pattern of play in a consistent way.

 

The new signings have helped, but all in all I do think that Howe has over-achieved with what's been available to him.

[ponsaelius]

We might be the richest club in the world and it's easy to say 'it's not my money I don't care' (there's definitely an element of that which I empathise with) but equally with FFP we have to be ran sensibly. It will take years of building up - and part of that will be buying and selling sensibly. You only have to look at Everton to see where it can go wrong.

 

This will mean possibly biting the bullet and cashing in on players when we get mega offers, or ensuring players that don't quite fit or aren't good enough aren't stuck here on inflated contracts or at an age where we can't move them. On a smaller scale you can see the issue we have at the moment where we haven't moved on players when we should have done due to kicking the can down the road - and are now stuck with aging championship players who we will probably have to literally pay to get rid of.

 

It also means stumping up the money and wages when it's right to do so and the player is worth it. I think we basically showed we will do that with Bruno.

[ponsaelius]

Somebody like Gayle could have been sold for 10-15 million to an ambitious Championship club easily when he was 27-28. Even at 29 he was off the back of a 23 goal season at WBA we could have got close to our money back from a desperate promotion chaser.

 

Instead because we refused to progress and upgrade the squad by spending, and instead just kept him around like many others, he has hung around into his 30s becoming more injury prone and now has a value close to nil. This is just really bad squad management.

 

It's a really tricky balancing act, no doubt. The Longstaff one is a good case in point. Really we should be securing his value as a player at that age so we don't lose him for nowt. But equally you don't want to end up stuck with a player you can't shift by overpaying them.

[macphisto]

35 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, we're talking about one transfer window. If we can spend £50m+sales this summer to get us to 8th, then £100m+sales the next summer to get us to 5th, suddenly you're a fringe CL team on the up and you can attract the sort of players a side hoping to compete for titles would need. If the aim is to compete at the top end within five years, we can't cash all our chips in during the first proper transfer window when a load of our top targets will turn us down because we aren't in Europe.

A net outlay of £150 million from where we are won't get us into top 5 in my view by the season after next. That's only £60 more than our January spend. The teams above aren't going to standstill and they will bring in a lot more than we will through sales.

 

It's also relying on every signing coming off. No matter how good we are, some of our signings won't work out.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

6 minutes ago, macphisto said:

A net outlay of £150 million from where we are won't get us into top 5 in my view by the season after next. That's only £60 more than our January spend. The teams above aren't going to standstill and they will bring in a lot more than we will through sales.

 

It's also relying on every signing coming off. No matter how good we are, some of our signings won't work out.

 

The Jan spend was £90m gross and net though, even if we only manage to get £30m through the door from the likes of Manquillo, Darlow, Hayden, Gayle etc with perhaps one decent sale for someone like Dubs, Almiron, Lascelles then you are looking at doubling our Jan gross spend in a market that doesn't carry the Jan premium. We can also pad out with some out of contract players.

 

Its definitely not a 'spend £150m net and we'll be more likely than not be in the top 5' but there is very little to bridge form where we are and 7th and then you look for 1 or 2 clubs to fall short to challenge top 5 next year. That should be the aim with that sort of spending.

[TRon]

40 minutes ago, ponsaelius said:

I don't think a wage structure will rigidly prevent any signing on 100-150k a week. It will just be reserved for players that deserve it, or are of an age where their value will hold.

 

I definitely am not sold on the Lingard idea at the wages discussed tbh. 

 

This. I don't have any problem even paying 200k a week if the club feels it is ready, but not for a player like Lingard. I think he's a decent player, but still hasn't proven himself to be a consistent winner.

[Keegans Export]

46 minutes ago, macphisto said:

A net outlay of £150 million from where we are won't get us into top 5 in my view by the season after next. That's only £60 more than our January spend. The teams above aren't going to standstill and they will bring in a lot more than we will through sales.

 

It's also relying on every signing coming off. No matter how good we are, some of our signings won't work out.

The net spend is the key part though. If we bring in £30m for players who aren't even playing currently (Hayden, Lewis, Gayle etc) or contributing little (I love the guy but Miggy) then you're not losing anything in terms of quality but you're adding +£180m of talent (using the £150m base figure I just pulled out of my backside there) which could be four Brunos.

 

You're not wrong about having to have a really high hit rate when it comes to transfers though and that is going to be a massive challenge, but my point was more that what we spend this summer isn't necessarily going to reflect what we will spend in the following summers & doesn't necessarily contradict what they claim are their ambitions. 

[Deuce]

2 hours ago, 54 said:

 

 

[SUPERTOON]

Linked with Danjuma again, he would be a brilliant signing 

[McCormick]

Also more reports that we’re sweet on Solanke. I actually rated Solanke and wondered why, with all of his talent, he failed in the Premier League.

Whether he’s finally living up to his potential or if he just found his level in the championship; it does seem that it’s clicking for him currently. Talks of Bournemouth wanting close to 40m(!) though should kill that interest off, I’d imagine.

[SUPERTOON]

Just now, McCormick said:

Also more reports that we’re sweet on Solanke. I actually rated Solanke and wondered why, with all of his talent, he failed in the Premier League.

Whether he’s finally living up to his potential or if he just found his level in the championship; it does seem that it’s clicking for him currently. Talks of Bournemouth wanting close to 40m(!) though should kill that interest off, I’d imagine.

I would be pretty disappointed if we end the summer with him as our big striker buy tbh.

[Elliottman]

Find it weird when people say 'x amount wont get us here' or 'we need to spend x amount to get there'. It all comes down to who you buy not want you spend. We could spunk £80million of Harry Maguire and £30million on Solanke and of course we wont get near the top 5 or 6. 

 

Or we could spend £130 on some really clever signings and a couple of Bosmans and be absolutely flying. Utterly pointless conversation, trust the process. 

[The Prophet]

The Telegraph reporting that we won't be signing Lingard as he's after £150,000 a week and a signing on a bonus.