Search results

it would be a loan in the same way that Leeds fans were saying that we should pay them for developing ben white, I guess. It means there's something in it for us in the long run, rather than just having him here for a season and then having him taken back for no profit. and let's be honest, if...

i would have no problem in having him here for a couple of years, him scoring bucketloads and then us turning a £20+ million profit. much better than a loan. the higher the buyback clause the better the deal, ideally I'd want £50M, but it's up the to the club to negotiate it as high as they can...

I'd be interested in Brewster if there was some form of permanence in the deal, but not otherwise. I don't think Wilson is really what we need but he does have good technical ability and got a decent goal return, so I wouldn't be too upset

fair enough. I retract that comment. we really do need a striker.

surely if we were that hard up for cash we'd be more likely to deal. in any case, the fact that we're linked with the likes of edouard (as unlikely as that is) and Nunez doesn't say to me that we HAVE to do things in the cheap and that a loan is our only option, in which case I believe we should...

if it's genuinely the case that we can't afford to spend on a striker then fair enough, that's our only option. but to be honest, given the cohort we've been linked with so far, and the fact that we've turned down big money offers for some players (i.e white), doesn't lead me to believe that we...

don't really see how developing someone else's player for a year as opposed to getting someone else in who'll be here to fight for a place on the squad for a few years is going forward to be honest

would much rather we bought someone permanently like Nunez. no point in us developing another teams youth player for a season when we've got plenty of good youth players in out squad (though granted, the striker area really does need strengthening and we can't just rely on connolly). either add...