Buy McCormack or keep Brady

[The Great Drinkell 51]

If you had a choice would you rather we hung on to Brady or lost Brady but got in McCormack?

Having both is not an option - for the sake of this little poll.

[Mickdundee 0]

McCormack easy choice

[King Klose 0]

Depends. In this hypothetical scenario, if we were to keep Brady, would we be getting another striker? If yes, then keep Brady. If no, then get McCormack. At the moment we are going into the season with Jerome, Lafferty and Morris.

[Michael Bates 12]

McCormack as we currently have two senior strikers on the books. Of which one has played very little in 2-3 seasons. Whereas the Brady position can be filled much easier .

[ZLF 335]

sell brady and play witha fluid midfield rather than using wingers.

Buy two strikers in his stead, neither being mccormack.

If we buy mccormack I would be looking to sell Naismith; we dont need both and wes & Jos & Maddison...

[Indy_Bones 444]

Pretty similar to ZLF (though I disagree ref wingers).Sell Brady for 15mil+, genuinely good player, but not worth his current market value IMHO and we should cash in accordingly.Don''t buy McCormack, overpriced, currently injured/unfit and doesn''t fit the system AN (and most others) use.Take a gamble on a young striker from abroad (I still like the look of Jerry Mbakogu despite his struggles last season) for maybe 3-5 mil, and also look at signing one of the other options we''ve all discussed to death, be this Wells, Assombalonga, Kodjia or similar with a view to a 10mil or lower price tag.Chances are that Olsson will also be going, so a new LB is going to be another priority (probably with the money from the Olsson sale), but god what I''d give to have a younger Adam Drury or Mark Bowen back these days!