Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Assuming Targetts £13m is this window and Botmans fee is £37m, add in £10m for Pope then our spend this window is about £60m.

 

We should be able to double that this window I would think.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, STM said:

It's about getting good deals as much as anything. I don't think they particularly care how much they spend in total, as long as each deal is worth it.

 

So far, only Wood has been over priced.

By £25m

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, TRC said:

I'm still hoping for some Dan Ashworth specials, Brighton made some really shrewd signings.


 

I’d imagine that lad from Kilmarnock would fit that bill, that Portuguese lad too if we sign him. It seems as though we already have our targets sorted for the first team though. 
 

 Think we’ll have to wait until all our back room infrastructure is in place before we start bringing in a load of Dan Ashworth “specials”.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, astraguy said:

Imo we should be looking at Alfredo Morelos as back up to wilson,mad character but i'm sure they can be coached out of him he just thinks its something he needs to be to succeed 

Nah that’s the quality of striker I’d have wanted under Ashley. Reality is he’s really not that good 

Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Pata said:


Because there’s absolutely no sense to let anyone know how much we are going to spend. Local journos are desperately trying to stay relevant despite knowing as much as you and me.

On one hand were saying we have a budget but then publicly bidding $30m+ for players, so yes, we are letting people know how much we're going to spend. I mean, I get why we're doing it but no one's going to believe us ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Willow said:

Wilson gets injured and we're absolutely fucked in terms of goals

 

We really need 2 strikers to be honest, once Gayle gets shifted, as we're toothless up top (no pun intended Callum)

 

I hope we get a 30-40m striker, a young striker/forward for cheaper/loan and a right winger. That's the bare minimum in my mind

 

I'd love DM too but then when do you stop if you haven't shifted the deadwood first

 

But what shall we do if the new strikers doesn't bed in well and Wilson gets injured? We should look to buy 3 strikers, maybe 4 just to be on the safe side as a bare minimum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, gdm said:

Nah that’s the quality of striker I’d have wanted under Ashley. Reality is he’s really not that good 

I can tell you, as someone who watches him week in week out, the worst thing you can do is coach that out of him. Far better player with that 'nasty streak' in him. 

 

I also see this comment a lot, and most people base it on the Scottish league which I can understand to a point... but, he has consistently performed in Europe against top teams, his hold up & link up play is superb. Just lacks a bit of finesse in certain situations, but that is 1 thing that could be coached.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Conjo said:

 

But what shall we do if the new strikers doesn't bed in well and Wilson gets injured? We should look to buy 3 strikers, maybe 4 just to be on the safe side as a bare minimum.

 

garyoldman_leon_allofthem.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

We doing a predictions thread ahead of the new season? If so I’m going with Wilson remaining reasonably injury free after a proper pre season under a coach who understands fitness management. Not out for more than a few games in the season 

 

 

Edited by LiquidAK

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nine said:

We all know about his injury record, but tbf the season before last he managed 28 starts. Point I was making is he is our starting striker IF he is available and you wont convince a player like DCL to come here without the guarantee of starting games which he wont get while Wilson is our no. 9. 

 

That's fair.

 

I guess my thinking is that we need to be signing someone who will start over Wilson, who in turn needs to be used as the backup and not our main goal threat. I know he's really good, but he's completely unreliable over a season.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Miercoles said:

We should also stop handing out the number nine shirt for a while, but that's another matter.


I don’t agree with that mind. Whoever is the main striker regardless of ability should wear it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Optimistic Nut said:


I don’t agree with that mind. Whoever is the main striker regardless of ability should wear it.

Totally agree, I'm also 100% against retirement of shirts as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Miercoles said:

 

That's fair.

 

I guess my thinking is that we need to be signing someone who will start over Wilson, who in turn needs to be used as the backup and not our main goal threat. I know he's really good, but he's completely unreliable over a season.

Even if we brought someone like Osimhen I would expect Howe to spend the first part of the season bedding them in. So I agree with buying someone to replace Wilson but expect it to be a transition and hopefully fight for the shirt that brings the best out of both.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, STM said:

It's about getting good deals as much as anything. I don't think they particularly care how much they spend in total, as long as each deal is worth it.

 

So far, only Wood has been over priced.

Still don't think you can put a price on Wood's value. Without that signing we had no plan to work on besides, get the ball to Maxi. which wouldn't helped the massive transformation over such a short period of time. Wed be down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just on the topic of our transfer budget - now I'm not saying this is the case, just partly playing devils advocate and partly trying to better understand how our ownership model works.

 

Could it be that our issue is not entirely FFP but essentially cash in the bank? We know PIF have access to huge funds. The Reuben's are very wealthy but that's more asset-heavy. We don't know how much available capital Staveley/PCP have.

 

I wonder whether the issue isn't the Saudi's funding their 80%, but Staveley funding her 10%. As I understand it, if the Saudi's invest £80m, the Reuben's and Staveley will have to chip in £10m each. Is that how it works?

 

If so, that would also explain why we are trying to spread transfer fees out and avoiding lump sums (because we know that doesn't make a difference to the FFP calculations).

 

Hopefully someone can enlighten me on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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