Transfer Rumours Summer 2022 Transfer Window

  • 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!
It's Only A Game said:
Is this the moment that Will was told he's going out on loan to Goztepe for the season?


You must log in or register to see images
Click to expand...

If we’re gonna loan him out, at least it should be to a Championship club. Sending him to Turkey, the culture shock and language barrier could be very difficult to adjust to. After the year he’s had dealing with illness and injuries, I can’t say I like the sound of this.

Not to mention that Turkish Lig 2 or whatever it’s called is likely going to be a fairly crappy standard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AberdeenSaint, garysfc, Dark Lord SFC and 3 others
Che’s Godlike Thighs said:
If we’re gonna loan him out, at least it should be to a Championship club. Sending him to Turkey, the culture shock and language barrier could be very difficult to adjust to. After the year he’s had dealing with illness and injuries, I can’t say I like the sound of this.

Not to mention that Turkish Lig 2 or whatever it’s called is likely going to be a fairly crappy standard.
Click to expand...
What has happened here is some classic 2+2=5 where people know there are links to the Turkish club and looking at our fringe players / those available for loan and voila.

It is why there have been rumours of Lis, Lyanco, Valery and Smallbone going. I think even Djenepo too
 
Gregm1988 said:
What has happened here is some classic 2+2=5 where people know there are links to the Turkish club and looking at our fringe players / those available for loan and voila.

It is why there have been rumours of Lis, Lyanco, Valery and Smallbone going. I think even Djenepo too
Click to expand...

Hope so.
 
I
Gregm1988 said:
A taxpayer funded 60,000 seater stadium that they would never have been able to afford on their own backs …
Click to expand...

True, but they would probably have built themselves a new stadium by now anyway. West Ham have room for growth etc mainly because of their location. Sadly we don't have that luxury.
 
Osvaldorama said:
Sad that we can’t compete with West Ham now tbh.

We clearly wanted broja a lot
Click to expand...

I don’t think it’s that we can’t, we have spent roughly £50m already so obviously if we wanted to spend £30m on Broja we could have done and not signed other players.

I think it’s more that we have so many holes that we can’t just put £30m towards one player.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SaintinNZ, SaintElliot, Libby and 1 other person
ElliotMP said:
I


True, but they would probably have built themselves a new stadium by now anyway. West Ham have room for growth etc mainly because of their location. Sadly we don't have that luxury.
Click to expand...
It would have cost them an absolute fortune though and hampered their spending. It is discussed about how they are much happier to blow massive fees on players that really don’t work out (Haller and Andersen come to mind - circa 90m combined). I doubt that would have quite been the case if they had built their own stadium
 
West Ham don't even pay for the running costs for operating on matchdays do they? The stadium situation is undoubtedly a big financial advantage for them and they threw cash around before that anyway. If you are looking to compete further up the table then £30m is a pretty standard price. Sure with Broja you're paying a lot for potential, but what did they spend on Haller? £40/50m something like that. He was 'proven' and didn't work out so I don't think £30m on Broja is that much of a risk for them financially even if he doesn't push on and live up to his potential.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AberdeenSaint and Osvaldorama
RSS said:
West Ham don't even pay for the running costs for operating on matchdays do they? The stadium situation is undoubtedly a big financial advantage for them and they threw cash around before that anyway. If you are looking to compete further up the table then £30m is a pretty standard price. Sure with Broja you're paying a lot for potential, but what did they spend on Haller? £40/50m something like that. He was 'proven' and didn't work out so I don't think £30m on Broja is that much of a risk for them financially even if he doesn't push on and live up to his potential.
Click to expand...

Yep. It’s insane, but £20-30m is unfortunately the price of an average/good premier league player now.
 
RSS said:
West Ham don't even pay for the running costs for operating on matchdays do they? The stadium situation is undoubtedly a big financial advantage for them and they threw cash around before that anyway. If you are looking to compete further up the table then £30m is a pretty standard price. Sure with Broja you're paying a lot for potential, but what did they spend on Haller? £40/50m something like that. He was 'proven' and didn't work out so I don't think £30m on Broja is that much of a risk for them financially even if he doesn't push on and live up to his potential.
Click to expand...
There is a surprisingly level headed post over on Saintsweb about some of the 25m+ signings in recent years from outside of the top 6. It might be cherry picked but it is actually quite grim reading. There are very few that are unqualified successes. I think the two picked out specifically are Jiminez and Tielemans - both had a loan before hand. And there is something fishy going on with Wolves and their transfer arrangements anyway.

It is a little like this idea that people seem to have about how many players are on 100k / week or more. Outside of the Top 6 it really isn't as many as you would think if the data that is out there is true. And even with some of the top 6.

So when people on twitter were claiming that West Ham would "comfortably" offer Broja at least 150k a week (making him their highest paid player and one of only 3 or 4 on more than 100k a week) or that Spurs would give JWP a massive payrise (when we are paying him similar to what they are paying Hoj) you know that they have had their views distorted by the Manchester clubs, Chelsea and Liverpool

Edit: The 31m+ signings are kind of 50:50 although some are quite recent so jury is kind of still out. Transfermarkt top signings stopped at 31m. I think it is when the 25m get included that the "hit" rate could well go down as you get people like Brewster

Haller (West Ham) - 45.00m

Sigurdsson (Everton) - 44.46m

Tielemans (Leicester) - 40.50m

Joelinton (Newcastle) - 39.60m

Bruno (Newcastle) - 37.89m

Fabio Silva (Wolves) - 36.00m

Richarlison (Everton) - 35.28m

Buendia (Aston Villa) - 34.56m

Jiminez (Wolves) - 34.20m

Anderson (West Ham) - 34.20m

Lukaku (Everton) - 31.82m

Aguerd (West Ham) - 31.50m

Zouma (West Ham) - 31.50m

Fofana (Leicester) - 31.50m

14 in there. I'd say 4 unqualified successes (Lukaku, Richarlison, Jiminez and Tielmans). Two of those based on successful loans

2 likely to be considered successes - Zouma and Fofana (injury considered). Bruno looks like he will be.

At least 5 in there where if we spent that and got that return it would be at least a massive let down and at worst a disaster
 
Last edited:
Gregm1988 said:
There is a surprisingly level headed post over on Saintsweb about some of the 25m+ signings in recent years from outside of the top 6. It might be cherry picked but it is actually quite grim reading. There are very few that are unqualified successes. I think the two picked out specifically are Jiminez and Tielemans - both had a loan before hand. And there is something fishy going on with Wolves and their transfer arrangements anyway.

It is a little like this idea that people seem to have about how many players are on 100k / week or more. Outside of the Top 6 it really isn't as many as you would think if the data that is out there is true. And even with some of the top 6.

So when people on twitter were claiming that West Ham would "comfortably" offer Broja at least 150k a week (making him their highest paid player and one of only 3 or 4 on more than 100k a week) or that Spurs would give JWP a massive payrise (when we are paying him similar to what they are paying Hoj) you know that they have had their views distorted by the Manchester clubs, Chelsea and Liverpool

Edit: The 31m+ signings are kind of 50:50 although some are quite recent so jury is kind of still out. Transfermarkt top signings stopped at 31m. I think it is when the 25m get included that the "hit" rate could well go down as you get people like Brewster

Haller (West Ham) - 45.00m

Sigurdsson (Everton) - 44.46m

Tielemans (Leicester) - 40.50m

Joelinton (Newcastle) - 39.60m

Bruno (Newcastle) - 37.89m

Fabio Silva (Wolves) - 36.00m

Richarlison (Everton) - 35.28m

Buendia (Aston Villa) - 34.56m

Jiminez (Wolves) - 34.20m

Anderson (West Ham) - 34.20m

Lukaku (Everton) - 31.82m

Aguerd (West Ham) - 31.50m

Zouma (West Ham) - 31.50m

Fofana (Leicester) - 31.50m

14 in there. I'd say 4 unqualified successes (Lukaku, Richarlison, Jiminez and Tielmans). Two of those based on successful loans

2 likely to be considered successes - Zouma and Fofana (injury considered). Bruno looks like he will be.

At least 5 in there where if we spent that and got that return it would be at least a massive let down and at worst a disaster
Click to expand...

A fair comparison that I can’t be bothered to do would be to look at the 20-30m, 10-20m, and 0-10m range and see what the hit ratio is like there

If it’s way less than the 50:50 you have alluded to by the time you hit 0-10m then it still shows spending more gives you more chance of success

There are other factors aswell of course that are hard to capture. If, say, Sigurdson had only cost £10m he would probably be considered a success relative to his cost
 
Saintmagic said:
A fair comparison that I can’t be bothered to do would be to look at the 20-30m, 10-20m, and 0-10m range and see what the hit ratio is like there

If it’s way less than the 50:50 you have alluded to by the time you hit 0-10m then it still shows spending more gives you more chance of success

There are other factors aswell of course that are hard to capture. If, say, Sigurdson had only cost £10m he would probably be considered a success relative to his cost
Click to expand...
I’m not so sure since the complaint seems very much to be that we are unwilling or unable to operate in the 30m+ bracket (or 25m+ depending on who is commenting).

Demonstrating a sketchy hit rate at what would be a real push for us does have it’s value. Because if the argument is that we a suffering for not doing so then it needs to be more of a sure thing than the above would suggest

I’m not sure I follow what you are saying with the last paragraph. Few would argue that we should be all over broja for a quarter of the rumoured price. But that isn’t the price
 
Gregm1988 said:
I’m not so sure since the complaint seems very much to be that we are unwilling or unable to operate in the 30m+ bracket (or 25m+ depending on who is commenting).

Demonstrating a sketchy hit rate at what would be a real push for us does have it’s value. Because if the argument is that we a suffering for not doing so then it needs to be more of a sure thing than the above would suggest

I’m not sure I follow what you are saying with the last paragraph. Few would argue that we should be all over broja for a quarter of the rumoured price. But that isn’t the price
Click to expand...

Well it supports the argument that we should spend more if the 50:50 hit ratio drops to like 1:10 ratio at the lower spend levels.

The last paragraph is that signings are subjective, and one of the big factors seems to be price. Not too many of those on your list would be considered complete flops from just a footballing angle. It’s only when you factor in the cost, who they possibly could’ve bought with that money etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back