Burnley are very cash rich they maybe (probably) offered it all up front in a lump sum. And the Burnley bid was reported at £10m.
Fairly sure offering longer contracts doesn't affect the budget in a particular year Mr.CityManHat. If anything it actually makes budget planning easier as there is more certainty about future expenses. There's been several discussions on here over the years about how we can't offer longer deals since Bullard and being terrified about new signings ending up just as damaging financially (when I expressed amazement that we didn't sign guys like Robertson to 5+ year deals), and that we wouldn't sign players to new deals until they were in the last 6 months, which we're now seeing to not be a very clever strategy.
The Burnley bid was reported as 7.5 + 2.5 in add-ons. If Hammers are really giving us 10m + 2m in add ons then obviously that's better.
We're not talking about contracts here we're talking about going out and spending on the presumption Snodgrass has gone because he's talking to 3 clubs. Plenty of hurdles yet and the last thing anyone wants is the debt (and ultimately the sale price) to grow. And talking contracts - Jimmy Bollard, Sheyi Olofinjana, Kamel Ghilas etc. etc.
I was saying that if the Burnley bid was lower it's probably because they offered to pay cash up front rather than staged over half a decade or whatever.
I misunderstood you then, as you were quoting my post talking about contracts. And talking contracts - how many of those were signed by the current owners? How many of those were promising youngsters when signing? I was never demanding we sign Snodgrass/McGregor/Davies to 6 year deals, it was in the context of Maguire/Robertson/etc.
Think it was being reported a day or two ago that Maguire is going to SNUB a new contract in favour of moving to Everton or Southampton.
Then we're a step closer to having a squad of a reasonable size and with reasonable quality for the premier league? We shouldn't have to sell to buy, we just sold Livermore for £10m ffs. We have a ridiculously small squad so adding a quality player shouldn't be an issue even if the Snodgrass deal fell through
I'm sure Dyche said something along the lines that the fee between us and them had not been formally agreed and it was us who went public with the bid. Looking back now I think Snodgrass had told Marco / Ehab he wanted out and we released details of Burnleys bid saying it had been accepted (when really it hadn't) to try and draw other bids. I think City released the fact it was 10m and up stepped West Ham to meet City's actual valuation. Which now looks like 9m + Add on's. I think the Burnley bid was all smoke and mirrors to draw West Ham out of the woodwork.
I always thought and said he'd never go to Burnley. It had Payet replacement written all over it from the start. He'll now magically go in the next few days for an undisclosed fee that West Ham will publicly say was near their valuation.
Don't see Maguire going anywhere else in the Premier League this season to be honest. If the rumour was about Hudds that would be different as he right now is playing so well.
Makes sense as pundits tipping Van Dijk will leave for greener pastures, maybe not now, but certainly this summer.
Not sure I understand your logic as Maguire is also playing brilliantly, but neither will be off this window I don't think. Maguire will most likely be off in the summer though.
I think it's good manners and respectful to talk to your players rather than simply send them letters.
My logic is simple,Huddlestone is now at the pinnacle of his career,has tons of experience playing top flight football. Maguire on the other hand is still all about potential,a rough diamond for want of a better word and for his recent accolades,still lacks Premier league experience,something you cannot buy.
I think Maguire is potentially our most saleable asset. All the pundits (mostly ex professionals) love Maguire. Neville was raving about him last night - you'd like to think he knows a thing or two about a quality defender when he sees one.
