so Lukaku goes to man u we never beat them anyway .only way Everton can beat us is with him .so now we take at lest 4 more points from them so win win me thinks ;biggrin
Sky Sports saying West Ham looking to hijack Stokes permanent move for Bruno Martins Indi who was on loan from Porto to Stoke.
Surely not?
Reid, Oggy, Fonte, Collins, Burke?
Burke will go on loan, I'm sure. Fonte and Collins have a combined age of about 90 so may not be the most reliable, fitness-wise. And both Reid and Oggy have had their injury problems, so I can see us going in for another CB.
But not until we've got our striker situation sorted.
Is he starter? Do we fit in him in with MN and CK or is it 1 from the 3 to be on the bench.
I've thought on occasions it would be good to give CK a bit of a free role, let him terrorise whoever he sees fit during a game because his got the best engine.
Something doesn't feel right about this. If it's true, then the board have basically agreed a deal with City and Iheanacho without consulting the manager. The same manager that has said that he and the board are always talking about transfer targets.
Can't see it myself.
Which means C&H is just stirring the proverbial to turn people against the manager ;hmm
Was it ever on though? If the terms of the deal were as reported we are quite right to give it a wide berth - basically a loan with all the downside risk falling on us
Something doesn't feel right about this. If it's true, then the board have basically agreed a deal with City and Iheanacho without consulting the manager. The same manager that has said that he and the board are always talking about transfer targets.
Not necessarily, OCS.
It could be interpreted as Bilic was OK with it in principle... but not the final deal? Maybe once Sully negotiated the agreement acceptable to the player and City, he put it to the manager for a final approval and Bilic said no, not on those terms? Perhaps because the amount City want would mean there was less left in our budget to buy the quality of striker Bilic wanted (ie 'proven') so wasn't willing to give the ;ok to the Iheanacho deal. He didn't want to rely on that player as our 'main' new striker buy?
West Ham Twitter has gone into meltdown again. Knives are really out for Bilic.
So much negativity around the club and we're nowhere near our heavy defeat to Man U yet.
This is why I despise ITKs.
1. Twit puts unsubstantiated information out. 2. Said player signs for another club or Twit puts out a second unsubstantiated story saying club are no longer interested. 3. Morons abuse the club/owners/manager for not signing player.
Either way it's one extreme to another Last year owners where on the TV every Other week or the radio this time no signings and nothing from them it beggars Believe how much rubbish we put up with Not happy players going out nothing coming in I think we have lost the plot .
Comments
#wouldnt say no
Reid, Oggy, Fonte, Collins, Burke?
Cripes......
revealed/wildly-guessed-at/Fixed it for Hugh ;ok
Ok, so Bats is almost certainly out of the equation then.
25m for West Hams best player in the Jan window
Granted a lot of different factors on why Payet was sold at a lower price. But its pretty damn bad reading lol.
But not until we've got our striker situation sorted.
Is he starter? Do we fit in him in with MN and CK or is it 1 from the 3 to be on the bench.
I've thought on occasions it would be good to give CK a bit of a free role, let him terrorise whoever he sees fit during a game because his got the best engine.
MN PO
CK
RW ST LW
Something like that.
Plus Lukaku has been among the top Premier League strikers for the last five seasons, Payet was only here for a season and a bit.
and perhaps a new goalkeeper.
Another one off the list
Can't see it myself.
Which means C&H is just stirring the proverbial to turn people against the manager ;hmm
So much negativity around the club and we're nowhere near our heavy defeat to Man U yet.
It could be interpreted as Bilic was OK with it in principle... but not the final deal? Maybe once Sully negotiated the agreement acceptable to the player and City, he put it to the manager for a final approval and Bilic said no, not on those terms? Perhaps because the amount City want would mean there was less left in our budget to buy the quality of striker Bilic wanted (ie 'proven') so wasn't willing to give the ;ok to the Iheanacho deal. He didn't want to rely on that player as our 'main' new striker buy?
31st August = Diego Costs (loan to Jan 18) = party time
#ITK
But they'd better be confident of securing some of their other targets because we can only imagine the fall out if we have a repeat of last summer.
1. Twit puts unsubstantiated information out.
2. Said player signs for another club or Twit puts out a second unsubstantiated story saying club are no longer interested.
3. Morons abuse the club/owners/manager for not signing player.
And then repeat.
As normal me... ;wahoo ;angry ;weep
I find it difficult to believe that Bilic would veto Iheanacho
But then again, I find it difficult to believe that
VetoVito Corleone would be able to spell Iheanacho.So where are we again?
I want Iheanacho!!
I want a sexy manager too!!
#Bats too painful to type about ;weep
Last year owners where on the TV every
Other week or the radio this time no signings and nothing from them it beggars
Believe how much rubbish we put up with
Not happy players going out nothing coming in I think we have lost the plot .