Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


If you aren't sure how to do that, see this thread:

If you still can't log in, email whu*** (where *** is replaced by numbers I am sure you can work out.) giving the name of the browser and whether you are on PC or mobile device.
Categories +
Table +
PhysioRoom +

Speculation, Gossip and Made Up Rumours (approx 1 confirmed transfer every 200 pages)



  • If we sign a new number 1 GK we'll need a new back-up as well.
  • If we have a new manager and especially if he's from abroad he'd probably never have heard of Heaton so wouldn't be his priority. Any speculation on transfers is meaningless at the moment without a manager. Unless of course people trust the Daves to get all transfers sorted.
  • Also our transfer window is totally out of kilter with everywhere else. Ours is from May 19 to August 9 whereas most of Europe is July 1 until August 31 and France is June 9 to August 31.
    If we are to buy players from abroad we need to do it at the beginning of our window as it will be disastrous if we ended up selling abroad after August 9 as we will be unable to replace them.
  • Players and agents will know when the window is so should know when their options to move are available . Can see agents been v busy early in the window expect us to be linked to at least one billion players this week lol
  • edited May 2018
    It was all down to the injuries eh ;hmm
  • edited May 2018
    Perhaps, in his opinion. (If that's genuine.)

    We're all entitled to our opinions....

    What's fact is who was and injured and when.
  • edited May 2018
    Me personally, I think it's not ALL down to injuries. But I don't dismiss the idea that they were a factor.

    Amongst other things.

    Gold doesn't say it was ALL down to injures either, Luke.
  • Seems like an excuse to me

    Every team has injuries, and most of ours were to players with long term history predating this season i.e. Carroll, Reid, Antonio and Collins

    Thats why you enforce the squad properly
  • And that's where the board are culpable, IMO. Our squad was/is not strong or deep enough. They failed to strengthen in the positions we needed strengthening and, in fact, made the situation worse by letting three first team players go in January/February.
  • You say excuse, I say explanation.

    Pretty sure if you took 12 players out of any team's 25, they would struggle a bit.
  • Injuries aside, there was no excuse for not signing a D/m which was a long standing urgent need and also signing hugill and not playing him.
  • nd also signing hugill and not playing him.

    Would you have liked him to play instead of Arnie?
  • edited May 2018
    You don't, imo, need an 'excuse' for not picking a player when you have better options available.

    By your argument, there's no excuse for Southgate to take three GKs to the WC and not play each of them.

    Folks are arguing the Dave's were negligent not to have enough back-ups to cover for injury, leaving the squad short. Then when they sign a back-up who (fortunately) turns out not to be very much needed, they are criticised....
  • £9m is a lot of money for West Ham - not the sort of money to have tied into someone who barely plays. I’ve seen little to suggest that it was anything but a questionable decision to sign him.

  • Hugill was a wasted signing alongside Evra whichever way you want to spin it.
  • MrsGrey there is a difference in 'adding' to the squad and panic buying with players who are never actually going to play

    Mario was a good example of the former, not 100% guaranteed to start but added quality in depth for any eventual injuries (which there were)

    Hugill was signed incase all of Javier, Arnie, Andy, Mario and Antonio were all injured at the exact same moment...even for us the chances of thay happening was alway slim to none

    That and he was a replacement not an addition, we lost slaho for him (and lost money in the process)
  • edited May 2018

    Hugill was signed incase all of Javier, Arnie, Andy, Mario and Antonio were all injured at the exact same moment...even for us the chances of thay happening was alway slim to none


    Is that based on anything, or just what you thnk?

    I disagree that was why he was signed. Based on this...

    Moyes: In Jordan Hugill, we know his capabilities because I’ve watched him regularly. He has been wanted by a lot of clubs and I felt we need a bigger, more robust striker to add to our squad, particularly with the injury to Andy Carroll.
    Nothing to do with Mario or Javier or Antonio.

    Also, Arnie was injured at that point (along with AC, who was expected to be out for the season.) ;ok

  • Yes

    Because he played 11 minutes
  • And we had no real choice in letting Sakho go.

    At the very least, we swopped a talented, but totally uninterested striker, for a less talented, but clearly prepared to give it everything one.
  • Thats not the point im making

    Im saying he wasnt an 'addition' to the squad,he was just a replacement....and a truely awful one
  • Sorry, Champo, but I don't get why you call him 'truly awful'.

    I've no idea how good or bad he is, as I've scarcely seen him play.
  • Sorry, Champo, but I don't get why you call him 'truly awful'.

    I've no idea how good or bad he is, as I've scarcely seen him play.

    I think it's being him in as a replacement being an awful thing because, with hindsight of course, it was money that we didn't need to spend. The circumstances of us actually requiring him in the first team would have meant that a large number of players would needed to have been injured because he wasn't number 2 or 3 in the priority to be played.
  • Where did Moyes or anyone else say he was a replacement? Moyes said he was an addition but that doesn't mean he was necessarily Sakho's replacement. If we hadn't have signed him would you have said Evra was Sakho's replacement based purely on one in one out.
  • Grey

    Didnt call him awful, said he was a truely awful replacement for he played 11 minutes and made zero impact

    How is that not an awful replacement

    Dont care if hes hungry if hes never gonna get on the pitch
  • I still say that spending £9m on a back up/replacement/addition or whatever one wants to call it, when we had no proper first choice d/m was a poor choice. £9m is a big deal for the daves.
  • I actually feel sorry for the lad, he came to us full of excitement and expectation that he will be able to step up and test himself at the highest level and yet he has hardly had a chance to do so.

    In my opinion, whatever the circumstances, we are simply not a club that can afford to avoid looking at the lower leagues to unearth potential talent and we should always be willing to deploy some resources to do so.

    We can debate whether we feel that we can afford to spend 9m or not as that is a significant chunk of change for us, but I am hopeful that he will turn out to be a prudent purchase after all.

    You have to hope that someone saw something in him and being honest, none of us know how good he is as Arnie, quite rightly, kept him out of the team.

    In a nutshell, I think that clearly at the time, the priority should have been on a DM, and Hughill looked like a bit of a panic buy, however, I think we should see how it plays out over time before we jump to overly negative conclusions

    I personally am still looking forward to seeing him play.
  • Various sources linking Burke with Leeds, Rangers and Sheff Wed. Not sure if its a perm or loan... i think he would suit a perm.
  • For his own career

    He isnt a EPL starting a RB

    But he needs game time as hes still young

    Happy to see him go
  • edited May 2018
    Speaking of Sakho he scored on his debut for Rennes on 30 January, a 2-3 cup loss to PSG, scored two more against Caen a couple of weeks later, hasn't scored since and missed the last two games with a hamstring.

    Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose
This discussion has been closed.