The Officially Not Official Summer Transfer Thread 2023

[Wibble 109]

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

2 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

I guess alot depends on where the planes are available. I would bet venice and treviso would be far busier airports and less likely to have available aircraft than Bolzano? 

Entirely my speculation though!

Treviso's tiny going off recent passenger stats, although Bolzano is some degrees smaller still so you might be right.
 

1 minute ago, Desert_Fox_2 said:

Its not far from Venice.

Couple of hours away, I'd guess. Probably a similar distance to Verona (and I've done that leg on train this year, weekend in Verona for a half-marathon, then took the train to Venice for a day).

[cambridgeshire canary 6,740]

7 minutes ago, Desert_Fox_2 said:

Pohjanpalo

I refuse to get exicted as that would be a pretty decent signing and my hearts been broken by canon. Prehaps Pukki has said something to him?

Edited September 1, 2023 by cambridgeshire canary

[Terminally Yellow 2,458]

3 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Treviso's tiny going off recent passenger stats, although Bolzano is some degrees smaller still so you might be right.

Couple of hours away, I'd guess. Probably a similar distance to Verona (and I've done that leg on train this year, weekend in Verona for a half-marathon, then took the train to Venice for a day).

Must admit, been to Rome but never Venice. Would really love to, so I could be entirely barking up the wrong tree. 

[horsefly 4,303]

3 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

Not relevant here, we need a striker with Josh out injured and since he's looked so good this season we need someone who can come in and full his shoes. Everyone saying it's just a short-term thing is missing the point, Josh could potentially be out for 20+ games, that's 60 points potentially at risk by NOT acting.

Nope! It's completely relevant. There would be absolutely no point bringing in someone who is no better than what we already have to substitute for Sargent's absence (just as Naismith proved to be no improvement upon what we already had in Hoolahan or any of the strikers). What would it cost to bring in someone who could genuinely "fill Sargent's shoes"? I have no idea re the prognosis of Sargent's injury, do you? Wagner and his team are the only people privy to that, and will be the best judges of the worth of replacing him with the talent available for us to bring in. I would love to see some cover come in, but won't be throwing my toys out of the pram if Wagner and Webber decide otherwise.

[Wirecanary 26]

46 minutes ago, Indy said:

Though it would have been nice to have got Cannon in, I’ll be honest we have Sainz coming back who can play as a striker, we have Fassnacht who can play up top too, Rowe is a good shout as a forward big and fast, I’d much rather go with what we have than buy the likes of Lowe who I don’t think offers anything the guys I’ve mentioned can’t bring to the team if needed.

Problem is it’s all working now . Another striker goes down and you have to shuffle players around like Rowe where it’s working perfectly this may negate what works and the wheels come off… hence you want someone else to slot in and cause as least disruption to the system as possible. We should have had four strikers anyway we’re always been flying light especially when we let kamara go on loan. 

[horsefly 4,303]

11 minutes ago, king canary said:

Eh? That wasn't to keep the fans happy, Neil very much wanted Naismith.

The two things were (and are) not mutually exclusive. Every transfer window sees fans baying for new additions. The purchase of Naismith kept a lot of fans desperate to see new additions happy...for a very short while.

[Canary Wundaboy 1,359]

4 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Nope! It's completely relevant. There would be absolutely no point bringing in someone who is no better than what we already have to substitute for Sargent's absence (just as Naismith proved to be no improvement upon what we already had in Hoolahan or any of the strikers). What would it cost to bring in someone who could genuinely "fill Sargent's shoes"? I have no idea re the prognosis of Sargent's injury, do you? Wagner and his team are the only people privy to that, and will be the best judges of the worth of replacing him with the talent available for us to bring in. I would love to see some cover come in, but won't be throwing my toys out of the pram if Wagner and Webber decide otherwise.

If Sargent was only going to be out for a couple of weeks they'd make do and risk it for a few weeks. The fact that we're going to the market at all means it's bad.

[horsefly 4,303]

Just now, Canary Wundaboy said:

If Sargent was only going to be out for a couple of weeks they'd make do and risk it for a few weeks. The fact that we're going to the market at all means it's bad.

Indeed! But that doesn't alter the point that it's only worth bringing in a replacement if that player is more capable than what we already have available. I hope they find someone who fits the bill, but if they can't then I see no point in wasting money.

[repman 635]

42 minutes ago, king canary said:

There will definitely need to be acclimatization but equally there is a reason that Sargent/Barnes/Idah are the preferred options for these roles- namely the energy and physicality they bring to the team, the ability to engage central defenders and the willingness to press. 

I don't doubt in a pinch we could use Gibbs or Nunez as one striker in a two. However we certainly couldn't use them both at the same time,  nor would I imagine Wagner want to use them for more than a stopgap. I'd wager he'd take a more physical but less acclimatised player if he had the choice.

Yeah I think there's a middle ground here, both Barnes and Sargent have been dropping deep in buildup to form the box in midfield with our wingers high. This element of our system could easily be performed by a number of players, if anything it's the weakest part of their games. But they also offer plenty in terms of pressing, physicality and link up play. Look at Barnes with his back to goal for Rowe's goal vs Millwall. 

I think one of the reasons it's working so well right now is that the 2 strikers can conceivably pin their centre backs or drop deep, if it was Nunez/Gibbs in that role then they'd more than likely always have to drop deep. If we don't bring someone in I think we could maybe see Fassnacht/Rowe/Sainz there sooner than a truer midfield option.

[Crafty Canary 496]

Do you really expect a striker to be bought today either permanent or on loan? I’m not holding my breath given our history on transfer deadline day.

[smooth 114]

A centre forward signing is exciting.

Josh, as many have said, will return and how he performs or how long he takesto reach levels as he has shown already is anyone's guess.

So paying £££ now is worthwhile. Idah, a new striker and Josh can all learn from Barnes. They can become better and score goals this term.

If one is sold next summer, the likelihood is that we have made some cash on them, based on current performances. If we were to be in the prem we would have 4 strikers all proving they can compete and finances can go across other areas of squad.

We have needed to purchase a striker who is young but ready to bang them in, use this opportunity to bring in another so we are never short of goals.

[king canary 7,609]

17 minutes ago, horsefly said:

The two things were (and are) not mutually exclusive. Every transfer window sees fans baying for new additions. The purchase of Naismith kept a lot of fans desperate to see new additions happy...for a very short while.

You said Naismith was an example of a high profile signing 'just to keep the fans happy' which blatantly wasn't the case. 

[horsefly 4,303]

8 minutes ago, smooth said:

We have needed to purchase a striker who is young but ready to bang them in, use this opportunity to bring in another so we are never short of goals.

You mean like Cameron Archer who has had one season on loan scoring 10 in 20 games, and has just cost Sheff United £18m.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,821]

15 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Indeed! But that doesn't alter the point that it's only worth bringing in a replacement if that player is more capable than what we already have available. I hope they find someone who fits the bill, but if they can't then I see no point in wasting money.

Without Sargent, we have two players for two positions. If either Idah or Barnes are unavailable, we'll have to start moving players from other areas who are either playing well in their current roles or are less suited to this one. Even if we can only identify a player who is inferior to Idah/Barnes/Sargent, we need an extra body (or even two, if we're being greedy).

[Jim Smith 2,322]

15 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Indeed! But that doesn't alter the point that it's only worth bringing in a replacement if that player is more capable than what we already have available. I hope they find someone who fits the bill, but if they can't then I see no point in wasting money.

But when you are down to two fit strikers that is not the case. We okay two up front. Even if the player is not considered any better than Idah we need extra cover. 

[king canary 7,609]

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

Without Sargent, we have two players for two positions. If either Idah or Barnes are unavailable, we'll have to start moving players from other areas who are either playing well in their current roles or are less suited to this one. Even if we can only identify a player who is inferior to Idah/Barnes/Sargent, we need an extra body (or even two, if we're being greedy).

Yep, equally I don't think many on here are calling for massive spending. I think most, if not all, would be happy with a 6 month loan for someone like Moore.

[horsefly 4,303]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

You said Naismith was an example of a high profile signing 'just to keep the fans happy' which blatantly wasn't the case. 

Oh I'm so very, very sorry. I must have missed that this was the one January window when fans weren't engaged in the usual frenzy of desperation to see big new signings to stave off impending relegation.

[king canary 7,609]

Just now, horsefly said:

Oh I'm so very, very sorry. I must have missed that this was the one January window when fans weren't engaged in the usual frenzy of desperation to see big new signings to stave off impending relegation.

It's not my fault you apparently don't understand the meaning of the term 'just to.'

[horsefly 4,303]

2 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

But when you are down to two fit strikers that is not the case. We okay two up front. Even if the player is not considered any better than Idah we need extra cover. 

And as I have said I hope we bring someone in, but only if they offer something that we don't already have in our ranks. Would you have been happy if they had brought Lowe in?

[If wed kept Howie.. 208]

How about a cheeky bid for Salah (151m should do it)..

[horsefly 4,303]

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

It's not my fault you apparently don't understand the meaning of the term 'just to.'

I do apologise most profusely. I should have said "just to keep Neil and the fans happy". 

[Desert_Fox_2 6]

Pohjanpalo is exactly what we need. He has a decent recent goalscoring record in a country where defenses are tighter and has a decent international pedigree. More importantly, he is cheap (£3.4M release clause) and has been described as a physically imposing striker who "creates problems"  for defenders with his strength.

 

[NFN FC 1,123]

4 minutes ago, horsefly said:

And as I have said I hope we bring someone in, but only if they offer something that we don't already have in our ranks. Would you have been happy if they had brought Lowe in?

Nope

Only Cannon or Pohja

[king canary 7,609]

4 minutes ago, horsefly said:

And as I have said I hope we bring someone in, but only if they offer something that we don't already have in our ranks. Would you have been happy if they had brought Lowe in?

I think the point is they don't need to offer more than Barnes or Idah, they need to offer more than Nunez or Gibbs as a striker which I'd assume isnt a hugely high bar. Lowe doesn't seem to be a fit but Moore or similar makes perfect sense.

[horsefly 4,303]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

I think the point is they don't need to offer more than Barnes or Idah, they need to offer more than Nunez or Gibbs as a striker which I'd assume isnt a hugely high bar. Lowe doesn't seem to be a fit but Moore or similar makes perfect sense.

Precisely the point I have been making. 

[Jim Smith 2,322]

5 minutes ago, horsefly said:

And as I have said I hope we bring someone in, but only if they offer something that we don't already have in our ranks. Would you have been happy if they had brought Lowe in?

Yes I would to be honest. He’s got a bit of pace and athleticism about him. I remember him being a real handful against us for Portsmouth in the cup a while back. The thought of relying on Idah til January fills me with dread. 

[horsefly 4,303]

Just now, Jim Smith said:

Yes I would to be honest. He’s got a bit of pace and athleticism about him. I remember him being a real handful against us for Portsmouth in the cup a while back. The thought of relying on Idah til January fills me with dread. 

Interesting! His goal per game average is mediocre at best, and he's more a winger rather than a striker. If there's one thing we're not short of it's wingers.

[Crafty Canary 496]

30 minutes ago, Crafty Canary said:

Do you really expect a striker to be bought today either permanent or on loan? I’m not holding my breath given our history on transfer deadline day.

Ibid

[repman 635]

5 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Yes I would to be honest. He’s got a bit of pace and athleticism about him. I remember him being a real handful against us for Portsmouth in the cup a while back. The thought of relying on Idah til January fills me with dread. 

That was nearly 5 years ago! There's no doubt back then he was a real handful but his last few seasons have been much more average.