Summer 2017 Transfer Speculation

Lukerz

Think £65,000 a week for a guy who guarantees goals is a bargain, personally. He'll get 15 goals next season 100%.

I mean we were paying Nordtveit £45,000 a week to do nothing.

Good deal Bournemouth.

WHU_Champo_league_in_7_years

He is also not overly reliant on pace, his game revolves around intelligent movement in the box not tearing defenders for pace

Slightly risky but if they get a single season like the season he's just had it'll be money well spent

Lukerz

Wonder if Danny Welbeck's available?

IronHerb

He plays less than AC.

McHammer

Bafetombi Gomes ( 20 in 32 for Marseile)
Willfried Bony - does he still have it?

Fortuneseeker

Other clubs other than Everton, who I expect I will be told are spending the Lukaku money before Chelsea hand it over, appear to be completing deals but we aren't! ;doh

MrsGrey

yeold, for wages, maybe ;ok

But FFP also (effectively) restricts spend on transfer fees.

WHU_Champo_league_in_7_years

Tell that to City.......easily gonna spend £300mil this summer!! FFP doesn't apply to all teams

Hammerex

IronHerb said:

He plays less than AC.

That's impossible. ;biggrin

PrestonHammer

The FFP rules got fairly relaxed the today the Qatari's bought PSG and hired Platini's son. Maybe I'm being rather cynical but they were supposed to reign in the spending of the big clubs and yet some of them are spending money as if it is going out of fashion.

MrsGrey

WHU_Champo_league_in_7_years said:

Tell that to City.......easily gonna spend £300mil this summer!! FFP doesn't apply to all teams

It applies to everybody in the same way.

You should look it up. Seriously (not in a sarcastic way).

1. Wages. Clubs are restricted in terms of how much they can increase their wages year on year. Clubs thatt make vast increases in terms of new commercial income can increase wages more than those clubs which don't.

2. Other spending. Clubs are not allowed to post losses in excess of a certain amount - they have to 'live within their means' and balance their income and expenditure. The effect of this is that a club which makes huge profits will have more money to spend; clubs whose profits are smaller also have their abilty to spend restricted.

Despite the stated aim of FFP - to level the playing field - it seems to me that all it has done is set in stone the pre-existing unlevel playing field. City, Man U etc will ALWAYS (because of our unequal starting points) have more financial clout than West Ham and other similar clubs. UNLESS the club can have some kind of game-changing event. For us, it is hoped that (over a few years) the new Stadium will perform this function. We'll see. But what's obvious is thatt without the move, NOTHING would change.

MrsGrey

PrestonHammer said:

The FFP rules got fairly relaxed the today the Qatari's bought PSG and hired Platini's son. Maybe I'm being rather cynical but they were supposed to reign in the spending of the big clubs and yet some of them are spending money as if it is going out of fashion.

There are 2 different sets of controls/limits.
The FFP rules that apply to clubs competing in Europe.

And the different FFP rules that apply to clubs competing in the PL.

steve

;hmm so one rule for the rich and one for the poor

MrsGrey

Same rule for all, but it just entrenches the rich-poor divide.


Go figure.

FlorinRaduclious

Mrs G - could not agree more re: FFP. It only maintains the status quo regarding 'large' and 'smaller' clubs. It really stops the smaller clubs going out to bridge the gap, however I do appreciate they were also looking to stop clubs going broke by overly ambitious / unsustainable plan owners. Essentially you wanted to be taken over by an oligarch a season or two pre FFP spend like crazy put yourself up with the big guns then the FFP comes in and stops others from doing the same... Man City anyone?

sweepy23

Lukaku to Chelsea. Giroud to Everton. West Ham won't be able to compete.

Yeoldhammer

we have to compete or we will get left behind scrapping for relegation with everyone else.

OldCastleSwift

Yeoldhammer said:

we have to compete or we will get left behind scrapping for relegation with everyone else.

Deal with it ;cool

Yeoldhammer

;kanye

I CANT I JUST CANT !

EXETERHAMMER

We could get lucky and find another couple of gems like Lanzini and........

FlorinRaduclious

Still think Giroud would be a fantastic signing for us if it is possible. Really hoping Arsenal get a 'bigger name' striker and the G asks to leave, and if he (family reasons maybe?) wants to stay in London surely we have a chance? If it was purely football reasons he would have bigger fish to fry imo.

Hamstew

Our chairman coming other saying "it's about finding the money" doesn't sound like a Giroud type signing is on the cards somehow.

OldCastleSwift

Although C&H is reporting that we've agreed to City's buy-back clause for Iheanacho...

FlorinRaduclious

Ham - really hoping that was just 'lowering overly ambitious expectations' talk. I think he also stated we are trying to bring in '2 premiership experienced strikers', he must know that will cost money.

I think it's a shame we couldn't get Defoe as one of the two, seeing as he was available. He would have been perfect for a year maybe two while Fletcher and the other we bring in (Iheanacho?) get up to speed. However if he wanted a massive sign on fee and a 3 year or more contract I can understand why we baulked - but it's still a real shame.

Jorderz_Moyes_will_be_Moyes

Hamstew said:

Our chairman coming other saying "it's about finding the money" doesn't sound like a Giroud type signing is on the cards somehow.

When you want to buy something what you DON'T do is go out and tell everybody how much cash you have to splash. To go on the radio and say we've got £50 million waiting to be spent would be idiotic, as the next bid we put in would get a response of 'We'll sell him for £50 million'.

Bazshuayi

"Andy Carroll is injury-prone as we know, we have had an injury problem with [Diafra] Sakho and we have just got to bring in centre-forwards. We have got to find the money"

I interpret this as a sort of we have no choice but to find the money as 2 proven Prem strikers are priority. Maybe its just me but I dont think he's implying we havent got the money to do it, just that we've got to do it (as we all know we need strikers and acknowledge last year we struggled because of the lack of them). I didnt hear the tone though (which would make things a lot clearer), just read the words

baracks_a_hammer

The reason we can't compete with Everton is that as well as them being in Europe, they have sold Stones for £50m, Lukaku about to go for even more and Barkley no doubt for a fair sum. Even before that somehow they persuaded Man U to spend £30m on fellaini. Meanwhile the best we have managed is to make a £15m profit on the best player we have had in a long long while. Otherwise we have consistently struggled to make profits on player resales. It's important that as well as the owners continuing to invest (which they have) that natural player churn generates positive income too. Too many of our signings have not worked out resulting in them being offloaded at a loss. The pot of money sadly is not limitless for us.

Lukerz

Completely agree baracks.

That has been our issue for too long. We need signings that come here, perform well for 2/3 years and then move on at a profit which we then recycle back into the team.

I know we all like saying 'we need to keep our best players' but the reality is the opposite. We need to keep them for the short to medium term but long term they attract interest from other clubs who give us the money we want.

baracks_a_hammer

Luke

;ok

The harsh reality for West Ham is that if we somehow manage to bag a striker who say nets 20 goals for us next season, and as a result we finish 7th or 8th - he will most likely be gone one year from now

thornburyiron

Agree to an extent but believe keeping your best players is important. The better the players you have the better chance of attracting new good players.
We've always hated the idea we are a selling club.