Transfer Rumours Winter 2025 Transfer Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
originallambrettaman said:
This keeper debate has generated an enormous amount of traffic, which is a little odd considering that most think it hasn't weakened us, has saved us significant money and freed up another loan spot, so really isn't that much of a big deal at all.

I don't even think Pandur will be overly concerned about being dropped for a couple of games, he'll just be happy to be back at No.1 (though Racioppi may well be a rather more difficult situation to sort).
Click to expand...
Alternatively and as a lot said at the time it wasted a lot of money paying for three keepers for half a season !!
And meant we had less to spend on a striker
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stockholm Tiger, mazzer, NewcastleTiger and 5 others
I've been told by someone who knows him from his time at West Brom that we are close to signing midfielder Okay Yokuslu.

I think he turned city down in the summer to return home to Turkey but apparently he now wants to come back to England.

It might not happen but as I've not heard it anywhere else I thought I would share it on here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: djsowtz, ashbees_captains_armband, mrprochull and 5 others
originallambrettaman said:
This keeper debate has generated an enormous amount of traffic, which is a little odd considering that most think it hasn't weakened us, has saved us significant money and freed up another loan spot, so really isn't that much of a big deal at all.

I don't even think Pandur will be overly concerned about being dropped for a couple of games, he'll just be happy to be back at No.1 (though Racioppi may well be a rather more difficult situation to sort).
Click to expand...

You can’t waste a loan spot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SydneyTiger14 and Howdentiger2
Bev Tiger said:
I've been told by someone who knows him from his time at West Brom that we are close to signing midfielder Okay Yokuslu.

I think he turned city down in the summer to return home to Turkey but apparently he now wants to come back to England.

It might not happen but as I've not heard it anywhere else I thought I would share it on here.
Click to expand...

We can’t be, he’s over 6ft!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuaneDarby18 and Bev Tiger
Chazz Rheinhold said:
Alternatively and as a lot said at the time it wasted a lot of money paying for three keepers for half a season !!
And meant we had less to spend on a striker
Click to expand...

I'm sure a few at the time said it was sensible having three senior keepers but I never understood it.. As you said earlier Brighton only kept two and sent the others out so why didn't we..
 
SydneyTiger14 said:
I'm sure a few at the time said it was sensible having three senior keepers but I never understood it.. As you said earlier Brighton only kept two and sent the others out so why didn't we..
Click to expand...

It's the Racioppi one that makes no sense. Signing a keeper who seems to be quite high profile but not good enough to play for us. Up there with the most sketchy looking deals of the Acun era alongside the likes of Sinik and Oulad-M'Hand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Newland Tiger, ashbees_captains_armband, carry_on_the_grudge and 3 others
PLT said:
It's the Racioppi one that makes no sense. Signing a keeper who seems to be quite high profile but not good enough to play for us. Up there with the most sketchy looking deals of the Acun era alongside the likes of Sinik and Oulad-M'Hand.
Click to expand...

It just highlights time and again how reactionary acun has where in the space of a window we have signed plenty of players who by the end of the same window are already surplus to requirements.
 
So Rushworth gone and presumably Bedia too at some point. Leaves us with Burns, Gelhardt, Puerta? Space for Sorba Thomas and a left back.

I know we can have for more than 5 but it always seems a bit pointless to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SydneyTiger14
TigerGaz said:
So Rushworth gone and presumably Bedia too at some point. Leaves us with Burns, Gelhardt, Puerta? Space for Sorba Thomas and a left back.

I know we can have for more than 5 but it always seems a bit pointless to me.
Click to expand...

Henriue is here on loan too, so it'd still be 6 I think.
 
SydneyTiger14 said:
It just highlights time and again how reactionary acun has where in the space of a window we have signed plenty of players who by the end of the same window are already surplus to requirements.
Click to expand...
Did Acun demand that we need another keeper? Did he state that we needed him, did he scout him and sign him?
Or maybe the 'brain team' went to him with their proposal that we really 'need' this further keeper, that the opportunity was too good to miss, etc and his 'crime' was actually just once again agreeing to support the 'brain' team?
Why slate Acun when it's most likely the case that all he did was once again support those doing the actual job of putting a squad together? Yes, granted, he could have said no, sod off, we've got enough keepers. but choosing not to say that hardly makes HIM the "time and again ... reactionary Acun".
Honest questions. No problem with critiscism of our owner for where it's clearly appropriate, but I don't get why there are these ongoing digs from some where to my mind it seems totally without justification or logic.
 
Gone For A Walk said:
Did Acun demand that we need another keeper? Did he state that we needed him, did he scout him and sign him?
Or maybe the 'brain team' went to him with their proposal that we really 'need' this further keeper, that the opportunity was too good to miss, etc and his 'crime' was actually just once again agreeing to support the 'brain' team?
Why slate Acun when it's most likely the case that all he did was once again support those doing the actual job of putting a squad together? Yes, granted, he could have said no, sod off, we've got enough keepers. but choosing not to say that hardly makes HIM the "time and again ... reactionary Acun".
Honest questions. No problem with critiscism of our owner for where it's clearly appropriate, but I don't get why there are these ongoing digs from some where to my mind it seems totally without justification or logic.
Click to expand...

The buck stops with Acun. He signs off on the transfers, it's his money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HulltoHellandback
Gone For A Walk said:
Did Acun demand that we need another keeper? Did he state that we needed him, did he scout him and sign him?
Or maybe the 'brain team' went to him with their proposal that we really 'need' this further keeper, that the opportunity was too good to miss, etc and his 'crime' was actually just once again agreeing to support the 'brain' team?
Why slate Acun when it's most likely the case that all he did was once again support those doing the actual job of putting a squad together? Yes, granted, he could have said no, sod off, we've got enough keepers. but choosing not to say that hardly makes HIM the "time and again ... reactionary Acun".
Honest questions. No problem with critiscism of our owner for where it's clearly appropriate, but I don't get why there are these ongoing digs from some where to my mind it seems totally without justification or logic.
Click to expand...

It's because he fired Rosenior.
 
  • Like
Reactions: look_back_in_amber and Gone For A Walk
SydneyTiger14 said:
The buck stops with Acun. He signs off on the transfers, it's his money.
Click to expand...
It does and it is.
But that didn't really answer the questions.
Do you think Acun spotted Rushworth and demanded that we signed him or do you think he just agreed to back his 'brains' team? I obviously don't know for sure but common sense tells me it was most likely the latter - in which case, does that really "just highlight(s) time and again how reactionary acun (is)?". Does it really justify Acun being slated?
I'd say let's save our slating of Acun to times that he really deserves it, and not for when he's simply backing those who's job it is to build a competitive squad for us (whether or not we agree with their decisions).
 
Gone For A Walk said:
Did Acun demand that we need another keeper? Did he state that we needed him, did he scout him and sign him?
Or maybe the 'brain team' went to him with their proposal that we really 'need' this further keeper, that the opportunity was too good to miss, etc and his 'crime' was actually just once again agreeing to support the 'brain' team?
Why slate Acun when it's most likely the case that all he did was once again support those doing the actual job of putting a squad together? Yes, granted, he could have said no, sod off, we've got enough keepers. but choosing not to say that hardly makes HIM the "time and again ... reactionary Acun".
Honest questions. No problem with critiscism of our owner for where it's clearly appropriate, but I don't get why there are these ongoing digs from some where to my mind it seems totally without justification or logic.
Click to expand...

Signing a keeper at that time wasn't the problem. We only had Pandur then. The strange thing was signing one who, as it turns out, we don't rate highly enough to actually play. We then went and signed a third keeper because we weren't happy with the two we had, one of which being Racioppi. Whoever's decision it was, we shouldn't be signing a player on a three year contract and then realising we don't rate him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Newland Tiger and SydneyTiger14
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back