January 2017 Transfer Speculation

1…3132343637…51

Comments

  • LukerzLukerz
    Apparently our Snodgrass bid is higher than the £10m that Burnley offered, according to the BBC.
  • OldCastleSwiftOldCastleSwift
    Not quite sure I see the logic there ;hmm Unless Boro bid more than £10m and we had to match that
  • alderzalderz
    The BBC article says that it is believed to be £10m but also higher than Burnley's.

    Maybe they offered £9.95m and we offered £10.01m?
  • brookingsironsbrookingsirons
    In todays market that's a good deal imo , looking at the player and his form this season it would be a good signing for the squad .
  • WHU_Champo_league_in_7_yearsWHU_Champo_league_in_7_years
    Not knocking the Daves I'm a big supporter of them and feel they really are investing what they have but long term not sure how far they can take us

    Also thanks for the financial figures ngl don't know the full so it's nice to see it broken down a bit

    The top 6 are by far and away bigger but I would love to see a comparison of the "middle group"

    That's who we are competing with, the Everton, Southampton, Stoke, Leicesters etc

    We need to surpass those clubs to attack the top 6 long teams nd hopefully the stadium will allow this

    If Bilic thinks that Snodgrass is worth £10mil and Hogan isn't then who am I to judge, if he's not going to play Hogan and will snodgrass the move makes sense

    Also worth noting that Hogan has only 18 months left on his contract, maybe the Daves think they can get him for cheaper in the summer
  • LukerzLukerz
    edited January 2017
    This is the world where £15m gets you Jordan Ibe and £30m Bolasie.

    The fee is fine. Just whether he'll be a good addition or not.
  • eskimokingeskimoking
    I don't understand people who think Snodgrass wouldn't start ahead of Feghouli, can one of those posters please explain that opinion? I am genuinely interested as for me it's no contest. Snodgrass has proven he can play in the league for 2 clubs and is having a particularly strong season. Feghouli has potential and is improving but hasn't proved it and isn't having a good season.
  • LukerzLukerz
    Eski ;ok

    And is possibly off to Roma.
  • Dodger58Dodger58
    Good point Lukerz, had forgotten that could still be on, if Snodgrass signs it probably will be.
  • alderzalderz
    eski

    For me, Feghouli has done enough to earn a starting place. He offers a lot of pace, works hard, and is an out and out winger. I really like him, and I think he is a real asset to the side.

    Whether or not he starts ahead of Snodgrass, idk.
  • OutcastLondonerOutcastLondoner
    At this point, after finally getting some game time and starting to settle, I think it must be Feghouli's place to lose. He's getting better and we're winning. I think if he can settle down properly he is potentially a far better player than Snodgrass.
  • eskimokingeskimoking
    Age old argument of proven v potential isn't it. What's more appropriate etc.
    If we signed snod, I wouldn't expect him to displace Feg 1st game, but I don't think it would take long for him to take the place unless Feg drastically improves. Cheers for answering guys ;thumbsup
  • LukerzLukerz
    edited January 2017
    I think Feg is improving, in the sense that at the start he offered nothing, and now he offers something. I don't quite see the dramatic an improvement that some suggest but maybe I'm not looking hard enough.

    Personally, whilst I like watching players develop and improve, I also feel we are the type of club that needs performances now, not in a year or two. Snodgrass has shown with Norwich, Scotland and Hull (and Leeds to some extent) that he delivers immediately, not in 6 months time.

    Right now, for me, I'd go Snodgrass > Feghouli, but personally I'd rather a better player to both of them.
  • baracks_a_hammerbaracks_a_hammer
    Who is better than both and realistic though Luke?

    The Ox has been mentioned but right now he probably isn't feasible and there are drawbacks to him

  • eskimokingeskimoking
    Sigurdsson, but only realistic if we sell Payet for the extra cash.
  • LukerzLukerz
    edited January 2017
    The Ox would be a fantastic signing, IMO, but again you're paying around £20m for a guy who has a track record of inconsistently taking to the field.

    I wanted Walcott in the summer as a wide option. But, again, that looks done now as he's performed well for Arsenal since.

    And with eski. Sigurdsson would be a superb signing to play in the hole.

    But Slav wants Snodgrass. At the very least the guy is in form and playing. Like Fonte. Just want Defoe now over Hogan and, although it would set us back £30m on three short term players with no resale, we'd be sorted in those three positions for the next 2 years with proven assets.
  • OutcastLondonerOutcastLondoner
    I don't feel Feghouli was ever that bad tbh. He hardly played before recently and when he did it was short sub appearances when I think he was a bit scattergun in his attempts to impress.
  • VorselaarhammerVorselaarhammer
    The last two games Feghouli has started to show what he is capable of imo, he is only now getting a run in the team as Payet was obviously first choice.

    We shouldn't forget that Obiang wasn't pulling up tress until he got a chance this season to play a number of games in a row, due to us having to play 3 at the back as we had no RB's...

    We do need another winger and Snodgrass is ok, not a world beater but will provide competition, we have only 2.5wingers at the moment and the .5 currently in Africa.

    BTW was watching the training video and Fonte looks pretty quick in the tackle which will be nice.
  • LukerzLukerz
    edited January 2017
    London Evening Standard report that whilst we've had a bid for Snodgrass accepted and are in talks about Hogan, we will not complete deals for them until Payet is gone.
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    So we're not confident that Payet will go. ;hmm
  • SuzanneClaretSuzanneClaret
    edited January 2017
    From the Beeb.

    West Ham and Burnley will compete for the signing of Hull City top scorer Robert Snodgrass after the Hammers had a bid accepted.

    Burnley had an offer accepted on Wednesday and, while both are believed to be in the region of £10m, West Ham's is higher.

    The Tigers, who are 19th in the Premier League, rejected a bid from the Hammers earlier this month.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38755703
  • LukerzLukerz
    edited January 2017
    And not signing a RB or striker is very reckless IMO. Arbeloa is just an empty shirt. He is not going to play for us again and, in any case, he is injured. One injury or suspension to Byram and it's back to 3-4-3 or Nord at RB. We don't want to be forced to change a system through losing one player. Same goes for Andy.

    I get the argument to wait until the summer but if players we want are available now, get them now and if necessary don't bother signing players in the summer, just add one or two, instead of 5/6/7. That way we get a settled environment and can have a stable pre-season. One of the biggest issues in the summer was signing 11/12 players and disrupting what we had last season.
  • alderzalderz
    Luke

    I agree with that, but I think the key is "if players we want are available now". Presumably, there aren't RBs available that we want.
  • LukerzLukerz
    ;ok

    Agree with that so if not, we go after one in the summer. But if we don't know who we want now, why would another 6 months change that?

    Presumably we have a scouting shortlist of RB targets? If we spend, say, £10m on a RB, it's £10m we don't have to spend in the summer.
  • alderzalderz
    But if we spend £10m on a RB now it doesn't mean we just magic that money back in the summer. If we spent it now or in the summer it's still money spent, so I don't really get that argument.

    I would assume we do have an idea of RBs we want, but that they are categorically not available until the summer for one reason or other.
  • LukerzLukerz
    Alderz - no I meant if we spend £10m now, we subtract £10m from the summers budget. Not that we spend £10m now and can still spend that later.

    I just don't get why some feel the summer is when you shop, if you can buy in Jan (successfully).
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    Boro throwing their hat in the ring for Snodgrass, apparently.

    (BBC)
  • alderzalderz
    Ah ok, I see.

    I would suggest that the reason the summer is seen as the time to shop is that prices are (typically) much higher in January as people do not want to sell their star assets mid-season.
  • WHU_Champo_league_in_7_yearsWHU_Champo_league_in_7_years
    Summer is deffo a better time to buy that the winter window

    As luke said if we have a target then we should go for it but if they aren't available or the team are currently charging 1.5 the price they will be in the summer than we should back off

    Also worth noting that walking into the window we were already have a £30/40mil net spend this season, not just we have spent £10mil this window it's £10mil on top of the amount we spent in the summer so for the season we've spent over £40mil net
  • grey_til_I_dyegrey_til_I_dye
    edited January 2017
    I think a lot of transfers depend on a 'dominoes falling' effect - you can have him if we get our target, which depends on if they sell the other, whose club are waiting etc.

    January, in that case, would be a much harder time to do business, as it is such a short space of time for all the dominoes to fall.
This discussion has been closed.