• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

The Summer 2024 Transfer Thread.

We aren't signing a replacement LB going by Hobbs' comments on the OS. So we're an injury away from either our current first choice LCB having to shift across, or we have to play Doherty. Brilliant squad management.
 
Palace want 40mill for Anderson following a 30mill bid.

I'd be in for him at 35mill all day.
 
He'd choose Fulham (and likely stay at Palace) over us anyway.
 
We aren't signing a replacement LB going by Hobbs' comments on the OS. So we're an injury away from either our current first choice LCB having to shift across, or we have to play Doherty. Brilliant squad management.

'Some people might think we’re leaving ourselves short, but we’ve got a number of players who can cover in that area of the pitch and it’s really important for us and Hugo that he goes and plays.'

So basically we're taking huge risks with the current squad to boost Bueno's value with Eredivisie/Champions League games and make him more attractive to potential buyers in future windows.

According to Feyenoord fans they've signed Bueno due to a bit of an injury crisis at LWB. He will be competing with a guy called Smal initially (although he is also injured for the first few weeks) but their first choice LWB Hartman is due back in January and will go straight back into the team after that. So he might not even get much game time after January anyway, not even accounting for the fact that managers love to drop players that they know don't have a long term future at the club.

This seems incredibly stupid to me.
 
I know.

But we should, and given we've got 90 mill in for Neto and Kilman plus the profit from last season, we should be.

Not if we want to strengthen other areas as well.

The stupid position we've put ourselves in means we have to be smarter and find players before they develop into players like Andersen. We aren't going to be signing our direct rivals best players any time soon.
 
Palace another example of how it works for teams like us, if you have good players they’ll get taken away for big money. Olise gone, Guehi going and now maybe Anderson too. Teams sniffing around Eze and Mateta won’t last long if he continues his form from the end of last season.
 
Looks like Meupiyou is happening. I hope he's not the centre back we've been after. He's going to need the ability of Baresi to go straight into the first team at this level.
No issue with signing players for the future, as long as it doesn’t damage us signing players for the present.

9mins of senior football doesn’t strike me as he will be in our first team any time soon
 
GF said we'd not pay a new signings anywhere near a 100k a week. I suspect that Anderson would be closer to that at Fulham than he would here. Not saying I am in favour of splashing mad amounts around for the sake of it, but it does seem we have decided to not actively compete with the wage spending, and that historically means you are putting a cap on your finishing spot.
 
Thing is £100k a week is obscene money by normal standards, but the way wages have risen in football we are now at a point where the average Premier League wage is over £60k a week so for the right player of real quality it shouldn't be ruled out otherwise you are just setting limits to hamper yourselves - I am sure Sarabia is on around that.
 
Thing is £100k a week is obscene money by normal standards, but the way wages have risen in football we are now at a point where the average Premier League wage is over £60k a week so for the right player of real quality it shouldn't be ruled out otherwise you are just setting limits to hamper yourselves - I am sure Sarabia is on around that.
Yes , but has Sarabia justified that salary thus far ?
 
Not that we've been linked, and given Nando's squad post, we should be in for Danso and Modueke.

Bin Chiquinho and Guedes (I'd keep Pod)
 
No, but does that mean you should never do it ever again?
Maybe not, but you could use the same logic to say we ought to spend 35m on another lad with no senior football.
 
Maybe not, but you could use the same logic to say we ought to spend 35m on another lad with no senior football.
Not remotely the same. Clubs in similar position/status to ours don't spend £35m transfer fees on lads with no senior football very often. Plenty of them pay players £100k a week plus, there is a reason for both.
 
Not remotely the same. Clubs in similar position/status to ours don't spend £35m transfer fees on lads with no senior football very often. Plenty of them pay players £100k a week plus, there is a reason for both.
I don't disagree, I think there's probably more persuasive logic than "just ignore the failure" though.

We need to take some sort of lesson from Sarabia regardless of how much other clubs are spending on wages.
 
Sarabia's transfer fee reflected his salary. You can't look at one without the other on that deal.
That's a bit nebulous isn't it? More things affected that fee than just his wages.

Out of curiosity, do we know what Moutinho was on when he was here? I don't remember as much fuss being made about his pay as Sarabia's (granted, that might just be the Moutinho Magic™ at work).
 
Back
Top