City 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!
This is a really pointless discussion. Livermore won't play again this season. Happy to be proven wrong, but it just won't happen.
 
Diame back is a massive plus for us lets hope his return goes well, Its looking more and more likely that any transfers out and may be in are going to go right to the transfer deadline which like Bruce says is a dangerous game to play however it seems his hands are tied.
 
Fez said:
We failed for the (possible, but likely) reasons I have offered; Bristol failed because he did not want to move there. Why would I bother with Bristol? I don't support them and their business model (financial set-up) is of no interest to me. Clearly, you are all knowing again, but what relevance it has is beyond me.

So you think our owners are exercising a strongly thought through transfer policy, do you? Good for you; I'll question it, you defend it. Do you think that if we had offered that same as Burnley that we would have lost his transfer - if we offered more than my suggested figure of £4-5M, but not enough, it could only realistically of been the £500K that was popularly discussed at the time was that such a leap of faith for a proven striker we so desperately need?
Can you describe to me your reasoning over how you believe FFP rules would have been an hindrance to his move? Do you really believe Bruce would have been so far out on his experienced assessment of where the wage demand would be? Do you believe Burnley would have broken the bank on wages? You know that wages were a problem for Bristol do you? Can you tell me what his demands were?

Instead of trying to be a clever bugger and telling me I shouldn't post, I would advise you to give your own more thought; but do keep posting them as they amuse. <ok>
Click to expand...

Show me evidence that backs up your post. That's all.

"So we were in at what, £4 -5M and we thought £6M too much for a striker of quality?"

We imposed a cut in wages, players have left the club, in order to reduce the wage bill. I agree with OLM that whilst we still have Jelavic and Hernandez on our books, we are restricted on our wage policy and the only restriction in place is FFP.

Steve Bruce only selects the targets and others at the club try to secure the deals, so why would I need to believe that he would have made any assessment of Grays wages?
News reports state that Gray spent two days at Bristol but the move failed due to "personal terms" not being met. Burnley met them. Show me where Hull City bid only £4-5m.
 
greendragon said:
Yes it was. They just lined up in 2 banks of four and lumped it up to their big striker. Nothing happened in the first half other than the referee playing them in and McG having to make a save.
Click to expand...

Well if it works for them. Get Andy Carroll in on loan and just lump it up to him.
 
originallambrettaman said:
Without a work permit, I'm pretty sure he can't play in reserve games either.

If he could, I'm sure he would have done so by now.
Click to expand...

This is true. Bit random him still being here if we can't see him play.

I just saw on twitter we are one of a few clubs interested in taking Patrick Roberts on loan from Man City. Would be decent, but he's still pretty raw.
 
Obadiah said:
No most of them are decided internally. Assem Allam stands to lose £8 million (less what he gets back, if anything from Jake Livermore). Quite a big incentive to push the FA to let him off. If it was so cut and dried he'd have been banned by now.
Click to expand...

It's a pointless discussion, there's zero chance of anyone mounting a legal challenge to the FA's right to ban players for taking drugs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SydneyTiger14
  • Like
Reactions: balkan tiger
SydneyTiger14 said:
Cocaine is on the list. It heightens reflexes and awareness.
Click to expand...

He's been suspended for taking a recreational drug, not a performance enhancing drug, regardless of whether it enhances anything or not, it's not what he's being charged with.

It's a recommended two year ban, whether that will be reduced due to mitigating circumstances remains to be seen, but I don't expect to see him any time soon, if at all.
 
SydneyTiger14 said:
This is a really pointless discussion. Livermore won't play again this season. Happy to be proven wrong, but it just won't happen.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I am not convinced. Circumstances have changed since the initial club comments; he has a chance, however slim.
 
socksblownoff said:
Fairly sure this isn't the case. The release clauses only became active after relegation. The contracts, as I understand them, included a wage cut if we got relegated. As a player, you wouldn't sign a deal with a guaranteed pay cut without having a definite get out clause (the buy out). The price will be lower than what we paid because it's designed in the players favour to encourage them to sign in the first place, essentially "come and play for us, if it all goes wrong you'll be paid less but you'll have a reasonable buy out to encourage other clubs to come in for you". We've struggled to attract top talent in the top division and this was a way we could encourage players to come.
Click to expand...

But Brady, Chester, and Ince, who all had "release clauses" went for significantly more than we paid for them. As did Odubajo when we bought him in, and remember he had come from a side who were not relegated!
 
The Omega Man said:
Show me evidence that backs up your post. That's all.

"So we were in at what, £4 -5M and we thought £6M too much for a striker of quality?"

We imposed a cut in wages, players have left the club, in order to reduce the wage bill. I agree with OLM that whilst we still have Jelavic and Hernandez on our books, we are restricted on our wage policy and the only restriction in place is FFP.

Steve Bruce only selects the targets and others at the club try to secure the deals, so why would I need to believe that he would have made any assessment of Grays wages?
News reports state that Gray spent two days at Bristol but the move failed due to "personal terms" not being met. Burnley met them. Show me where Hull City bid only £4-5m.
Click to expand...

Back it up, why? The only evidence we have is what is in the public domain, it is then down to individual interpretation. It's a discussion on a forum, ffs.

The figures I quoted were a guess, I think that was obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense; do you think they were so far out?

I think your theory on FFP is bollocks; Ehab said we were okay with it (FFP ) and we seem to have improved our position since then.

So you think Bruce is not involved, even to the point of having an opinion on the wages? You're turning into an argumentative fruitbat! <laugh>

I've answered your last part already, I wasn't stating a fact, just looking for opinion better than your limp-wristed attempt at going for my jugular.
 
Last edited:
Fez said:
(Not necessarily a question for you, just using your response as it is the common belief.)

Okay, so let's drill down a bit into this reasoning.

Bruce made it very clear he wanted to keep Hernandez, or was that just rhetoric? He (or the owners - do we speak of them as a collective?) thought that a structured loan deal with another club was not acceptable, or was it that it was more important to keep him? (I think it would be useful) But does that mean that the only striker we can let go is Jelavic? At what price would that be, £2-3M (ish)? Knowing, as does everyone, that his knees are all but shot, would it not be considered as prudent to offer him out on a reduced fee or a loan?

I believe we made a firm bid for Gray, is that wrong? I thought we had made more than one bid for him and that our intent to have him was firm; it also came across that he wanted a move to us. (His reasons for moving to Burnley are hard to fathom.) Why did we make a bid we should have known was inadequate, is Bruce really so bloody naïve? Did he believe that the jump to an acceptable bid was not unreasonable, but was quickly put right. Some of his comments could lead you to think that.

We have the new boy, Akpom, on loan, a good signing who I hope will do well for us, but he is not a budget buster, is he?

If I consider the level of debt we have and the prize we are supposed to be ambitious to achieve, was a further stretch of the owners investment really so impractical. Before somebody says it is easy to say when it's not my money, yes it is, but is also a reasonable commercial punt.
Click to expand...

All speculation, but I think when we were bidding £9m for Odubajo and Gray, it was in the belief that we were about to agree a deal for Hernandez, I also suspect the £9m included £1m in add-on's, so we were probably £1-1.5m off Brentford's valuation.

I wouldn't read too much into Bruce's comments about keeping Hernandez, he's bigging the player up if he stays, while pushing anyone who wants him to get on with it.

The reason I don't think we wanted the loan, was we paid over £9m for him, we'll have paid at least a third up front, probably with another third this season and a final third next season. We're desperately trying to flog him for £6m so we get him off the wage bill, while also clearing our fee commitments on him, otherwise we still have to fund those fees.

Hull City employ well over 100 staff (players, coaches, management, office staff etc), yet I believe that currently 10% of our total wage bill goes to Hernandez and Jelavic. It's no wonder we want one gone before adding another.

I appreciate that can you make a decent case for slinging a bit more at the job with the potential riches on offer next season, but I can also see a decent case for not doing so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mplooney
originallambrettaman said:
He's been suspended for taking a recreational drug, not a performance enhancing drug, regardless of whether it enhances anything or not, it's not what he's being charged with.

It's a recommended two year ban, whether that will be reduced due to mitigating circumstances remains to be seen, but I don't expect to see him any time soon, if at all.
Click to expand...

Surprising, since on that link cocaine is listed as a PED - as a stimulant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back