Official transfer rumour thread

[Bill 1,788]

56 minutes ago, king canary said:

May depend on how keen West Ham are to move him on- would they agree to keep paying a certain chunk of his wages in order to get the rest of it off the books?

steady on old fellow - we have been down this road before amnd there are certain folk who will not welcoe you pointing out that a contract is a legal binding agreement, that cannot simply be 'ripped up;

 

In reality if the figure is as quoted then WHU have a wage liability in regard to Hugill of around £3.5m.(2 years)

They can therefore simply sell him to City for whatever wage we want to pay as that is that (the numpty claim)m or

any sale will require Hugill being paid that amount in full by some combination of payment from the two clubs. City could simply offer him the same level of pay and so WHU remove that liability

City could offer a percentage of that wage and WHU would make up the difference

The latter two options will be determined much by how much WHU want that wage off their books, and how much we value his services

 

[Fuzzar 1,702]

12 minutes ago, Bill said:

steady on old fellow - we have been down this road before amnd there are certain folk who will not welcoe you pointing out that a contract is a legal binding agreement, that cannot simply be 'ripped up;

 

In reality if the figure is as quoted then WHU have a wage liability in regard to Hugill of around £3.5m.(2 years)

They can therefore simply sell him to City for whatever wage we want to pay as that is that (the numpty claim)m or

any sale will require Hugill being paid that amount in full by some combination of payment from the two clubs. City could simply offer him the same level of pay and so WHU remove that liability

City could offer a percentage of that wage and WHU would make up the difference

The latter two options will be determined much by how much WHU want that wage off their books, and how much we value his services

 

Hmmm. Interesting City1st - thank you for enlightening us all.

Now, talk to us about bears - is it really true they sh!t in the woods?

[Hardhouse44 261]

15 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I like the idea of Jordan Hugill. 

After the signing of a traditional style left back and being linked to Jordan Hugill, it looks like we're moving towards being a bit more English, which bodes well for trying to stay in the Premier League a la Sheffield United and Burnley.

Hugill good with his head as well which means whipping a cross into the box becomes an option when he is on the pitch.

Our younger and more mobile Jordan Rhodes? 

Unlike Rhodes. He doesn’t put the ball in the onion bag very often. Rhodes’s goal tally is far superior and proven. Hope this guy works out but we need a goal scorer other that Pukki. This guy isn’t exactly prolific. 

[jaberry2 550]

He's a big physical striker who scored 15 goals for a poor QPR side last season. Being purchased for a modest sum, whats not to like!?

[Branston Pickle 3,659]

Is that so, Mr Hardhouse?  Stats for both players since the start of 2016/17, I thought 4 seasons seemed a fair enough comparison (from wiki so may be a bit out but not by much):

Rhodes - played 118, goals 22

Hugill - played 161, goals 45.

....you were saying?

Edited August 19, 2020 by Branston Pickle

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

7 minutes ago, Hardhouse44 said:

Unlike Rhodes. He doesn’t put the ball in the onion bag very often. Rhodes’s goal tally is far superior and proven. Hope this guy works out but we need a goal scorer other that Pukki. This guy isn’t exactly prolific. 

For starters, he's played at fairly average teams in the Championship - if not struggling ones. Secondly, as others have said, Hugill gives us a raw physicality that Rhodes could never bring to the party whilst technically not being too bad either. We suffer a lot from a lack of physical presence up top and if possession is lost, it puts more pressure on the defence. A strong guy up top can buy us more time.

Not only that, a strong forward holding up the ball should get the wingers into play. With Placheta in as a signing and Hernandez still there (or indeed a potential overlapping full-back) it should help the whole team stay compact and still get nicely up the pitch. A player like Hugill is not just measured in terms of goals, but also in terms of how he helps the team.

I doubt anyone would disagree that Rhodes is the better poacher, the cuter fox in the box of the two, but he's not got the same physicality and work rate. In the Championship last season we didn't exactly have any problems finishing and creating chances but we did have problems allowing teams to pressure our defence, and it was exacerbated in the Premiership.

A tall, strong target man to come off the bench is definitely someone we could use.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

22 minutes ago, Hardhouse44 said:

Unlike Rhodes. He doesn’t put the ball in the onion bag very often. Rhodes’s goal tally is far superior and proven. Hope this guy works out but we need a goal scorer other that Pukki. This guy isn’t exactly prolific. 

 

218 minutes per goal last season for QPR not too shoddy.

Bamford 216 minutes per goal last season for example, even Lewis Grabban's 20 goals were at a rate of 196 minutes per goal, Karlan Grant 195 minutes per goal.

Not saying Hugill is a Championship top scorer contender, but by no means a poor record at Preston or QPR. 

Struggled at Middlesbrough but they seem to wreck loads of players and that's why they are stuck in this league, Johnny Howson was a goalscoring midfielder until he moved there and now manages about 1 a season. 

Also, Hugill is one of those players like Holt/Morrison/Hoolahan who came from semi-pro and played professional football later than normal. Who's to say that he hasn't got a bit more to come. Look at what age Holt reached the Premier League (and Rickie Lambert!). 

Edited August 19, 2020 by TeemuVanBasten

[king canary 7,606]

37 minutes ago, Bill said:

steady on old fellow - we have been down this road before amnd there are certain folk who will not welcoe you pointing out that a contract is a legal binding agreement, that cannot simply be 'ripped up;

 

In reality if the figure is as quoted then WHU have a wage liability in regard to Hugill of around £3.5m.(2 years)

They can therefore simply sell him to City for whatever wage we want to pay as that is that (the numpty claim)m or

any sale will require Hugill being paid that amount in full by some combination of payment from the two clubs. City could simply offer him the same level of pay and so WHU remove that liability

City could offer a percentage of that wage and WHU would make up the difference

The latter two options will be determined much by how much WHU want that wage off their books, and how much we value his services

 

OH CHRIST NOT THIS AGAIN.

"any sale will require Hugill being paid that amount in full by some combination of payment from the two clubs. City could simply offer him the same level of pay and so WHU remove that liability"

NO IT DOESN'T. Hugill could perfectly happilly agree to come to us for £10k less a week and West Ham wouldn't have to make up the rest of his wages. You make this insane claim on a yearly basis and it still isn't true.

Yes, they can't force him to accept lower wages. We could offer him £10k less a week and he could say no. Or he could be offered £10k less a week and West Ham could offer to pay him £5k a week to top it up. 

However if Hugill agrees to a lower deal here with no top up from West Ham then West Ham wouldn't owe him the difference. 

[Dr Greenthumb 749]

3 hours ago, priceyrice said:

Have you got an examples that support this? 

What do you expect £3-5 mil to get you in this day and age? Top championship strikers are valued at £20m

[king canary 7,606]

23 minutes ago, Hardhouse44 said:

Unlike Rhodes. He doesn’t put the ball in the onion bag very often. Rhodes’s goal tally is far superior and proven. Hope this guy works out but we need a goal scorer other that Pukki. This guy isn’t exactly prolific. 

Rhodes goal tally is only far superior if you ignore the last four or five years.

Similarly, Hugill clearly brings more than goals to the team, something Rhodes also doesn't. 

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

3 minutes ago, king canary said:

OH CHRIST NOT THIS AGAIN.

"any sale will require Hugill being paid that amount in full by some combination of payment from the two clubs. City could simply offer him the same level of pay and so WHU remove that liability"

NO IT DOESN'T. Hugill could perfectly happilly agree to come to us for £10k less a week and West Ham wouldn't have to make up the rest of his wages. You make this insane claim on a yearly basis and it still isn't true.

Yes, they can't force him to accept lower wages. We could offer him £10k less a week and he could say no. Or he could be offered £10k less a week and West Ham could offer to pay him £5k a week to top it up. 

However if Hugill agrees to a lower deal here with no top up from West Ham then West Ham wouldn't owe him the difference. 

Wasting your time Kaceyo, theres no such thing as a three way agreement  in the world of the Bilious one. As long as he thinks hes right, he will not listen, he really does not have the flexibility of mind to take such a complex thing on board. " thrash out a deal.....no way !! Contracts are binding ...even if all parties agree to alter it." 

He truly is the king of the  Numpties. And a bit dim, and prone to making stuff up. And probably more than one poster.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,558]

59 minutes ago, TheGoogler said:

Leeds moving for ... Ryan Kent.

Gone from Edison Cavani, to Emi Buendia to Harry Wilson to Ryan Kent. 

Think it unlikely Emi will be on his way to Elland Road to play for them any time soon.

Apparently they have £50m to spend, which really isn’t that much. Think they are prioritising a striker first guess if they can make savings in other areas they might be back for Emi.

I suspect any transfers of Norwich’s ‘big 5’ will happen late in the window. Clubs know those players are available, if they are prepared to pay the price.

Right now it seems most clubs think those prices are a bit high - they may change their mind if they can’t find anyone else. 

[All the Germans 1,078]

21 minutes ago, jaberry2 said:

He's a big physical striker who scored 15 goals for a poor QPR side last season. Being purchased for a modest sum, whats not to like!?

Is he 'big'? When I've seen him, he certainly puts himself about, but I wouldn't consider him very big or very strong, in the terms of professional footballers. Wikipedia may not be particularly reliable but it says he's just about 6ft, that's what I'd call average for a professional footballer?

[king canary 7,606]

1 minute ago, All the Germans said:

Is he 'big'? When I've seen him, he certainly puts himself about, but I wouldn't consider him very big or very strong, in the terms of professional footballers. Wikipedia may not be particularly reliable but it says he's just about 6ft, that's what I'd call average for a professional footballer?

Big by our standards I'd say.

 

[Hardhouse44 261]

24 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Is that so, Mr Hardhouse?  Stats for both players since the start of 2016/17, I thought 4 seasons seemed a fair enough comparison (from wiki so may be a bit out but not by much):

Rhodes - played 118, goals 22

Hugill - played 161, goals 45.

....you were saying?

 

[Bill 1,788]

10 minutes ago, king canary said:

OH CHRIST NOT THIS AGAIN.

"any sale will require Hugill being paid that amount in full by some combination of payment from the two clubs. City could simply offer him the same level of pay and so WHU remove that liability"

NO IT DOESN'T. Hugill could perfectly happilly agree to come to us for £10k less a week and West Ham wouldn't have to make up the rest of his wages. You make this insane claim on a yearly basis and it still isn't true.

Yes, they can't force him to accept lower wages. We could offer him £10k less a week and he could say no. Or he could be offered £10k less a week and West Ham could offer to pay him £5k a week to top it up. 

However if Hugill agrees to a lower deal here with no top up from West Ham then West Ham wouldn't owe him the difference. 

oh dear, make something up and argue against that instead

nowhere have I said that Hugill does not have a choice - that is just you making it up.... yet again

what I have reiterated is how the contract stands ie Hugill is entitled to that contract being honoured

nowr respond to that, and stop making up stuff

[Hardhouse44 261]

Hmm

how do those stats really work though.  How many of the 118 games for Rhodes were sub appearances. 
 

I didn’t say he wasn’t going to be any good I just questioned his goal tally and likeness to Rhodes. For a 28 year old strike he’s score $od all really. How many did Rhodes have by 28?

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,820]

4 minutes ago, All the Germans said:

Is he 'big'? When I've seen him, he certainly puts himself about, but I wouldn't consider him very big or very strong, in the terms of professional footballers. Wikipedia may not be particularly reliable but it says he's just about 6ft, that's what I'd call average for a professional footballer?

Players like Grant Holt and Alan Shearer were 'only' 6ft, but they were both big, strong physical strikers.

 

14 minutes ago, king canary said:

OH CHRIST NOT THIS AGAIN.

"any sale will require Hugill being paid that amount in full by some combination of payment from the two clubs. City could simply offer him the same level of pay and so WHU remove that liability"

NO IT DOESN'T. Hugill could perfectly happilly agree to come to us for £10k less a week and West Ham wouldn't have to make up the rest of his wages. You make this insane claim on a yearly basis and it still isn't true.

Yes, they can't force him to accept lower wages. We could offer him £10k less a week and he could say no. Or he could be offered £10k less a week and West Ham could offer to pay him £5k a week to top it up. 

However if Hugill agrees to a lower deal here with no top up from West Ham then West Ham wouldn't owe him the difference. 

You know what he's like. He makes a statement once and he refuses to acknowledge there may be another viewpoint or alternative, so he just runs and runs with it.

[Indy 3,300]

I remember reading somewhere that a player cannot be sold to another club and the prior club carrying on paying any part of the wages, the contract is terminated at the signing of that player to the new club. Any outstanding contracts are terminated at that point. 
The only options players have is to stay and see the contract out, go out on loan where the wage can be topped up by the parent club or take the lower wage and negotiate a get out payment at a reduced payment, the norm.

Don’t know of or think it’s legal to buy a player on a new contract and that player still being paid by a previous club to make up the difference!

[Bill 1,788]

1 minute ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Players like Grant Holt and Alan Shearer were 'only' 6ft, but they were both big, strong physical strikers.

 

You know what he's like. He makes a statement once and he refuses to acknowledge there may be another viewpoint or alternative, so he just runs and runs with it.

there are infinite viewpoints - that does not make the valid simply by the dint of them being expressed

I have one viewpoint, based on the legality of contract

sadly the usual numpties are waving bits of paper with my words on, that they have scribbled out

meaning I am wrong, because they have changed what I said 🤪

 

but nice to see you join in with your usual lack of knowledge about the matter in hand

[All the Germans 1,078]

2 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Players like Grant Holt and Alan Shearer were 'only' 6ft, but they were both big, strong physical strikers.

 

Agreed and also agreed he's 'big' by our standards but I don't think Hugill is in the same class as either Holt or Shearer; either at being 'big' or at being good or at goalscoring. (Obviously Grant, as much as I love him, was not in Shearers class either).

Sir Grant was 'big' in a different way (No, I don't mean that) to Hugill despite being the same height. He was stocky for want of a better word (not sure you can be stocky and be 6ft), which lead to him being called fat by opposition fans. I think that he was much stronger than Hugill is.

Bottom line, I think Hugill is sh*t (if you couldn't tell) and I was being polite when I called him bang average earlier. I don't think he scores enough goals, he's not quick, he's not particularly big, he's not particularly strong, he's not very technical. He does put himself about and whilst he's sh*t, he's not dogsh*t, so a step up on Drmic.

[Bill 1,788]

1 minute ago, Indy said:

I remember reading somewhere that a player cannot be sold to another club and the prior club carrying on paying any part of the wages, the contract is terminated at the signing of that player to the new club. Any outstanding contracts are terminated at that point. 
The only options players have is to stay and see the contract out, go out on loan where the wage can be topped up by the parent club or take the lower wage and negotiate a get out payment at a reduced payment, the norm.

Don’t know of or think it’s legal to buy a player on a new contract and that player still being paid by a previous club to make up the difference!

Given I have not stated that, why are you stating that

or perhaps I should already know

 

now lets have the numpties who have accused me, put up where I have stated what they claim I have stated

[Fr. Chewy Louie 137]

"City could offer a percentage of that wage and WHU would make up the difference"

That sounds like that, but maybe I'm missing some nuance.

[Indy 3,300]

Just now, Bill said:

Given I have not stated that, why are you stating that

or perhaps I should already know

 

now lets have the numpties who have accused me, put up where I have stated what they claim I have stated

Wow City 1st I’ve not mentioned you or you’re statements, just posted what I read last year!

But as you plead ignorance you did actually say exactly that

hour ago,  Bill said:

steady on old fellow - we have been down this road before amnd there are certain folk who will not welcoe you pointing out that a contract is a legal binding agreement, that cannot simply be 'ripped up;

 

In reality if the figure is as quoted then WHU have a wage liability in regard to Hugill of around £3.5m.(2 years)

They can therefore simply sell him to City for whatever wage we want to pay as that is that (the numpty claim)m or

any sale will require Hugill being paid that amount in full by some combination of payment from the two clubs. City could simply offer him the same level of pay and so WHU remove that liability

City could offer a percentage of that wage and WHU would make up the difference

The latter two options will be determined much by how much WHU want that wage off their books, and how much we value his services

[Bill 1,788]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

May depend on how keen West Ham are to move him on- would they agree to keep paying a certain chunk of his wages in order to get the rest of it off the books?

Here we are Indy, why not take it up with the poster who seems to thunk this is a possibility

and stop whining at me

someone who HAS NOT claimed this

[grababackpackcanary 5]

Some people do like having a bit of a  giraffe on twitter.....

[Big O 225]

I agree with a few that he is a Potential signing that doesn’t look like he aligns with our previous transfer strategy but that seems to show that farke/Webber are thinking a little differently with the lessons from last year.

Given that Drmic wasn’t at training then this would appear to have something to it but Webber also usually likes to operate quietly so I wonder how many other targets are being discussed behind closed doors and whether this has been leaked by West Ham to drive up other bidders (I.e. QPR) or us to show potential other targets that we will go elsewhere. It may also be that we are genuinely interested but I don’t think this will actually happen.

 

[Bill 1,788]

10 minutes ago, Fr. Chewy Louie said:

"City could offer a percentage of that wage and WHU would make up the difference"

That sounds like that, but maybe I'm missing some nuance.

ooh look children here's another

who curiously just signed in

 

there's no 'nuance'

nothing in those words says that both clubs would be paying a wage at the same tome

so stop trying to make up stuff

and more curious that he did not reply to the person who did make that claim

 

''May depend on how keen West Ham are to move him on- would they agree to keep paying a certain chunk of his wages in order to get the rest of it off the books? '' KingCanary

 

too obvious sometimes ☺️

Edited August 19, 2020 by Bill

[Indy 3,300]

10 minutes ago, Bill said:

Here we are Indy, why not take it up with the poster who seems to thunk this is a possibility

and stop whining at me

someone who HAS NOT claimed this

Again you jumped on me Bill! I didn’t mention you or Kingo, I pointed out that I read a selling club cannot carry on paying wages to a player as the contract is terminated and the new clubs contract starts, it has a conflict of the intrest and as such not legal in the same league.

I never singled anyone out, might be wrong just saying I’ve read it!

Edited August 19, 2020 by Indy

[Fr. Chewy Louie 137]

3 minutes ago, Bill said:

ooh look children here;s another

who curiously just signed in

 

there's no 'nuance'

nothing in those words says that both clubs would be paying a wage at the same tome

so stop trying to make up stuff

I have no axe to grind with you, but your point isn't clear to me. Are you suggesting that WHU would pay a lump sum to the player to make up for the  wage differential?