Summer 2017 Transfer Speculation

1…6465676970…105

Comments

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


    Go figure.
  • FlorinRaducliousFlorinRaduclious
    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?
  • sweepy23sweepy23
    Lukaku to Chelsea. Giroud to Everton. West Ham won't be able to compete.
  • YeoldhammerYeoldhammer
    we have to compete or we will get left behind scrapping for relegation with everyone else.
  • OldCastleSwiftOldCastleSwift
    Yeoldhammer said:

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

    Deal with it ;cool
  • YeoldhammerYeoldhammer
    ;kanye

    I CANT I JUST CANT !
  • EXETERHAMMEREXETERHAMMER
    We could get lucky and find another couple of gems like Lanzini and........
  • FlorinRaducliousFlorinRaduclious
    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.
  • HamstewHamstew
    Our chairman coming other saying "it's about finding the money" doesn't sound like a Giroud type signing is on the cards somehow.
  • OldCastleSwiftOldCastleSwift
    Although C&H is reporting that we've agreed to City's buy-back clause for Iheanacho...
  • FlorinRaducliousFlorinRaduclious
    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_MoyesJorderz_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'.
  • BazshuayiBazshuayi
    "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_hammerbaracks_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.
  • LukerzLukerz
    edited June 2017
    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_hammerbaracks_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
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    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.
  • grey_til_I_dyegrey_til_I_dye
    Luke

    I know what you are saying, but it is a fine balance.

    Spurs have managed it, but it took them years, and the windfall of Bale going to Real.

    It's OK saying Everton will get tons for Lukaku, but will they be able to get anywhere close to replacing him?

    I think if he goes they may struggle to get up to 7th this season.

  • baracks_a_hammerbaracks_a_hammer
    Grey

    A lot of Spurs' recent success has come down to a healthy number of youth players coming through and making it into their first team. Something also lacking for us (right now). £80m plus worth of a striker and it cost them nothing. Had they not had this I'm sure Levy would have struggled to have kept in place the salary structure they currently have.
  • AdamAdam
    I agree Grey. Everton will miss Lukaku a lot. You take him out of their team and what's left is similar to teams from 8th to 14th.

    Not sure who they're targeting but he won't be as good as Lukaku.
  • baracks_a_hammerbaracks_a_hammer
    Whilst I agree Lukaku's boots will be hard to fill, it is better to have £60m in your kitty with which to give it a go than not.
  • grey_til_I_dyegrey_til_I_dye
    baracks

    I think it's only really Kane and Alli that make the difference, and Alli was a £5m transfer.

    Without the emergence of Kane, I don't think Spurs would have been top 4 in the last couple of years.
  • HamstewHamstew
    edited June 2017
    I'd be happy if the club just signed one striker (Iheanacho) and then giving Martinez a few games
  • LukerzLukerz
    Being reported in the local Bolton press that Josh Cullen is also joining them on a season-long loan along with Burke.
  • WHU_Champo_league_in_7_yearsWHU_Champo_league_in_7_years
    10/11: 4th
    11/12: 5th
    12/13: 4th

    Kane didn't start playing consistently untill the 14/15 season so they were top 4 candidates prior to Kane emergence

    Sure he's really improved them but it's smart scouting and smart management that Alli and Kane have been allowed to have the impact that they have

    I think Everton will struggle to replace Lukaku but I don't think Lukaku is a Bale or Suarez........ he gets a whole lot of goals but his overall game needs improving

    Pickford and Klassen are 2 really good moves in areas of weakness for Everton

    Also worth noting that Everton have integrated a couple youth players this year and have given Stones and Barkely enough time so that they can net huge profits of on both of them

    We need to look at sellable assets, players we don't want to lose but can get some money off of them.....it's a tricky situation
  • LukerzLukerz
    edited June 2017
    For example, I'd be looking at Ogbonna, Kouyate and Snodgrass as three first team players we could sell, receive around £30m-£40m for the three and then reinvest it. Ideally, you'd want to keep Oggy and Kouyate, but they are players who will draw interest and decent sized transfer fees.
  • alderzalderz
    But that goes against what you're saying about reinvesting. Sell those three for £40m and you're looking at needing equally good replacements at £13m a piece? There aren't many of them about. If you were getting £60m+ for the three then sure id think about it; but you wouldn't replace them for £30-£40m
  • Pearces_Left_FootPearces_Left_Foot
    Spurs sold Bale for 80M plus which enabled them to buy a lot of players which they have used to keep them at the top end of the table. Everton are in a similar position now with the sale of Lukaku and Stones to enable them to invest heavily for the next few years and afford a few mistakes. We are not in this position we are in the group of mid table teams. We do have the advantage of being in London and a big stadium and hopefully we can move up to the 6-9 position in the table in the next few years and then hopefully with reduced debt we can invest more in the team and start pushing on a bit more.
  • McHammerMcHammer
    Palace linked with RVP. Proven premiership striker but prob not the answer for us. Possibly lazy journalism give the RVP RDB dutch link. RSVP TTFN
  • alderzalderz
    McHammer

    When we got Bilic all the papers wanted to do was link us to Croatians. It's the laziest journalism going
This discussion has been closed.