#SWFC Summer 2018 Transfer Window Rumours Thread

[pazowl55]

38 minutes ago, Quist said:

If you think we have had good value for money out of these players so be it. Its a question of wages and games they play. You need players who play 40 games a year regularly also that you can sell on hopefully for a profit. If you actually think what we have bought represents good value ok but I do not. We also have a surplus in striking deartment and are low on players in other areas.j How many of these players do you see being linked with other clubs? Most of them were signed towards end of window when no other deal had materialised. FF is an exception to rule in he has some real talent.

Take Rhodes and maybe Fletcher out of the equation and we easily more than double what we paid for the rest if we went to sale them. 

[Mr Hooper]

The only players I've seen us be linked with from reasonable sources are Jack Marriot and Reece Burke. I'd take them both.

[Quist]

2 hours ago, pazowl55 said:

Take Rhodes and maybe Fletcher out of the equation and we easily more than double what we paid for the rest if we went to sale them. 

Who is going to pay £6 million for Hooper? Most of these players are wrong side of 30 where transfer values generally decline. You have to be realistic not live infantasy world.

[billyblack]

3 hours ago, Quist said:

If you think we have had good value for money out of these players so be it. Its a question of wages and games they play. You need players who play 40 games a year regularly also that you can sell on hopefully for a profit. If you actually think what we have bought represents good value ok but I do not. We also have a surplus in striking deartment and are low on players in other areas.j How many of these players do you see being linked with other clubs? Most of them were signed towards end of window when no other deal had materialised. FF is an exception to rule in he has some real talent.

i think all apart from rhodes were decent signings. some better than others but only waste of money for me was Rhodes. it was unnecessary in my opinon

[Swiss Toni]

I’d much rather see a younger player come into the club with resale value (even if they are only using us as a stepping stone) than pay over the odds on a 3 year deal for a player in their late 20s or early 30s. This is the business model we need to be adopting - especially now we’re sailing close to the wind on FFP.

[Tamworthowl]

33 minutes ago, Mr Hooper said:

The only players I've seen us be linked with from reasonable sources are Jack Marriot and Reece Burke. I'd take them both.

 

And Honeyman at Sunderland.

Or was that an unreasonable source, I forget where it originated?

[BenitoCarbone]

3 hours ago, steelcityowlsfan said:

Anya just another sprinter. 

 

 

 

Helan mark 2.

[Mr Hooper]

33 minutes ago, Tamworthowl said:

 

And Honeyman at Sunderland.

Or was that an unreasonable source, I forget where it originated?

 

Actually forgot about that one! I think it was The Star?

[Owls-Fan]

As Jos said himself, we are looking for players who’s career is on the way up. So that would suggest Anya is a no go area

[gurujuan]

53 minutes ago, billyblack said:

i think all apart from rhodes were decent signings. some better than others but only waste of money for me was Rhodes. it was unnecessary in my opinon

Recruitment in general was shambolic, despite what our erstwhile owner may say 

The Rhodes signing was mind boddlingly stupid, and we’ll be paying that off for a good while yet

[GY-owl.4]

Anya is no better than Maghoma

 

 

[kendoddsdadsdogsdead]

4 hours ago, Quist said:

If you think we have had good value for money out of these players so be it. Its a question of wages and games they play. You need players who play 40 games a year regularly also that you can sell on hopefully for a profit. If you actually think what we have bought represents good value ok but I do not. We also have a surplus in striking deartment and are low on players in other areas.j How many of these players do you see being linked with other clubs? Most of them were signed towards end of window when no other deal had materialised. FF is an exception to rule in he has some real talent.

I take your point about having a surplus and the need for those strikers to play a good amount of games, but thank God we DID have a surplus, because without them last season, we would have had no one up front !!

[Quist]

1 minute ago, kendoddsdadsdogsdead said:

I take your point about having a surplus and the need for those strikers to play a good amount of games, but thank God we DID have a surplus, because without them last season, we would have had no one up front !!

Thats true but those on highest money were the ones not available, the two who held it together were the ones deemed surplus by previous management. Also we may have given a young Academy striker a game and its possible U/23 and Academy players would have been more content if we forward visible.

[Guest Arnold]

13 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

Recruitment in general was shambolic, despite what our erstwhile owner may say 

The Rhodes signing was mind boddlingly stupid, and we’ll be paying that off for a good while yet

When he was first linked with us, everybody wanted us to sign him . Easy to say this now in hindsight.

[alcock dived]

22 minutes ago, Arnold said:

When he was first linked with us, everybody wanted us to sign him . Easy to say this now in hindsight.

 

In fairness to Guru; I specifically remember he had been against the signing of Rhodes before, during and since the event. He's always maintained that Rhodes' style of play and ours were incompatible with each other, and that one or the other would have to change. In hindsight, he was bang on the money.

Edited May 18, 2018 by alcock dived

[kendoddsdadsdogsdead]

18 minutes ago, Quist said:

Thats true but those on highest money were the ones not available, the two who held it together were the ones deemed surplus by previous management. Also we may have given a young Academy striker a game and its possible U/23 and Academy players would have been more content if we forward visible.

Can't disagree with this Quist. In an ideal world, you would think you would always play your best players if available. However, where we are in a pickle, is that imo, we really do not know our best 2 up front. I think anyone who says Joao and Big Dave do not work as a partnership has clearly been on the sauce. Are those two as a pairing better than Fletch and Hooper ? 

[Guest Arnold]

8 minutes ago, alcock dived said:

 

In fairness to Guru; I specifically remember he had been against the signing of Rhodes before, during and since the event. He's always maintained that Rhodes' style of play and ours were incompatible with each other, and that one or the other would have to change. In hindsight, he was bang on the money.

If so fair play. But the majority wanted him.

[Hawkowl]

2 hours ago, Quist said:

Who is going to pay £6 million for Hooper? Most of these players are wrong side of 30 where transfer values generally decline. You have to be realistic not live infantasy world.

By most did you mean two?

 

FFS.

[alcock dived]

Just now, Arnold said:

If so fair play. But the majority wanted him.

 

Yeah, me too! But with Guru's opinion of the Rhodes' signing ringing in my ears, I was only cautiously optimistic. I'm sure we all wish Guru was wrong on this, but unfortunately the bloody 'know-it-all'* knew it!!!!!

 

(*apologies to Guru  )

[fred mciver]

29 minutes ago, Hawkowl said:

By most did you mean two?

 

FFS.

WBA offered that , before Hoops got injured.

 

EPL lot at bottom are desperate by January.