Lets be having you....Anymore through the door?

Will we make any more signings, if so what position?

  • No

    Votes: 28 28.9%

  • Striker

    Votes: 58 59.8%

  • Midfielder

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Defender

    Votes: 1 1.0%

  • Another LB and Goalkeeper?

    Votes: 2 2.1%

  • Rogers goes and we get a replacemnet??

    Votes: 8 8.2%
  • Total voters
    97
The WhatsApp group rumour mill is suggesting Rhian Brewster is a target on loan with an option to make the deal permanent in the summer. The WhatsApp group has a worse conversion rate than Rasmus Hojlund however so more than a touch of salt required :)
 
Ash88 said:
I agree - Defense is probably the best we've had for a few seasons...

LB - Thomas, Engel, Bangura
CB - Fry, McNair
CB - RVDB, Clarke
RB - Ayling, Dijksteel

and that's without Lenihan and Smith.

CDM is sorted with O'Brien coming back, joining Hackney, Howson, Barlasar and potentially Gilbert.

How we've lined up so far this season (and where Azaz played for Plymouth) suggests...

LW - McGree, Azaz, Greenwood, Silvera
CAM - Rogers, Crooks
RW - Jones, Forss

which I'm also happy with. If Rogers does leave... Azaz/McGree/Greenwood "can" all play the 10 role.

Striker is our only weak link in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Do why are we conceding so many soft goals then ;)
 
Rumour has it the third Villa bid was in the region of 7.5 million, and has been rejected.

We can ignore the "Rogers goes and we get a replacement??" option on the poll at those figures!
 
Makes me laugh - if any of these figures are true - how they can keep a straight face while bidding 7.5m for Rogers, then go and put a 50m tag on Ramsey's head. 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
 
newyddion said:
£7.5m is a decent wedge.. just because we used to drop bundles on dross
Click to expand...

Its a bit of an insult if you take everything into consideration;

- (Assume) They have money
- He is under a long contract
- We are 3 points from a play off spot
- Rumour of a City sell on clause

Potentially receiving 5/6 million, over the next 18 months or whatever it may be broken down to, is pointless to us.

EDIT -Just read on another thread they have FFP obligations, so the first bullet point may be baloney
 
Last edited:
MichaelDebeve said:
Its a bit of an insult if you take everything into consideration;

- (Assume) They have money
- He is under a long contract
- We are 3 points from a play off spot
- Rumour of a City sell on clause

Potentially receiving 5/6 million, over the next 18 months or whatever it may be broken down to, is pointless to us.

EDIT -Just read on another thread they have FFP obligations, so the first bullet point may be baloney
Click to expand...
‘Achievable add ons’ someone said.. so maybe it is just structured in a way to keep villa the right side of FFP
 
newyddion said:
£7.5m is a decent wedge.. just because we used to drop bundles on dross
Click to expand...
That's what we're trying to avoid though. Spending fortunes on crap and selling players for pennies.

When you look at other transfers involving players joining PL teams:
Hogan 12m
Godfrey 20m
Livramento 30m
Scott 25m
There's alot of money thrown by PL clubs into the Championship for the best and brightest players and we are in a position we don't need to sell him so we'll only accept a bid that exceeds what we value him at. I don't think the club see anything under 10m as a decent wedge really, not taking into consideration money floating around and the lads potential, his age, length of contract etc...

Rumours such as Lazio bidding 15m for Jack Clarke and Wharton valued at 25m after Palace links, will be looked on by Boro as their make their stance and valuation of Rogers - and also of Hackney when those bids inevitably come.
 
Nano said:
It all sounds good but I don't see it. It's alright saying McGree would have replaced Greenwood during his patchy form but McGree is also patchy so would he have scored the goals that Greenwood did in his good form or are we assuming we always pick the right players at the right time? In all likelihood we would have had inconsistent results out of them both.

Lath has scored goals when he's been fit but he wasn't first choice when Coburn was fit so if they were both fit we might not have even had Laths goals anyway. Silvera is irrelevant because if everyone was fit he would barely get any minutes.

In my view we don't have a good enough squad to be much higher than we are. Marginally higher but not high enough to be comfortably anything. The majority of our squad is a 7/10 and 7/10 is good enough to win often but it will get beat regularly as well and that's what we are seeing. When we had Akpom last season we could have a 7/10 and still win because we had a 10/10 in the team. That's missing this season and none of the injured players are that.


That would get us to 70 points. We're on course for 66 so I could see us improving to 70 but Coventry in 6th are on course for 71 which means 70 wouldn't be enough. If any of the other 5 or 6 teams chasing have a decent run then 71 might not be enough either. Last year it was a particularly low year with only 69 needed. The 5 previous seasons were 75, 77, 70, 74 and 75. We need to have a very good run and hope nobody else does, which is probably unlikely. Maybe WBA can implode to mean there are 2 spots up for grabs.

I think Goal Difference is often a better sign than points of how good a team is and year our GD is +1. When you are a good team, like we were last season, your good days are winning by 2+ regularly and your bad days are losing by 1. Other than the odd result we're winning or losing by 1 most weeks. We need to be far better at both ends of the pitch.
Click to expand...
Again, some good points, but on the main consensus of where we'd be with a fully fit squad we'll have to agree to disagree. McGree is just one example, yet for him to come in when Greenwood hit his long mainly crap period would likely be replacing "usually crap" for "usually decent, with crap off days."

And that's just one example. The likes of Smith being around to play at RB and therefore not have VDB shoehorned into a position there, having him therefore more available at CB would be a decent difference at the back too as another example. There would be more.

And here's a bigger factor, even than that of fatigue in the starting 11; the bench. For far too many games during the middle period of this season, we've looked at our bench and comments such as "Christ, we're down to the bare bones here" have rang out aplenty, game after game. The days had gone where we'd been able to bring on strong players in their position with fresh legs to rip into tiring opposition with 20-25 minutes to go. Without this injury crisis this also would drastically be reduced.

As for doubting whether we'd be able to make up 10 points with a fully fit squad, I'd wager we'd probably be able to make up between 30-50% of that in our games against Rotherham alone, it's highly possible and wouldn't be unlikely at all. 50 points is about what I'd have us on at this stage, with room for improvement certainly; as you correctly stated we have NOT adequately replaced Akpom as yet which is a big hurdle. Our loans last year were superior to some current players too, though I can understand why the club doesn't want to go down this route and potentially have to rebuild most of the squad every year; this season's start alone will back up this approach. 50 points WOULD represent a downgrade on what last season's squad could do, without being hampered by Wilder's shenanigans for a good chunk at the start, nevertheless it WOULD have us sat comfortably in the playoffs.

The far bigger question remains of course whether we'd be able to get through a playoffs at the end of the season doubtless containing 2 of Ipswich, Saints and Leeds which would be far more uncertain.
 
VestasBoro said:
That's what we're trying to avoid though. Spending fortunes on crap and selling players for pennies.

When you look at other transfers involving players joining PL teams:
Hogan 12m
Godfrey 20m
Livramento 30m
Scott 25m
There's alot of money thrown by PL clubs into the Championship for the best and brightest players and we are in a position we don't need to sell him so we'll only accept a bid that exceeds what we value him at. I don't think the club see anything under 10m as a decent wedge really, not taking into consideration money floating around and the lads potential, his age, length of contract etc...

Rumours such as Lazio bidding 15m for Jack Clarke and Wharton valued at 25m after Palace links, will be looked on by Boro as their make their stance and valuation of Rogers - and also of Hackney when those bids inevitably come.
Click to expand...
I mean.. Villa are getting early.. and they’ve buttered us up.
 
Ipad1977 said:
Again, some good points, but on the main consensus of where we'd be with a fully fit squad we'll have to agree to disagree. McGree is just one example, yet for him to come in when Greenwood hit his long mainly crap period would likely be replacing "usually crap" for "usually decent, with crap off days."

And that's just one example. The likes of Smith being around to play at RB and therefore not have VDB shoehorned into a position there, having him therefore more available at CB would be a decent difference at the back too as another example. There would be more.

And here's a bigger factor, even than that of fatigue in the starting 11; the bench. For far too many games during the middle period of this season, we've looked at our bench and comments such as "Christ, we're down to the bare bones here" have rang out aplenty, game after game. The days had gone where we'd been able to bring on strong players in their position with fresh legs to rip into tiring opposition with 20-25 minutes to go. Without this injury crisis this also would drastically be reduced.

As for doubting whether we'd be able to make up 10 points with a fully fit squad, I'd wager we'd probably be able to make up between 30-50% of that in our games against Rotherham alone, it's highly possible and wouldn't be unlikely at all. 50 points is about what I'd have us on at this stage, with room for improvement certainly; as you correctly stated we have NOT adequately replaced Akpom as yet which is a big hurdle. Our loans last year were superior to some current players too, though I can understand why the club doesn't want to go down this route and potentially have to rebuild most of the squad every year; this season's start alone will back up this approach. 50 points WOULD represent a downgrade on what last season's squad could do, without being hampered by Wilder's shenanigans for a good chunk at the start, nevertheless it WOULD have us sat comfortably in the playoffs.

The far bigger question remains of course whether we'd be able to get through a playoffs at the end of the season doubtless containing 2 of Ipswich, Saints and Leeds which would be far more uncertain.
Click to expand...
It sounded sensible at the beginning but now I suspect you've been drinking! 50 points would have us on course for 82 points, which is 7 more than we got last year with a much better squad. We also started the season terribly with all of our players fully fit so to be on 50 points at this stage would need us to have got an extra 10 points from our last 15 games when our injuries started. We got 20 from 45 inthat time but there were some matches in there you would expect to not get much from like Leeds, Ipswich, Coventry and Hull and you are also assuming that with a full strength team we would have still beaten Leicester, WBA etc.

I do agree fully that those players are better than our 1st team but marginally. You are talking about increasing our chances of winning by 5-10% in certain games, not 100%. We didn't lose to Rotherham because we had worse players. We should have beaten them but we didn't. It's the championship, teams beat teams they shouldn't all the time. You don't win all the games you should win so I think it's wild to assume that a few players not being injured would have improved us by 10 points. That's 2 points per game over that period which is automatic form. We're not that good this year. 3 or 4 points at most is where we would be without injuries and I presume other teams have had injuries and would make similar claims as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top