As long as working Hart doesn't restrict out chances of signing a particular striker then I think it's a top signing. He's also a leader and personality.
You may be right aldez, but I don't think there is much in it to be honest, but there are far more important issues that need to take priority before goalkeepers, and that is getting at least two strikers ASAP.
So either Randolph or Adrian would be off then... Followed by the other one next summer.
I don't understand why we want to disrupt a solid part of the squad for this guy.
IMO the word solid can not really be applied to our defence. Neither of our keepers inspired a huge amount of confidence. Hart was the one singing I've bee really hoping would happen
If we can sell Randolph for 2m. That pays for Hart and we improve the first team. No brainer IMO
;hmm
You're saying the £2m is the loan fee?
I can see a number of things that stops it being a no-brainer...
It improves the squad for 1 year (if we accept Hart is an improvement on Randolph) but where are we after the loan ends? The squad then is weaker than it was a year ago. Which is a worry, for me: I want us to be looking to long-term building, not short term fixes season by season.
If Hart has a stormer of a year, his selling price will be (possibly) too high for us. Or he may want to use us a stepping stone to reignite his career and he'll be off, even if we can afford it. (See my previous comment about a long-term approach to our transfer dealings.)
I would think it perhaps more likely that Adrian would want out, rather than Randolph? Possibly? Thus making the problems in a year even worse?
I'm not saying don't loan him, I'm just saying that I think it isn't as obviously a no-brainer as you say it is.
Comments
The made up nonsense that gets spouted during the transfer window?
I think this is worth a repost to get us to 100. Not a single chortle from the lot of you whilst I was laughing away to myself at my desk. #toughcrowd
Carroll 110 all comps, Wilshere 120. Bearing in mind Arsenal have had champions league and longer cup runs, that's pretty rubbish.
So yeah, difficult to justify signing Wilshere, who is just another Carroll, in a position not hugely essential.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/07/12/joe-hart-close-sealing-loan-move-west-ham/
Loan with view to permanent
I don't understand why we want to disrupt a solid part of the squad for this guy.
there are far more important issues that need to take priority before goalkeepers,
and that is getting at least two strikers ASAP.
But it isn't either or, is it?
The club are clearly working on a number of fronts to try to get forwards in.
Assuming the Hart deal is true, arranging it won't have any influence on our ability to get strikers, will it?
You're saying the £2m is the loan fee?
I can see a number of things that stops it being a no-brainer...
It improves the squad for 1 year (if we accept Hart is an improvement on Randolph) but where are we after the loan ends? The squad then is weaker than it was a year ago. Which is a worry, for me: I want us to be looking to long-term building, not short term fixes season by season.
If Hart has a stormer of a year, his selling price will be (possibly) too high for us. Or he may want to use us a stepping stone to reignite his career and he'll be off, even if we can afford it. (See my previous comment about a long-term approach to our transfer dealings.)
I would think it perhaps more likely that Adrian would want out, rather than Randolph? Possibly? Thus making the problems in a year even worse?
I'm not saying don't loan him, I'm just saying that I think it isn't as obviously a no-brainer as you say it is.
Hart made a few mistakes, especially when coming out for the ball,’ assessed Cairo.
‘He is an important goalkeeper. We probably didn’t expect so many mistakes from an England international… but he did some good things, too.’