Who hopes Palace get relegated and Guehi leaves on a free?

[Dr Gloom 21924]

Just now, Gemmill said:

 

I don't think we think it'll go down, I think we think we'll get something accepted closer to the end of the window. Possibly deadline day, but I hope not. 

 

I think Parrish is quite happy getting games out of the player while they're short handed, cos he thinks he can do that and still get the fee he wants before the window shuts.

 

I don't think they need to sell him. They just got £50m for Olisse. The only way he goes is if we pay massively over the odds. Okay, it might be a draw, as TP puts it, if both sides eventually agree, but someone always wins really, let's be honest. It might be us in the longterm if he turns out to be a big hit but it's a massive transfer fee for a young player to be carrying around on their shoulders - particularly a defender. 

[Gemmill 44897]

3 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

@Gemmill i'll put it to you - do you think guehi is worth £70m? if we signed him and he turns out to be an amazing player for us, i'll be happy to admit i was wrong. all transfers carry an element of risk but that would feel like a massive roll of the dice. i think it's telling that no one else has entered a bidding war for him at the price mooted. it's the sort of crazy fee only the likes of man u and chelsea tend to pay. i wasn't under the impression that we have the psr headroom to be competing at that end of the market. or if we are, it will come at the expense of signing a RW, which i think would be a mistake. 

 

i will be happy to eat my words if we sign guehi and a quality RW before the window closes. 

 

If he's still turning out for us when he's 32, then I'm fine with us paying £70m for him. And I'm sure that will be the thinking on which we're prepared to pay that amount for him. 

 

At the end of the day, I'm not an expert on player valuation, and it's not my money. And I don't care to try and do the sums on behalf of the club. I want us to sign the player the DoF and the manager want, or else what is the point of having that structure at the club? 

 

I will regard it as a real disappointment if we don't get this one sorted. 

[ewerk 30619]

7 minutes ago, Toonpack said:

 

No-one wins a negotiation, if it concludes with agreement and both sides are happy i.e. it's a draw.

 

Are we calling the signing of Boumsong from Rangers a draw?

[Gemmill 44897]

1 minute ago, Dr Gloom said:

 

I don't think they need to sell him. They just got £50m for Olisse. The only way he goes is if we pay massively over the odds. Okay, it might be a draw, as TP puts it, if both sides eventually agree, but someone always wins really, let's be honest. It might be us in the longterm if he turns out to be a big hit but it's a massive transfer fee for a young player to be carrying around on their shoulders - particularly a defender. 

 

But what's the logical extension of that, never sign anyone for big money in case it has a psychological impact. 

 

Read my last post. I want us to get him because he's our number one target. I really don't give a fuck what the cost is cos that's not my job. People whose job it is think a) he's worth that, and b) it's workable within our PSR constraints. So let's get him. 

[Toonpack 9429]

1 minute ago, ewerk said:

 

Are we calling the signing of Boumsong from Rangers a draw?

 

That wasn't a negotiation it was a corrupt hun-heist

[Gemmill 44897]

What's Isak? 22? His price tag didn't cause him any undue concern. 

 

Gordon, 20 when we signed him? Same. 

 

It's a mental argument to claim that you're worried about the welfare of the player being signed for that much. We're not signing him to score 30 a season, he just needs to not drop clangers. 

[Craig 6682]

48 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

 

Schar got sent off and we had to play Krafth at CB. We need a CB. 

 

We need a RW too. 

Yeah I don't get this obsession that RW is the primary target. Botman & Lascelles are out until January (at least!) and after Schar & Burn we're playing emergency CBs. It's absolutely the priority. 

[Dr Gloom 21924]

15 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

 

If he's still turning out for us when he's 32, then I'm fine with us paying £70m for him. And I'm sure that will be the thinking on which we're prepared to pay that amount for him. 

 

At the end of the day, I'm not an expert on player valuation, and it's not my money. And I don't care to try and do the sums on behalf of the club. I want us to sign the player the DoF and the manager want, or else what is the point of having that structure at the club? 

 

I will regard it as a real disappointment if we don't get this one sorted. 

 

i'm no expert either but i don't think you need to be. you can make an educated guess based on what players of similar or greater ability have been traded for in recent seasons. only four defenders have ever been sold for £70m or more: maguire (flop at that price to Man U who have a history of overpaying), gvardiol (hit), VVD (hit) and Fofana (to chelsea who tend to overpay under their batshit new owner)

Edited August 28 by Dr Gloom

[Gemmill 44897]

1 minute ago, Craig said:

Yeah I don't get this obsession that RW is the primary target. Botman & Lascelles are out until January (at least!) and after Schar & Burn we're playing emergency CBs. It's absolutely the priority. 

 

Aye we've started the season with our first and third choice CBs playing. One got sent off and we literally have no natural CB cover. We're straight to full backs filling in. 

[Dr Gloom 21924]

1 minute ago, Gemmill said:

What's Isak? 22? His price tag didn't cause him any undue concern. 

 

Gordon, 20 when we signed him? Same. 

 

It's a mental argument to claim that you're worried about the welfare of the player being signed for that much. We're not signing him to score 30 a season, he just needs to not drop clangers. 

 

No one questioned Isak because

 

a) he's a striker and you have to pay more for the players who put the ball in the net and 

 

b) he was clearly an elite player

 

plenty of people questioned the gordon transfer for the price (i was among them). it seemed a lot for a young player with potential but the recruitment team were proved right on that case. i hope if they do spend £70m on guehi they will be proved right again but it does feel like a massive roll of the dice to me

[thebrokendoll 9242]

2 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

 

Aye we've started the season with our first and third choice CBs playing. One got sent off and we literally have no natural CB cover. We're straight to full backs filling in. 

 

which is why it madness we're still seemingly chasing shadows with guehi 3 days before the window shuts.

we've had three and a half months to address 2 problem positions.

[Gemmill 44897]

3 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

 

i'm no expert either but i don't think you need to be. you can make an educated guess based on what players of similar or greater ability have been traded for in recent seasons. only four defenders have ever been sold for £70m or more: maguire (flop at that price to Man U who have a history of overpaying), gvardiol (hit), VVD (hit) and Fofana (to chelsea who tend to overpay under they're batshit new owner)

 

You can't state monetary values and not factor in the mental inflation that trfr fees have gone through. All players are getting more expensive every season. Does this look a bit out of place? Yes. But I don't care. 

[Dr Gloom 21924]

3 minutes ago, Craig said:

Yeah I don't get this obsession that RW is the primary target. Botman & Lascelles are out until January (at least!) and after Schar & Burn we're playing emergency CBs. It's absolutely the priority. 

 

yeah, let's go into another season with murphy and miggy as first choice RW (six goals between them last season) - they're sure to fire us back into top four contention. 

 

i like both players, they're honest grafters and always try but let's get real - they should be rotation options. if our saudi overlords are to be believed and they want us to get to number one, we can't be going into another season with steve bruce-era players fighting it out to start in a key forward position. 

[Craig 6682]

It cracks me up how people are absolutely convinced of the numbers being banded around as well. Since the takeover, this club has played their business very close to their chests so I take the reporting of £60m / £65m / £70m by the rags with an absolutely massive pinch of salt. 

Too many of our fans have decided they don't want him on the basis that the deal is taking too long to conclude / he's obviously not wanting to come as he keeps playing for Palace (serious, WTAF?!) / the cost is too much. 

I'll absolutely crease up if we end up signing him on Friday for £45-50m and he's in the squad for Sunday. What are the pissy-pants brigade going to do then?

[RobElliott 1493]

Live scenes of Mitchell negotiating with Palace  

[Dr Gloom 21924]

1 minute ago, Gemmill said:

 

You can't state monetary values and not factor in the mental inflation that trfr fees have gone through. All players are getting more expensive every season. Does this look a bit out of place? Yes. But I don't care. 

 

 i won't care either if we sign him at that price and he turns out to be mint. i just think we're desprate for a RW. it's the weakest area of the squad. unless howe starts playing gordon out there - i think he has to if we don't upgrade that position this window. 

[Craig 6682]

1 minute ago, Dr Gloom said:

 

yeah, let's go into another season with murphy and miggy as first choice RW (six goals between them last season) - they're sure to fire us back into top four contention. 

 

i like both players, they're honest grafters and always try but let's get real - they should be rotation options. if our saudi overlords are to be believed and they want us to get to number one, we can't be going into another season with steve bruce-era players fighting it out to start in a key forward position. 

We've got full backs playing at CB, man. Ordinarily it might have been the priority but 2 ACLs at the back end of the season put paid to that idea. 

[Dr Gloom 21924]

1 minute ago, Craig said:

We've got full backs playing at CB, man. Ordinarily it might have been the priority but 2 ACLs at the back end of the season put paid to that idea. 

 

Burn isn't a fullback man, howay. we've done that one to death. krafth is an emergency option. I would prefer to see kelly in there. 

[Dazzler 9750]

6 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

 

No one questioned Isak because

 

a) he's a striker and you have to pay more for the players who put the ball in the net and 

 

b) he was clearly an elite player

 

plenty of people questioned the gordon transfer for the price (i was among them). it seemed a lot for a young player with potential but the recruitment team were proved right on that case. i hope if they do spend £70m on guehi they will be proved right again but it does feel like a massive roll of the dice to me

Isak was signed for mental money off the back of a fucking terrible season at Sociedad. For a 1 in 3 striker at the time you could definitely argue we overpaid for him. However, he’s proven his worth twice over already. Guehi could easily be no different.

[thebrokendoll 9242]

5 minutes ago, Craig said:

I'll absolutely crease up if we end up signing him on Friday for £45-50m 

 

there's not a hope in hell of that happening.

[Dazzler 9750]

Miggy and Murphy fired us to CL before like. Just saying….

[Craig 6682]

I'm not saying Burn is a full back, but if he gets injured we've got fuck all cover. 

And you'd already decided on the basis of one game that Kelly isn't good enough - even though he was up against a player who was by far the best on the pitch.

 

[Craig 6682]

1 minute ago, thebrokendoll said:

 

there's not a hope in hell of that happening.

Why? Let's be honest, none of us have any idea what offers the club have put forward as it's not loose-lipped like the Ashley era. We haven't a clue man, we're basing it all on media speculation

[Dr Gloom 21924]

1 minute ago, Dazzler said:

Miggy and Murphy fired us to CL before like. Just saying….

 

yeah, and the hope was miggy would continue his form last season but it was obviously a once in a career purple patch and he has since reverted to type. i'm still haunted by that tap in into an open goal he fluffed because he couldn't bring himself to use his right foot. it really is time to upgrade that position 

[Dr Gloom 21924]

3 minutes ago, Craig said:

I'm not saying Burn is a full back, but if he gets injured we've got fuck all cover. 

And you'd already decided on the basis of one game that Kelly isn't good enough - even though he was up against a player who was by far the best on the pitch.

 

 

You literally just said we started two full backs at CB in the last game. 

 

I was under the impression that Kelly was signed as a CB who could provide occasional cover at LB, a bit like Dan Burn so I won't dig him out too much for struggling at LB the other day. Hopefully he'll be able to do a job in that position in some games, a bit like Burn can. 

Edited August 28 by Dr Gloom