Hart?....umm not sure about signing him; even if it is for just s season, it could be he's just using us to get back in to PL football. I'll just have to wait and see how it goes ;hmm
Is it as important to have EPL experience when you are a keeper? Perhaps to an extent but not as integral a factor compared to an outfield player IMO
Not necessarily but it took De Gea, Cortouis, Lloris a while to adjust and they would've been out of our reach not to mention the slightly poor efforts of Karius who was one of the best if not the best keeper in Germany
The keeper Palace signed from Marseille barely got a look in
Not saying it's impossible but think people are underestimating how easy it'll be to replace Adrian/Randolph is Hart leave after a yea
Sky originally said there was, but other sources said there wasn't. The club was silent on the matter. Sky seem to have got with the programme, belatedly.
re wages, Adam - they are too high. West Ham have reportedly added £2m to the loan fee, to serve as wages top-up channelled via City to the player. But on the face of it, as not being paid direct from WHU to Hart, not breaking the club's wage structure. (According to reports.)
Sky originally said there was, but other sources said there wasn't. The club was silent on the matter. Sky seem to have got with the programme, belatedly.
re wages, Adam - they are too high. West Ham have reportedly added £2m to the loan fee, to serve as wages top-up channelled via City to the player. But on the face of it, as not being paid direct from WHU to Hart, not breaking the club's wage structure. (According to reports.)
Is that legal? The wage cap is in place for a reason?
Suppose no way of proving that we did the loan fee to indirectly pay for Hart.
It seems to me, that the £2m extra we give MC is a loan fee. What they do with that money is their business. The fact they are paying that amount of his wages is a separate part of the agreement.
MrsG - but of course there's an option to buy. City don't want him whilst Pep is there. He's out of contract in 2019. The option to buy is offer City £10m+ and Joe a contract at the end of the season if we want him. If Joe doesn't want it he'll decline in which case we won't want him anyway.
For me it is hugely irresponsible for the club to bind itself to an agreement where Hart becomes a permanent West Ham player on over £100,000 a week.
Luke, we are using terms in different ways I think.
In your way, there's an option to buy anybody, in the sense that there's a market. But there's not 'an agreement to buy subject to all the stated and pre-agreed conditions being met and only if the buying club decides that at the end of the season it wants to go ahead'.
I'd have liked the latter to have been agreed along with the loan.
I don't personally think it's as black and white as that. He certainly doesn't come across as a mercenary - actually he seems a pretty decent guy in the way he comes across - i am sure he is also a consummate professional. So will he seek his 4th club in possibly four cities in four seasons? I wouldn't be so sure.
If we had a decent season, a step up from last season and he played an integral part of that I would think that both parties would want to stick with one another.
Chicharito, however, from the outside, seems a lot more clear cut, a likely stepping stone seeker. 15 goals for us next season and we'll be on the hunt for a striker again this time next year.
Hes given the impression he wants to go where he's wanted. He's already a wealthy man and also someone who has won titles and a lot of caps. I may be wrong but he doesnt strike me as a mercenary or someone using us as a stepping stone. If he does well and wants to stay next season, great. I'd say he is already aware he's been on artificially high wages because of City and elsewhere thats not going to happen
Maybe, baz. I wasn't trying to portray him as a gold digga. But, as you say, he's won titles and trophies, and is of sufficient ability to get more. You don't get to his level without a steely determination, single-mindedness and self-sacrifice (imo). I think he would still hope to have some good years of yet more honours, and I think he'd pursue those opportunities. (I'm not saying that makes him a bad person.)
It's too premature to conclude he will be off if he does well this season. If memory serves me on previous threads when his name was mentioned (I've been keen on us trying to get him for a long while), many posters thought there was no chance of him coming to a club like ours. Well that for a start has been proved to be wrong!
Comments
I get where you're coming from but the reality is, IMO, that both Adrian and Randy are very average goalkeepers.
Hart or no Hart, we will be able to replace whoever we have lost with little difficulty.
If he stays for 3+ years I think we've done well.
(Or at least I thought it - maybe I didn't post it ;puzzled )
The keeper Palace signed from Marseille barely got a look in
Not saying it's impossible but think people are underestimating how easy it'll be to replace Adrian/Randolph is Hart leave after a yea
re wages, Adam - they are too high. West Ham have reportedly added £2m to the loan fee, to serve as wages top-up channelled via City to the player. But on the face of it, as not being paid direct from WHU to Hart, not breaking the club's wage structure. (According to reports.)
Suppose no way of proving that we did the loan fee to indirectly pay for Hart.
It seems to me, that the £2m extra we give MC is a loan fee. What they do with that money is their business. The fact they are paying that amount of his wages is a separate part of the agreement.
For me it is hugely irresponsible for the club to bind itself to an agreement where Hart becomes a permanent West Ham player on over £100,000 a week.
Adrian and Radolph aren't gone yet.
In your way, there's an option to buy anybody, in the sense that there's a market. But there's not 'an agreement to buy subject to all the stated and pre-agreed conditions being met and only if the buying club decides that at the end of the season it wants to go ahead'.
I'd have liked the latter to have been agreed along with the loan.
Unless you have redefined 'option'.
It's an option that doesn't benefit him at all. Just the club. He might not be sold on the club.
Bad season = we won't want him.
Good season = we won't afford afford him?
If we had a decent season, a step up from last season and he played an integral part of that I would think that both parties would want to stick with one another.
Chicharito, however, from the outside, seems a lot more clear cut, a likely stepping stone seeker. 15 goals for us next season and we'll be on the hunt for a striker again this time next year.