Transfer Talk Topic

[ROTG]

56 minutes ago, boratsbrother said:

With that midfield we had become a Cup team, that was the issue for most fans!

Got a feeling nearly every other clubs supporters in the PL would have been over the moon with that cup team of the past 4-5 seasons

58 minutes ago, boratsbrother said:

A mistake so big it's tipped the balance for me in believing we have too many people making too many big decisions and simply don't know what they doing.

Blame lies solely with Winstanley, Stewart & Shields - I have said it before, it will be interesting to see if any of them  last as long as the contracts they gave to players in the past two windows

[boratsbrother]

1 hour ago, ROTG said:

Got a feeling nearly every other clubs supporters in the PL would have been over the moon with that cup team of the past 4-5 seasons

 

Deliberately not addressing my main point!

It should go without saying that every club and it's fans should be happy to win any trophy, but you know full well there are different goals and expectations for clubs.

For the likes of City, Liverpool, Arsenal, Utd and Chelsea, the number one aim is to be Premier League Champions, not to win Cups. When they've won a title or two then the next aim should be to become CL winners. The other Cups obviously below that. 

Below those teams we have Spurs and now Newcastle, who would indeed be over the moon to start winning any Cup and that should be their number one aim at this moment in time. Achieve that and then look to move to the next next level and become serious title contenders.

So back to my original point. Chelsea are one of those clubs who's number one ambition should be to league champs again, and we were never going to get close to doing that with the previous midfield. That is beyond any serious doubt! Having said that. From where we are now, getting back into contention to win Cups again is the much more realistic goal than winning the title anytime soon.

 

[Max Fowler]

38 minutes ago, boratsbrother said:

Deliberately not addressing my main point!

It should go without saying that every club and it's fans should be happy to win any trophy, but you know full well there are different goals and expectations for clubs.

For the likes of City, Liverpool, Arsenal, Utd and Chelsea, the number one aim is to be Premier League Champions, not to win Cups. When they've won a title or two then the next aim should be to become CL winners. The other Cups obviously below that. 

Below those teams we have Spurs and now Newcastle, who would indeed be over the moon to start winning any Cup and that should be their number one aim at this moment in time. Achieve that and then look to move to the next next level and become serious title contenders.

So back to my original point. Chelsea are one of those clubs who's number one ambition should be to league champs again, and we were never going to get close to doing that with the previous midfield. That is beyond any serious doubt! Having said that. From where we are now, getting back into contention to win Cups again is the much more realistic goal than winning the title anytime soon.

 

Strange way of looking at things. I don't think you can isolate our midfield and say we would have never won the league with them. If anything, I would say the forwards were and still are the bigger problem. As well as the fact we sacked our best chance of beating City in Tuchel.

Rather than look at our whole midfield and say it's pants, I would have looked at making incremental changes as those players were phased out. Which to be fair we are kind of doing. We just haven't invested nearly enough in attacking areas where our biggest problems still lie.

Although I agree with you - having a Maddison or a similar player should have been a priority. Picking up some kind of midfielder who can be reliably creative, add goals and assists to this team. Spending so much on defensive midfielders just looks strange when we can't score goals.

[Max Fowler]

13 hours ago, xceleryx said:

I'm a little lost here, Max. I was never opposed to signing either Lavia or Ugo. Lavia wasn't necessarily a must buy, but I can certainly understand why he was picked up. As for Ugo, wasn't familiar with him prior so had no great opinion either way. 

We play with a double pivot, so it's not really the primary focus of those midfield two to be banging in goals left and right. Their larger responsibility is to provide an outlet when playing out from the back, to win the ball in the middle, provide cover in front of the defence, and then help progress the ball when in possession towards the more attacking players. Goals are a bonus, creativity and purposeful ball progression is arguably far more important - which is what they offer. 

We've had a huge, and I mean HUGE, summer window. The fact we've managed to get a lot of what we did done is remarkable in itself. The idea that we were also going to fix or remedy every problem we had was never a reasonable expectation to have. I've said myself I'd have liked one or two other areas attended to better than they were, but in the grand scheme of things I'm satisfied with what we did get done. Even if I don't necessarily agree with all decisions made, or at least felt we could've put more into other areas first.

I've already expressed to yourself that I'd have liked us to sign another attacker or two, particularly a striker, but also acknowledge the options in the market right now and that even some of the flashier names have question marks above them. It may mean being a bit short in quality for the time being, but if it means getting a suitable option later then it's hard to fault that approach either. 

 

Well I wouldn't be surprised to see us move to a 4-3-3 with Lavia as the DM once he is fit.

That window becomes increasingly less huge when our failings are revealed and its obvious where we should have ploughed more of our money. 

I am less convinced than you that the club rationally discovered there were few decent attacking players on the market. I believe as they have done so far, they failed to identify the needs of the squad and failed to prioritise the present over the future.

Actually, I don't think they care too much if Poch gets sacked because of it. He will fall because they can say they backed him with hundreds of millions even if they were badly spent.

[chara]

8 hours ago, Blue Moon said:

Never watched it , @chara- looks like I’ve missed something 

It's worth watching just for the opening montage of Duke movie characters showing the life of the main character,,inspired cinema...and the Jimmy Stewart cameo is up there with the best in the genre.

A fitting last ride for the Duke ......

[Willian Dollar Baby]

14 hours ago, xceleryx said:

Didn't say we should buy every player the club rates, the point was to emphasise that it wasn't some slap dash decision which your initial comment portrayed. Quite clearly Lavia adds to what we have in terms of a pivot role, particularly with being an Enzo-like alternative. While we have added other young midfielders, their profiles are the more important part opposed to just their general midfield tag. Santos's is more of a box-to-box type of player, someone that can chip in with goals and that's largely how he played prior to arriving here. Of course, he can play that deeper role as well, but it does take away from some of what he can do. Casadei on the other hand is more of an #8. His strengths lie on the offensive side, getting into the box and also creating for others. That's how he played in Inter's youth system, it's how he's shown playing for the Italian U/21's, and also during his loan spells at both Reading last season and so far at Leicester. Chukwuemeka isn't someone you play in a pivot either, so really has no great bearing on Lavia joining or not. Like Casadei, Chuk is quite clearly a more offensively minded player, with that #10 position looking like his best fit. 

Just because you can't see Lavia getting a great deal of minutes doesn't make it so. The truth is, we just don't know yet because he's not played and won't for awhile yet (unfortunately). There's every chance he could've played in the coming weeks with Gallagher being pushed higher, or maybe even Enzo moving upfield and Lavia slotting into the role Enzo held. This basic example showcases some of the flexibility it can add. 

Those three would appear to be the longer term favours based on their fees, and sure there is a lack of goals in that trio on paper, but there is more creatively than we've had probably since Fabregas was last in midfield for us. As long as the midfield can get the ball into the attacking players regularly, more specifically in good positions, then it does help offset things a little more. A big part of our problem in prior years wasn't just a lack of goals, it was the sheer lack of creativity and usefulness in terms of purposeful ball movement.

You're counting your chicken a little early here. Yes, on paper those are options we have. Whether Ugo, Casadei, Santos, and even Chuk (depending how he returns) are here next season or beyond is anyone guess at this point, similarly Gallagher. But a big part of snapping up so many young player isn't just to hopefully unearth one or two that can make it here longer term, it's also to help generate revenue should they either not develop as expected, not fit the football, or whatever else. People need to look at this with a wider eye, opposed to just thinking we've signed these players to necessarily play for us. Particularly those who've come in at that sort of £20m or so price point, where profits can be made fairly easily with the way football inflation is. We could probably sell Santos and Casadei right now for a good £10m more than we initially paid as an example. That's all apart of this approach we've taken. 

Don't know how you can blame the club for loaning out players like Kepa, Ziyech and Lukaku. None of them wanted to be here for variety of reasons. Kepa obviously had Madrid come in unexpectedly and he was close to joining them originally before we signed him, for many his departure for a season and clearing of wages is a huge win. Ziyech has been on the other for awhile and interest pretty tame, similarly with Lukaku. If there aren't clubs out there willing to buy these players straight up then what do you propose we do? Because the only alternative outside of loaning them out is to keep unhappy players around. I imagine you'd not be a strong advocate for that, nor would many others. Yeah, I don't think the club are that daft, particularly when there's actual dedicated staff that deal with the loan side of thing as it is. It'll be why we left thing as late as we did in some cases because selling would've been more ideal.

If Enzo, Caicedo and Lavia are the intended first choice then thats 4-3-3 and Chuk, Casadai, Gallagher and  the rest are all in competition. Again that's 8 players for three positions, 9 if Nkunku plays at 10 as expected. It's overkill and we've ended up again with a massive squad which will leave a number of players unhappy. We actually did a great job trimming the squad this summer before bloating it again in areas that were not necessary. 

The talent hoarding strategy doesn't work if the players you buy can't get minutes. If you know you're locking up three loan spots to dead wood then don't buy so many players. Why are we doing Real the courtesy of loaning our GK when they are desperate? Make them pay up. What are we going to do when Kepa returns in 12 months and we've then got three keepers on the books? 

Another example:

Stock piling talent has left us with a bloated squad and now potentially letting a great young player rot in the reserves. This could easily happen with Gallagher next. Players value will deteriorate quickly when they are not playing and other clubs know that we are desperate to sell. 

The amount of money we've spent on South American teenagers could have been used on first team players over the age of 21 who can actually be relied upon. We've tried this method before and the Piazon type signings are a lottery in reality.

Selling premier league ready HG players to facilitate spending a fortune on kids who are unlikely to play for the club is insanity. 

Edited September 12, 2023 by Willian Dollar Baby

[Mark Kelly]

I'm hearing that Gallagher and Chalobah are on the selling pile and there are crazy rumours from that Sam guy who leaks the line ups that Cucurella and Maatsen are going to be left out of the squad because they didn't do what the club wanted in the transfer window and will again be sold in January. We wanted Maatsen to sign an extension and he has no intention of doing so. 

[Max Fowler]

17 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

I'm hearing that Gallagher and Chalobah are on the selling pile and there are crazy rumours from that Sam guy who leaks the line ups that Cucurella and Maatsen are going to be left out of the squad because they didn't do what the club wanted in the transfer window and will again be sold in January. We wanted Maatsen to sign an extension and he has no intention of doing so. 

Sounds good for morale.

[Max Fowler]

22 minutes ago, Willian Dollar Baby said:

If Enzo, Caicedo and Lavia are the intended first choice then thats 4-3-3 and Chuk, Casadai, Gallagher and  the rest are all in competition. Again that's 8 players for three positions, 9 if Nkunku plays at 10 as expected. It's overkill and we've ended up again with a massive squad which will leave a number of players unhappy. We actually did a great job trimming the squad this summer before bloating it again in areas that were not necessary. 

The talent hoarding strategy doesn't work if the players you buy can't get minutes. If you know you're locking up three loan spots to dead wood then don't buy so many players. Why are we doing Real the courtesy of loaning our GK when they are desperate? Make them pay up. What are we going to do when Kepa returns in 12 months and we've then got three keepers on the books? 

Another example:

Stock piling talent has left us with a bloated squad and now potentially letting a great young player rot in the reserves. This could easily happen with Gallagher next. Players value will deteriorate quickly when they are not playing and other clubs know that we are desperate to sell. 

The amount of money we've spent on South American teenagers could have been used on first team players over the age of 21 who can actually be relied upon. We've tried this method before and the Piazon type signings are a lottery in reality.

Selling premier league ready HG players to facilitate spending a fortune on kids who are unlikely to play for the club is insanity. 

Totally agree. Except with Kepa because I think it was worth getting him off the wage bill. Signing Brighton‘s third keeper was not a great solution though and will cost us big time.

[Mark Kelly]

1 minute ago, Max Fowler said:

Sounds good for morale.

It's truly mental isn't it? 

If its true that is. 

[chara]

36 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

It's truly mental isn't it? 

If its true that is. 

That's the rub Mark......the print the legend quote comes to mind !

[thevelourfog]

32 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

Totally agree. Except with Kepa because I think it was worth getting him off the wage bill. Signing Brighton‘s third keeper was not a great solution though and will cost us big time.

Seen this a few times and not had the energy to respond, but just the once and for posterity. It's complete bollocks and reflects really badly on anyone who has seen it said elsewhere and unthinkingly repeated it.

Sanchez played every single minute of Brighton's PL campaign last year until 4th March. Of the 15 games he was not picked to start in, he was injured for 5. For the remaining 10, he was on the bench, so clearly not 3rd choice. Brighton signed a new keeper this summer to replace him, and that keeper has started the last 2 games after De Zerbi spoke in press conferences about easing them in after joining. That keeper, the one who replaced Sanchez, is their 1st choice. He was boight to replace the outgoing number 1 keeper. We can never know for sure what happens behind closed doors, but the noise was Sanchez and De Zerbi fell out on a personal level.

Sanchez was, with the exception of about 2 months, Brighton's automatic starter in goal. An argument he was 2nd choice is hard to really get going, but one he was 3rd is simply preposterous. It's just something anyone who wants to be unrelentingly negative about everything happening at the club will wheel out.

Whether or not Sanchez is good enough is, of course, a different matter. 

[Thiago97]

38 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

Seen this a few times and not had the energy to respond, but just the once and for posterity. It's complete bollocks and reflects really badly on anyone who has seen it said elsewhere and unthinkingly repeated it.

Sanchez played every single minute of Brighton's PL campaign last year until 4th March. Of the 15 games he was not picked to start in, he was injured for 5. For the remaining 10, he was on the bench, so clearly not 3rd choice. Brighton signed a new keeper this summer to replace him, and that keeper has started the last 2 games after De Zerbi spoke in press conferences about easing them in after joining. That keeper, the one who replaced Sanchez, is their 1st choice. He was boight to replace the outgoing number 1 keeper. We can never know for sure what happens behind closed doors, but the noise was Sanchez and De Zerbi fell out on a personal level.

Sanchez was, with the exception of about 2 months, Brighton's automatic starter in goal. An argument he was 2nd choice is hard to really get going, but one he was 3rd is simply preposterous. It's just something anyone who wants to be unrelentingly negative about everything happening at the club will wheel out.

Whether or not Sanchez is good enough is, of course, a different matter. 

Yep. Well said . Though I fear I am partly responsible by highlighting they signed a new keeper in the summer. Many people didn’t pick up on this, so I said it once and now it’s been something that everyone has run with to suit a narrative. 

 

[Max Fowler]

1 hour ago, thevelourfog said:

Seen this a few times and not had the energy to respond, but just the once and for posterity. It's complete bollocks and reflects really badly on anyone who has seen it said elsewhere and unthinkingly repeated it.

Sanchez played every single minute of Brighton's PL campaign last year until 4th March. Of the 15 games he was not picked to start in, he was injured for 5. For the remaining 10, he was on the bench, so clearly not 3rd choice. Brighton signed a new keeper this summer to replace him, and that keeper has started the last 2 games after De Zerbi spoke in press conferences about easing them in after joining. That keeper, the one who replaced Sanchez, is their 1st choice. He was boight to replace the outgoing number 1 keeper. We can never know for sure what happens behind closed doors, but the noise was Sanchez and De Zerbi fell out on a personal level.

Sanchez was, with the exception of about 2 months, Brighton's automatic starter in goal. An argument he was 2nd choice is hard to really get going, but one he was 3rd is simply preposterous. It's just something anyone who wants to be unrelentingly negative about everything happening at the club will wheel out.

Whether or not Sanchez is good enough is, of course, a different matter. 

Okay I admit it's a cheap line to say we bought Brighton's third choice keeper, but I am afraid your logic doesn't add up. Steele replaced Sanchez fair and square. De Zerbi loved Steele's ability to play out from the back and Sanchez wasn't getting back in the side. They bought Verbruggen a month before Sanchez left. It was as competition not as a replacement.

Even if De Zerbi was happy for him to leave as they likely had a falling out. Now De Zerbi says Verbruggen and Steele will each play 50% of games. So we literally have bought Brighton's third choice keeper, because he wasn't getting in ahead of Steele, and certainly won't get in ahead of Verbruggen. 

Steele is a baller from the back and far better on the ball than Sanchez. Sanchez was great for Potter but does anyone seriously ever think he reached the level where he was going to be a great signing for us?

I always said we should have replaced Kepa but somehow we've gone backwards. Football logic is simple - to be really successful you very likely need a great keeper and great centre-forward along with the rest of your spine.

We've invested a ton of money and don't have either.

Wake up and smell the coffee. The truth tastes better than the Clearklake Koolade you've been drinking.

 

[Max Fowler]

1 hour ago, Thiago97 said:

Yep. Well said . Though I fear I am partly responsible by highlighting they signed a new keeper in the summer. Many people didn’t pick up on this, so I said it once and now it’s been something that everyone has run with to suit a narrative. 

 

Again - not well said. Steele replaced Sanchez fair and square and was incredible for them at the end of last season.
Far more important to them and how they played than anything Sanchez ever produced.

[Sleeping Dave]

3 hours ago, Willian Dollar Baby said:

If Enzo, Caicedo and Lavia are the intended first choice then thats 4-3-3 and Chuk, Casadai, Gallagher and  the rest are all in competition. Again that's 8 players for three positions, 9 if Nkunku plays at 10 as expected. It's overkill and we've ended up again with a massive squad which will leave a number of players unhappy. We actually did a great job trimming the squad this summer before bloating it again in areas that were not necessary. 

The talent hoarding strategy doesn't work if the players you buy can't get minutes. If you know you're locking up three loan spots to dead wood then don't buy so many players. Why are we doing Real the courtesy of loaning our GK when they are desperate? Make them pay up. What are we going to do when Kepa returns in 12 months and we've then got three keepers on the books? 

Another example:

Stock piling talent has left us with a bloated squad and now potentially letting a great young player rot in the reserves. This could easily happen with Gallagher next. Players value will deteriorate quickly when they are not playing and other clubs know that we are desperate to sell. 

The amount of money we've spent on South American teenagers could have been used on first team players over the age of 21 who can actually be relied upon. We've tried this method before and the Piazon type signings are a lottery in reality.

Selling premier league ready HG players to facilitate spending a fortune on kids who are unlikely to play for the club is insanity. 

It hurts me a lot that we’d sign a bunch of French hopefuls when we already have someone like Chalobah on our books. The same can be said of Gallagher. These Americans are only viewing them as $$$ to ship off to make a “pure FFP profit”. Just be done with this ridiculous system already. It hurts football it’s than it gains the sport. 

The fact that these guys think they’ll revolutionise the sport has quickly been closed down. If we are ridiculously lucky and most of the potential materialise we will be alright for the next decade or so. But it’s not a viable strategy going forward. 

Im still hopeful the club will use every academy player who is good enough to be in PL rotation and spend the money on real top class talent. Similar to what Real has done all these years. It’s a model that works and ensures that the academy becomes a viable production facility to the club. 

3 hours ago, Mark Kelly said:

I'm hearing that Gallagher and Chalobah are on the selling pile and there are crazy rumours from that Sam guy who leaks the line ups that Cucurella and Maatsen are going to be left out of the squad because they didn't do what the club wanted in the transfer window and will again be sold in January. We wanted Maatsen to sign an extension and he has no intention of doing so. 

If I’m Maatsen I’m not signing anything that’s for damn sure. The signals they have sent will ensure that any academy player we have coming through will think long and hard about signing long term with us. It’s a shame really. 

2 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

Seen this a few times and not had the energy to respond, but just the once and for posterity. It's complete bollocks and reflects really badly on anyone who has seen it said elsewhere and unthinkingly repeated it.

Sanchez played every single minute of Brighton's PL campaign last year until 4th March. Of the 15 games he was not picked to start in, he was injured for 5. For the remaining 10, he was on the bench, so clearly not 3rd choice. Brighton signed a new keeper this summer to replace him, and that keeper has started the last 2 games after De Zerbi spoke in press conferences about easing them in after joining. That keeper, the one who replaced Sanchez, is their 1st choice. He was boight to replace the outgoing number 1 keeper. We can never know for sure what happens behind closed doors, but the noise was Sanchez and De Zerbi fell out on a personal level.

Sanchez was, with the exception of about 2 months, Brighton's automatic starter in goal. An argument he was 2nd choice is hard to really get going, but one he was 3rd is simply preposterous. It's just something anyone who wants to be unrelentingly negative about everything happening at the club will wheel out.

Whether or not Sanchez is good enough is, of course, a different matter. 

Although you are factually correct, I think what people are arguing is that Sanchez was third choice at the time of us buying him. That’s semantics granted, and perhaps not a very fair way of describing his ability. 

However, I think we can both agree that although he doesn’t have the same weaknesses as Kepa, a top keeper he is not. I’d say they are very similar actually. Given that, the money we’ve paid is alright but he should really be our GK2 and not our GK1. 

[thevelourfog]

36 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

Okay I admit it's a cheap line to say we bought Brighton's third choice keeper, but I am afraid your logic doesn't add up. Steele replaced Sanchez fair and square. De Zerbi loved Steele's ability to play out from the back and Sanchez wasn't getting back in the side. They bought Verbruggen a month before Sanchez left. It was as competition not as a replacement.

Even if De Zerbi was happy for him to leave as they likely had a falling out. Now De Zerbi says Verbruggen and Steele will each play 50% of games. So we literally have bought Brighton's third choice keeper, because he wasn't getting in ahead of Steele, and certainly won't get in ahead of Verbruggen. 

Steele is a baller from the back and far better on the ball than Sanchez. Sanchez was great for Potter but does anyone seriously ever think he reached the level where he was going to be a great signing for us?

I always said we should have replaced Kepa but somehow we've gone backwards. Football logic is simple - to be really successful you very likely need a great keeper and great centre-forward along with the rest of your spine.

We've invested a ton of money and don't have either.

Wake up and smell the coffee. The truth tastes better than the Clearklake Koolade you've been drinking.

lol, I honestly don't think you'd find a more consistent critic of Clearlake on this forum than me. But then this is just another cheap line.

You know that replacements for players are sometimes bought ahead of the original player going. I know that you know this. Why you would pretend otherwise, I don't know and for my own sanity I'll choose not to care.

I think we can say we don't think Sanchez was a good buy or good enough without making stuff up. 

Edited September 12, 2023 by thevelourfog

[thevelourfog]

28 minutes ago, Sleeping Dave said:

However, I think we can both agree that although he doesn’t have the same weaknesses as Kepa, a top keeper he is not. I’d say they are very similar actually. Given that, the money we’ve paid is alright but he should really be our GK2 and not our GK1. 

Sanchez is, I think, evidence of how little planning has gone into some of our transfer dealings. Moving Kepa out on loan was opportunistic, not something we could have anticipated was going to be an option at the time Sanchez was signed. What we've ended up doing is signing two GK2s to insane deals while still having the very expensive GK1 to try and shift next summer. How happy is whichever of Sanchez and Petrovic doesn't play going to be to stay come the end of the season? And what do we do in the likelihood neither steps up to GK1 standard? It looks to me we'll have to move at least 2 of the 4 keepers on the books on next summer and then replace them, again.

There's just no futureproofing.

[Max Fowler]

17 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

lol, I honestly don't think you'd find a more consistent critic of Clearlake on this forum than me. But then this is just another cheap line.

You know that replacements for players are sometimes bought ahead of the original player going. I know that you know this. Why you would pretend otherwise, I don't know and for my own sanity I'll choose not to care.

I think we can say we don't think Sanchez was a good buy or good enough without making stuff up. 

That's fair enough but the rest of what I said is true.

Steele was unbelievable last season and Sanchez was bested.

Maybe Sanchez was already out the door, in which case saying he is their number three isn't entirely true.

But it is true that Brighton found two keepers they liked more than Sanchez and where does that leave us?

Amazingly I look at Brighton's XI and think the majority would walk into our team:

At the very least Verbruggen, Estupinan, Gross, March, Mitoma, Ferguson.

Tells you EXACTLY where we are in the pecking order right now.

If Poch implodes we should be going for De Zerbi, Estupinan and Ferguson at the very least.

 

Edited September 12, 2023 by Max Fowler

[Willian Dollar Baby]

32 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

Sanchez is, I think, evidence of how little planning has gone into some of our transfer dealings. Moving Kepa out on loan was opportunistic, not something we could have anticipated was going to be an option at the time Sanchez was signed. What we've ended up doing is signing two GK2s to insane deals while still having the very expensive GK1 to try and shift next summer. How happy is whichever of Sanchez and Petrovic doesn't play going to be to stay come the end of the season? And what do we do in the likelihood neither steps up to GK1 standard? It looks to me we'll have to move at least 2 of the 4 keepers on the books on next summer and then replace them, again.

There's just no futureproofing.

Kicking the Lukaku and Kepa cans 12 months down the road does nobody any favours. Especially when Real will have Courtois back and will have had a whole season to realise Kepa is about as useful as a hologram in goal. I understand a few may have fallen off their chairs when Real and Bayern started knocking but the deal we've taken has somehow made our GK situation even more messy. It should have been full sale or nothing. 

Sanchez I don't rate from what I've seen, Petrovic sounds like he may have promise but is jumping up from MLS. We've somehow downgraded on Kepa and given 8 year bloody contracts to two unproven alternatives. Rather than sign Lavia, or indeed Washington, Angelo ect, we could have used that money to sign a long term keeper that will make a significant impact on our team immediately. 

We started off the summer by outright refusing Lukaku a loan move and by the end of the window let him go with our pants down and will still have the same problem next year. Probably a safe bet now that he will be loaned out for the remainder of his contract whilst his transfer value dissappears completely. 

Edited September 12, 2023 by Willian Dollar Baby

[Max Fowler]

 

IMO could let Reece go for the right price
Just too injury prone these days

[Max Fowler]

 

Our owners really know how to build the right spirit

[Max Fowler]

 

Come on lads. If we can get Toney in January - these bumbling owners are 10% forgiven for all their cock ups.

[Max Fowler]

Thought exercise -

I wonder where would be now if instead of spending 1 billion and making managerial changes like we have, we had backed Tuchel to the hilt and given him that 1 billion to spend on new players.

Imagine - add 10 100 million players to our Champions League winning squad. 

[Mark Kelly]

20 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

 

IMO could let Reece go for the right price
Just too injury prone these days

Don't they want all.of him then? 

Maybe it's £40m per season for five seasons? 

That'll be it.