Transfer Talk Topic

[Original 21]

21 minutes ago, martin1905 said:

Apparently West Ham have bid £40m for Gallagher.

Looks like that’s a bid we rejected last week…

[Miguelito07]

22 minutes ago, martin1905 said:

Apparently West Ham have bid £40m for Gallagher.

reports are that we rejected a lesser bid and are asking for more but West Ham wont increase

[chara]

IF Chelsea are willing to let Conor go then take the 40 mill......wait a season and does anyone think his $$ will go up much?

Although I think he has a little room to develop he is .as far as I can see... close to his ceiling.

That ceiling may well be very useful to Chelsea but another very good academy product just not destined (or good enough) for superstar status.

No shame in that..very few are.

Edited July 24, 2023 by chara

[Miguelito07]

 

[Ham]

Jorginho, Kovacic, Kante, Mount and RLC all gone and we're thinking of getting rid of Gallagher before replacing any one of them. 

This is so fecked up. They're playing a very dangerous game. 

[martin1905]

21 minutes ago, Miguelito07 said:

 

Be very difficult to turn that down.

[chara]

Some questions...not sure if this is the right place but close enough.

The "bad egg" business.... it has tacitly been accepted on here that the bad influences have been moved on...we are not privy to what form the bad influences were but watching last season it wasn't hard to see the issues or rather the results of the issues.

So.... name names if you can.... assuming (yes I know) the outgoings included "bad eggs", who do think  was in the "bad egg" basket?,,,,,Dave and Kante get a pass for obvious reasons and the loan army moved on get the benefit of the doubt...Lukaku, whilst an obvious "smeller", was not here although his influence from before may still have lingered if only on the edge of squad awareness.

So..again..theories anyone?

[Floyd25]

[Original 21]

[Miguelito07]

3 minutes ago, Floyd25 said:

“IF” he leaves. There’s no indication that Gallagher wants out

[chara]

Some help required from fellow OG's.... my memory tells me Johnny Boyle was really the first "utility" type player in the (almost!) modern era.....again memory gets polished but I tend to measure the likes of Conor against Boyle..... a fave of mine and very much appreciated, if not feted, by a certain generation.

I don't believe Conor or Ampadu are in the same class and whilst I hope Conor stays..if just for cover I think (imho) both are/were . in the long term . expendable.

Anyone?

[xceleryx]

1 hour ago, chara said:

IF Chelsea are willing to let Conor go then take the 40 mill......wait a season and does anyone think his $$ will go up much?

Although I think he has a little room to develop he is .as far as I can see... close to his ceiling.

That ceiling may well be very useful to Chelsea but another very good academy product just not destined (or good enough) for superstar status.

No shame in that..very few are.

Gallaghers value will increase immediately upon sale, purely for the fact that if he ends up at West Ham he's an important player and to them I'd be surprised if they entertained anything south of £65m. If he was to have a strong season, score a few goals which he's capable of doing, West Ham would only drive their asking price up further. Whether Gallagher would truly be worth that money is another thing.

The issue I have with his sale outside of not having midfield number as it is, is that we still need good squad/utility players that can come in and do a job or impact games in some manner when called upon - Connor is one of those capable of doing that. He's got his shortcomings of course, but he also does a lot of things to a decent standard. 

Just think this is rather short-sighted at this point. Might be a bit different if we had a midfield all decked out, but as of right now it's anything but.

[Michael Tucker]

1 hour ago, chara said:

Some help required from fellow OG's.... my memory tells me Johnny Boyle was really the first "utility" type player in the (almost!) modern era.....again memory gets polished but I tend to measure the likes of Conor against Boyle..... a fave of mine and very much appreciated, if not feted, by a certain generation.

Good player Johnny Boyle. As you said, very much appreciated at the time.

[ROTG]

10 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

Are we just ... broke? Much more so than is outwardly obvious? 

Just getting enough coffers to give Brighton there seasonal bonus.

TBSD can't help giving "unlike Brexit"

[johnnybozo]

Selling Gallagher is brain-dead. Practically the only player who gave a shit last season along with Kepa and Silva. He works hard, hustled in midfield and presses like a monster. If he was African people would hail him as the next coming of Essien.

[Chelsea_Matt]

If we sell Trev and Conor we won’t have any midfielders. It would be crazy to sell them anyway as I think they’re good enough not just as players but for their attitudes too.

[Bison]

29 minutes ago, johnnybozo said:

Selling Gallagher is brain-dead. Practically the only player who gave a shit last season along with Kepa and Silva. He works hard, hustled in midfield and presses like a monster. If he was African people would hail him as the next coming of Essien.

Incredibly silly comment. Essien at his best was a world class CM capable of playing a box to box or holding role at a high level. If you needed a top RB he could do that too. Comparing Gallagher to a player like that is only doing Gallagher a disservice.

[Guest Alex]

6 hours ago, xceleryx said:

Gallaghers value will increase immediately upon sale, purely for the fact that if he ends up at West Ham he's an important player and to them I'd be surprised if they entertained anything south of £65m. 

Erm no it wouldn't.  The hypothetical price it would cost to him acquire him might increase, but that's not his value.

It is almost certain nobody would pay it that weren't in the bidding in the first place. Maybe a team suddenly gets a new owner and a bigger budget, and an few injuries makes the management decide they have a Connor Gallagher-shaped  hole in their midfield it's still unlikely they're going to go out and pay significantly more for him as that would just make them look foolish for paying over the odds.

 

[Thiago97]

37 minutes ago, Alex said:

Erm no it wouldn't.  The hypothetical price it would cost to him acquire him might increase, but that's not his value.

It is almost certain nobody would pay it that weren't in the bidding in the first place. Maybe a team suddenly gets a new owner and a bigger budget, and an few injuries makes the management decide they have a Connor Gallagher-shaped  hole in their midfield it's still unlikely they're going to go out and pay significantly more for him as that would just make them look foolish for paying over the odds.

 

 

It kinda does though. I think most even fans and even Chelsea fans would think Gallagher would be a good signing for West Ham. 
Playing every week in a role that suits him, means he could easily get double figure goals.

He does that for 2 seasons and his value to West Ham is huge. He has outperformed what he did at Chelsea. Any club that wants him will be quoted £60m plus for West Ham to be close to selling him. As it will be so hard to replace what he had just done for the team.

So his value does increase as soon as he leaves. Providing he is played in a way that brings the best out of him. 

Edited July 25, 2023 by Thiago97

[Guest Alex]

18 minutes ago, Thiago97 said:

It kinda does though. I think most even fans and even Chelsea fans would think Gallagher would be a good signing for West Ham. 
Playing every week in a role that suits him, means he could easily get double figure goals.

He does that for 2 seasons and his value to West Ham is huge. He has outperformed what he did at Chelsea. Any club that wants him will be quoted £60m plus for West Ham to be close to selling him. As it will be so hard to replace what he had just done for the team.

So his value does increase as soon as he leaves. Providing he is played in a way that brings the best out of him. 

16 hours ago, xceleryx said:

 

That's his value after two seasons!!!! A'f that's assuming he plays well (which I also think he likely would). And just because in that scenario clubs would then be quoted £60m doesn't mean he's worth that unless someone pays it! Not does it mean he immediately becomes worth that after the transfer!!!

Or hypothetically he gets badly injured and his youth-team replacement seizes his opportunity and turns out to be even better. 

[ROTG]

13 hours ago, martin1905 said:

It may seem like an awful lot of money but it gives us two of the best young midfielders in the world who complement each other

There lies the problem, not the players but not having a very senior player around them.  The best teams always have a senior player giving guidance to the younger players especially in times of pressure.

No matter how good this potential pairing could be IMO they will not be able to cope if the oppositions midfield start to dominate them. because they do not have the experience to counter the dominance if you get my drift. Whereas with a senior player supporting them, would be the focal point to counters the oppositions dominance. "like how Jorginho was used when on the bench and the midfield were in trouble, he would come on and slow the game down and take back control of the midfield on most occasions"

[Thiago97]

2 minutes ago, Alex said:

That's his value after two seasons!!!! A'f that's assuming he plays well (which I also think he likely would). And just because in that scenario clubs would then be quoted £60m doesn't mean he's worth that unless someone pays it! Not does it mean he immediately becomes worth that after the transfer!!!

Or hypothetically he gets badly injured and his youth-team replacement seizes his opportunity and turns out to be even better. 

Well no he wouldn’t be worth that in terms of him as a player. He would be worth that to West Ham though and as they are going to be the ones who decide when to sell (in this hypothetical situation )and if a club is willing to buy at say £65 million, then those clubs and the market to some degree, sets that as his value in the market at the time. 
It’s the same reasons why Zaha has never left Palace for money. We all know he is not a £70-£80 million pound player and that’s why no club payed it, but he was worth that to Palace whilst under contract. 
If we all agree that Gallagher will do well at West Ham (serious injury permitted) then his value does go up when he leaves.

That’s just how football works for a player of Gallaghers age and standing. 

[ROTG]

1 hour ago, Chelsea_Matt said:

If we sell Trev and Conor

Might as well shut the academy down, and go to the American drafting in players for the U21 and hope they can make it to the senior team. "maybe that's TB cunning plan 😀"

[Morgs]

I don't see us selling Gallagher. Cant see it. 

If we had Caicedo in and were finalising Veiga etc then you could maybe understand it but we don't and both are looking unlikely at this stage.  It makes no logical sense. 

Poch will be playing five at the back, three in the middle and two up top, very likely. Gallagher provides depth across the middle three positions and is even more valuable if we decide to play a midfield two with three up top as he provides running up and down to cover that we don't have anywhere else. He literally enables a whole formation for us, pretty much. 

I refuse to accept the idea that we are so hard up that we need to realise another forty mil or so. I also think if he did go, we would need to think carefully about what we would be asked to pay if we were trying to sign him. Would West Ham, having just let Rice go to a hundred mil, be demanding forty mil for a young, talented England international who presses, scores goals and hasnt hit his peak yet? No. Would Brighton be asking forty mil from us? Would Spurs? No. 

If we were buying him, he is a 60m player in this market. 

I also think that if we were buying him, people would be really excited about the dynamism, goals, tackling and work-rate, hunger and aggression he would bring to our midfield. But for some reason he isn't the next "shiny new thing" so people are very blasé. People talk about Lavia as an example of someone we should sign. Why? He's not as good as Gallagher is and plays for a team that just got relegated. He's not as physical, not as aggressive and has nothing like the work rate Gallagher does.  And yet there are folks who espouse us taking 40m for Gallagher and then dropping 50m+ for Lavia. Are you sure, lads? 

As someone else said up-thread, if Gallagher was Brazilian or French we would be raving about him but because he's English  he's meh and we should sell him. Him and Mount were getting a fearful battering off the Chelsea twatty twitterati last season, ostensibly because they are English. A lot of our international fanbase don't like English players at Chelsea. Believe it or not, even Chillwell got the "gEt OuT OF mY CluB" treatment. Astonishing. 

Don't get that, sorry. 

 

#againstmodernfootball 

[ChelseaJambo]

2 hours ago, Alex said:

Erm no it wouldn't.  The hypothetical price it would cost to him acquire him might increase, but that's not his value.

 

His value is whatever he, his current club and any prospective clubs are willing to do deals at. The cost to acquire is their value as it's what a buying club would be paying ergo valuing him at. Footballers aren't tethered to something inherent as a value marker.

 

2 hours ago, Alex said:

It is almost certain nobody would pay it that weren't in the bidding in the first place. Maybe a team suddenly gets a new owner and a bigger budget, and an few injuries makes the management decide they have a Connor Gallagher-shaped  hole in their midfield it's still unlikely they're going to go out and pay significantly more for him as that would just make them look foolish for paying over the odds.