JoeAman08

Idk, I think the fact we haven’t really seen him linked anywhere makes me think he is going to accept a deal here. Or at least see the logic in it. Take a month of his old wages say 100k before he accepts the new deal of 45-50k a month. 
 

You can say behind the rest of the squad but so would any replacement. Kalas knows the lads and knows how we want to play. If anyone could use an extra month off it is Kalas. He attracted the attention of a top club in Chelsea. Played loads for a respectable nation internationally. He isn’t going to come back out of shape as is the ultimate professional. 
 

I’d have him back and wouldn’t be rushing him to make a decision. Maybe if Scott had been gone by now we bring in someone else already. Scott is here and Kalas about as good an option available on a free. 

Jimenez leaving for Fulham now too it looks like. Still good players there but Wolves seem to be on a downward spiral. Almost feel as if Bournemouth would be better for Scott at this point. 

15 minutes ago, redpole said:

How did Knight-Lebel perform in the second game? I only watched the first game before I went out. I assume he’s ahead of Wood but is he ahead of Araoye???? Does the performance of our young CB’s mean we won’t look in the market for a new CB??? Maybe look towards end of window if we do. 

I thought he was safe. Perhaps overly so going back to keeper quite quickly often. That said probably keeping it simple trying not to make mistakes in his chance. Can’t recall seeing anything worrying. Gut feel he’ll need some minutes at a lower level like Towler did in his early days just to get used to the physicality. 

20 minutes ago, CliftonCliff said:

Wouldn't get too excited about the goal tally - it simply reflects the quality of the opposition. Just about getting minutes into the legs at this stage, though that said, it never does  confidence any harm to bang a few in. The remaining friendlies might tell us a bit more. In the meantime, you can only beat what's put in front of you, and they've certainly done that.

I get you but 8-0 is impressive I think. Imagine it was a cup game. Didn’t we start off with a big win against Plymouth in our cup run season? Think it is good we are dominant against these sides. Don’t think we were dominant last summer against similar sides. Shows everyone starting off that the top of their game imo. Portsmouth be real test though I think. Get a good idea then

6 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

I think top ten is “doing well”. I think those seeing top two are attainable just don’t understand the scale of the challenge.

With Luton I’m just highlighting we are going down a completely opposite route, as you rightly say Scott (Semenyo too) are examples of how this works for us. No right answer & actually I think our strategy is better, far less short term, though Luton will rightly say who is playing Man U this season?

Top six isn’t top two, is it? Luton never did that & although I don’t expect it, would see that as at least possible.

I am with you a bit on that. What I think would be doing well is sustaining top 10 all season. If we are 4-11 all season and finish 9th I would say that is progress. I’d like games to feel like they matter after February

1 hour ago, GrahamC said:

We can all say anything that we like but it is frankly delusional.

We have signed a player from the third or fourth ranked side in Scottish football, someone who had a horrendous season in our division last time out, one who played in a league one side who didn’t even reach the playoffs & a free transfer without a single championship game under his belt.

All individually look like they do add something to the squad but compared to the 5 sides with parachute payments & that’s excluding Boro & Sunderland, our squad looks top half at best, as a for instance we only have one goalkeeper who has ever played a senior game in the English league system.

People can keep quoting Luton but their recruitment, excellent though it was is entirely different, concentrating on a lot of players aged 30 or thereabouts, all experienced pros, I bet there would have been uproar on here if we had signed Lansbury, Freeman & Woodrow again.

Still, some think Scott really wants to stay another year, earn a tenth of what he can & will sign a new contract, so what can you do?

What does where we sign players have to do with where we finish? I get pessimism but taking it to a new level. What were the chances we find a 16 year old at Guernsey that 3 years later would have a 25m valuation. Where did Luton get Adebayo from? Where did Coventry get Gyrokes from? Brownhill compensation from Preston. Point is, if you get it right you can compete. You say Luton getting experienced players which is exactly what we did but can afford fees so can get younger versions.
 

Top 2 probably delusional but if football was so simple, go bet on your top 6 being in playoffs and make a fortune. 
 

And for the record not trying to come off like a *****. Just can’t fathom thinking that way going into a season. Surely you should be optimistic we can do well? 

Hard to see top 2 but I wouldn’t laugh at anyone who wants to stand on that opinion. Like was asked, did we think Luton would be promoted? Did we think they’d be beating Coventry to do so?
 

Scott a 25m player. Many think Conway can be a 20 goal man that is 15-20m minimum player. Dickie was a 10m player a season ago. Bell and Mehmeti have potential to be big players. Pring been described as one of the best LB in the division. Tell me who has a better two rbs than city? Derby all thought Knight was better than we should be able to attract. If it all comes together in a best case scenario, why can’t city be preparing for a season in the premier league this time next season? Certainly not going to tell other city fans it is laughable for wanting/believing that. 
 

I don’t want to sell Scott but don’t think selling him means we lack ambition. We set a price in which I think is fair for the talent he is and could be but also which is maybe hard to justify for a buying side. Point being, us sticking to the 25m(or close) is ambitious. We don’t want to sell but if you want him that bad we will take a sum which can help us be very flexible for the next 4-5 years. 
 

However, I do believe we are going to be smarter with buying. I don’t think selling Scott means we go on a spending spree. Not this summer or in January or even next summer. Comes down to recruitment. We get it right we’ll be ambitious. Get it wrong be called unambitious. If he was sold this summer. I do think we should be looking at 2-3 more. Maybe we are anyway but it’ll be a stick to beat the club/manager with if we don’t do well this season.
 

Still a gamble selling Scott. I’d rather him one more season and get half price next summer. He has a big leap in him performance wise imo. If he takes it this year, who knows where it could lead us. Worth 10-12m in lost value? That wouldn’t be able to be judged until season’s end. However, last awful FFP dropping off for us anyway after this year. Evidence is we can be smartly run now so not sure we need crazy money every summer to have a chance of getting better. 

15 minutes ago, Engvall’s Splinter said:

Not close enough to either Wolves or Bournemouth, yet if it was 20m, add ons and a player - is there anyone worth taking from either clubs if offered?

He hasn’t played much and not sure if he is in Wolves plans but Joe Hodge has a good reputation. Maybe could secure a cheap loan for him or see if they would sell up. Seen clips of youth football looks tidy. No idea if ready for championship. 

3 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

It's hardly our first 11 to be fair TR.

9 out of 11 are experienced and will be big pieces. I don’t think it is crazy to say that isn’t a good sign. First impressions and all that

3 minutes ago, Grey Fox said:

Sure, sell Semenyo, Scott then Conway. Please remind me why I bother buying a ticket ?

Try a smile 

Semenyo was necessary. Scott and Conway not so much. However, if people want to meet our valuations then we should not stand in their way either. 

3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Sorry to be negative but being in the Premier League doesn't mean an automatic profit. Revenue goes up, but costs do as well.

Some teams do make a profit, but plenty make huge losses, more than £100m in some cases. It's not necessarily a golden ticket to solve all financial woes. Also many of those who do make a profit still don't by selling their young talent to the big clubs.

Ultimately we do have to sell someone for something at some point. That's literally how we keep the lights on and keep away from points deductions. Semenyo and austerity have sorted us for a while, but at some point in the next 24 months we need another £10m+ sale. If not Scott then Conway, Pring, or someone else (or a combination of them) will be sold to cover us.

We don’t really looking at it. This is the last season with covid losses on it really. We don’t seem to be pushing that 13m loss per season anymore I don’t think. As long as SL will cover the losses we are not in awful shape anymore. We’ll need to sell but don’t need massive fees every few years. 

2 minutes ago, Bourne End Red said:

On the flip side we would get 2 attempts at promotion to the premier league with him in our team, presumably improving along the way.

if and it’s a big if we were to be successful in promotion over these two seasons that would be worth a hell of a lot more……

And we’d still get compensation. I don’t think we’d be spending much of that 25m even if we got it. Arguably two more seasons of him and the idk 5-7m compensation might benefit the club more as he would/could be a key piece in promotion. 
 

Def think we should hold firm on 25m this summer. Next summer for Scott and our sake I’d probably sell for 10-12m but also depends on how close to promotion we are. Lose in playoffs I might value him at 20m even in last season. Like I said worst case financially is two years on small wages and compensation of which would still be good money for us. 

2 minutes ago, Jeez said:

15 mil is a pointless bid, no incentive to sell at anywhere near this price as his value will be more than this next year with another seasons experience, worst case it won’t be less.

If this is how the market values him now, I think we get another season.

Agree. I can’t see us accepting in the teens for him. 22m sounds right to me up front plus add ons. 

23 minutes ago, roddy-d said:

I think you have that bit wrong as City & Scott could agree to a buy out clause in the contract. 

Yes what I am saying. Just that the buy out would have to be low for it to make sense to AS. Not low like 5m but more like 12-15m. My opinion on it. If he signed with a high number or no buy out it lessens his chances at a move 

56 minutes ago, BCFCAL said:

City gave him his chance, no one really knows what he'll do / what City will do, but I don't think he'll stitch City up and run his contract down. Also, if we do end up only getting 5m, and don't get into playoff territory with him here for 2 years, that'll be poor business...

I don’t think he’ll stitch City up but he will look after his best interests going forward. This seasons it seems he feels better served playing. Next season he may feel he has done everything he can in the championship. Signing a new deal means City can over value him again meaning possibly no move. 
 

As far as the 5m or 25m, I just don’t think there is a major difference here. We will comply with FFP regardless of sales now imo. Sell Scott for 25m today or get 5m for him in 2 seasons. If we are in the championship our targets will be the same in 2025 in either scenario. 
 

I am starting to look at it this way. Instead of selling players for 25m or whatever with years left, think we are comfortable getting the value on the pitch. I think highly unlikely Scott leaves in 2 years. Most likely is we will get another season of him and sell him for 10-15m range next summer. We aren’t enamoured with fees. We want good players not good money

2 hours ago, chinapig said:

After Arsenal tried to buy him Caicedo chose to sign a new contract, giving Brighton the whip hand in response to bids. There may have been a gentleman's agreement to the extent they will sell if their valuation is met but there doesn't seem to have been a release clause.

Mac Allister in contrast would only sign a contract that had a £35m release clause.

Alex might conceivably follow Mac Allister's example but probably not Caicedo's.

Yea but surely you talk about valuations? I am sure Caicedo would love to be an 80-100m player. Also, you don’t see that kind of fee everyday. I find it hard to fathom he’d agree to a fee of 100m which has been rumoured. Even the 75-80 I have seen recently seems a bit OTT.
 

The gentleman’s agreement would be, in my mind, stay and help us get Europe. We’ll give you a pay rise and if a bigger club comes in(bigger in terms of wages offered or competition) we will let you go for a reasonable fee. Surely then it is asked what that fee would be? 
 

Idk if I would as a player sign something with a “gentleman’s” agreement. Get it on paper. 

21 minutes ago, BLRed said:

That paragraph right there is a clear sign of squad improvement and progress if that’s the case. Would be happy if he was the worst option we had because he is a very good midfielder.

Not saying he is the worst mind! Much stronger midfield if Scott stays and Knight comes in. Just would rather see Naismith Scott and Knight with more minutes than James. 

11 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

If Matty James is fit he starts every game imo. He’s one of those players that some won’t notice . He knits together & controls the tempo in midfield. Fantastic player at championship level. 

He does and I appreciate what he has done over the past couple of seasons. I just feel we can get that from Scott and Naismith while also being a bit bigger and a lot more athletic at that spot. A higher ceiling if you will. 

11 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

Naismith hasn’t anywhere near the midfield nouse of James 

Of course James is a lifetime CM. Naismith was impressive though I thought considering not a familiar position. 

Probably unpopular opinion here but James has been good in an average side. Think he would be average in a good side. 
 

Happy to be proven wrong again, but if he plays more than any of Naismith, Scott or Knight in midfield think we would be selling ourselves short. Caveat is if Naismith is afforded midfield minutes full time. 
 

For me, he is fine but we are becoming more athletic and for me that says higher intensity and pressing and I just don’t think he has the legs for it over the whole season. I think the 3 of Scott, Naismith and Knight can all rotate nicely dropping in to that deeper playmaker role. 
 

Not saying there isn’t a role or minutes for him. Just for me I think perhaps we have outgrown the player he is now. Same with Williams btw. 

3 hours ago, BCFCGav said:

Not a midfield I'd be unhappy to see at all. I'm just so reticent to not use Matty James in an ideal midfield. But that's ultimately a good thing, options and high quality competition. As things are we have Naismith, James, Scott, Williams, Taylor-Clarke, Weimann and Benarous vying for the three midefield roles (Weimann and Benarous for the more advanced midfield role). Add Knight and our midfield is strong and deep. 

I was one to admit I was wrong on James. His impact was noticeable. However so was Naismith’s impact when he missed time after the midfield switch. I’d prefer us to drop the 10 and one of the pivots. Have one “holding” and 2 more box to box. Obviously the midfield I mentioned would be fluid as both Scott and Knight can drop in and rotate. 
 

James is what 32 now? Had a few major injuries in his career and last year of deal. I don’t really see him being dropped or anything but I don’t see him really having as many minutes as the past couple of seasons. 

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I don’t think we give him a £0.5m p.a wage increase in a new contract to forego £10-15m in a release clause.

Thats just my thinking.

Yea is just my opinion he’d lose his leverage over 500k per annum say. When that would maybe limit his ability to be in the 50-60k range sooner. Who knows? From my view, if he stays we should up his terms but have the lower release clause out of good faith. 
 

Caicedo for example rumoured to have a gentleman's agreement to leave. Seems, however, Brighton are almost pricing him out of a move. Mind you, like Scott, he could still end up moving but seems like Brighton are driving a hard bargain. 

If this all happens ideal MF for me is

Naismith

Scott Knight

Sure there will be plenty of rotation and would be a big ask of two young lads and someone newish to the position in Naismith. Just think the energy and ability in that 3 could be up there with the best in the league. 

12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

As it stands, we can only assume that Alex is happy that we’ve put a £25m “bounty” on his head.  These things don’t generally get banded about so publicly without the player knowing about it and being happy with it.  If that’s the case, then I don’t see why a contract on new terms would set such a low release clause as your suggesting.

Because naturally his price tag will go down with the length of his deal. If he signed a new 4 year deal today we could out price him again for another 3 seasons. Alex has his head switched on but I imagine he’d rather a prem move at some point sooner rather than later. 
 

I think another season in a better team and more settled role makes sense for him to stay another season. If we aren’t promoted though, I think he’ll want to move on. Signing a new deal makes it unlikely he can move. It takes all his leverage away. Imo, only makes sense to sign with a low release clause in that case. With a value similar to what we’d accept next summer for him. That protects him financially for the upcoming season and also protects his future in terms of moving. 

2 hours ago, BCFCAL said:

So much chat and it is all just recycled and was there at the very start of the window - same clubs, same fees, same 'interested in'. Just this thread has gone off on a tangent about every footballer in the world, plus any tweet that comes out about Scott.

Truly believe that £25 million is too much money for the teams touted as interested, as he has no prem experience and won't be a guaranteed hit in his first season, which West Ham and Wolves need, and Spurs have just got Maddison, and are after 2 central defenders, and Levy isn't a massive spender. AS also seems like a clever lad and wants first team football, and that isn't guaranteed when making the step up, he knows he has time on his side to play in the prem. Think he'll be here next season, and hopefully sign a contract stopping him leaving on a free. Also seems very happy in pre season.

AS has little reason to sign a new deal. Yes financially he could get a bit more from us but it also means we can again put a valuation on him so teams are less keen. If he were to sign a deal, imo, it would have to contain a fairly low release clause(10-12m) after this season. 
 

Also, he wouldn’t leave for free. We would be due compensation. Idk what it would be if he went abroad but if he moved to the prem, after two more seasons of football mind you, we would get a hefty fee from compensation. 25m is a nice sounding number but we won’t be using it imo. It’ll give us the room to maybe sign more of our top targets. They will however be in the same bracket as McRorie and Knight. Maybe up to 5m on an attacker in the future. We won’t be selling AS and going after 8m cbs on 25k a week again. We’ll add smart fees and clever frees. So the compensation of 5m or more will suffice and we also get the two years of play in that unlikely scenario. 

Ideally you get all your business done before preseason but that is a rarity. We have done well to get 3 in. Any more incomings will just have to be phased in. That is not a disaster.
 

The players we have today are plenty competent enough to get off to a fantastic start as I don’t think our first 5-6 games are that daunting to be honest. Every game is tough and every fan will look at Bristol City and think yea we can get 3 points there. So probably guilty of that myself. 
 

My point is we could use another 2-3 imo. We just aren’t desperate for them today. We can now afford to wait it out some and see if anyone relaxes a bit on their expectations. Derby may want 2m today but come mid August they may say 1.5m is fine make the rest up in add ons that may or may not be achievable. We might find a player or two we want on loan and plans are clearer for that player. Prem club might be going down on their fee or wage demands. 

8 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Or as has been said already, spending someone else’s money.

We have spent a fair bit since selling Semenyo, Mehmeti was a million, Cornick £300k, plus McCrorie & Dickie.

I think we are waiting to see what compensation we get for Massengo, whether we can get a fee for Wilson & possibly another squad player then we’ll know our budget to get the 2 in (now Kalas appears to have left) we need.

Won’t stop a few of the more intellectually challenged from repeating “roof, roof” on social media, mind.

Exactly. And we may be able to afford Knight outright. We may have a target a bit more expensive that we like more. Happy to get Knight at this price. Or if Wilson and Massengo go and we know our incoming for them, we may be able to get the other guy. 

1 hour ago, TDarwall said:

I can't see how the West Ham story is true.  Whilst players might be signed for the 1st team squad, no manager will be promising a player guaranteed mins in the 1st team.  Am pretty sure Moyes would have a similar take as Nige; performances in training/pre season dictate who gets in the team & performances on the pitch determine who stays in.

If you read the whole thing, it said the upper brass there put in a lot of work to get Alex Scott in and talk up West Ham. While true Moyes said he would be competing with Paqueta and Fornals, Scott was not demanding minutes. He wanted to know the plan and pathway to minutes in which he was offered nothing. 
 

So in this instance, if true, Alex is choosing playing over possibly being lost in the reserves. He was asking what was the plan about opportunity and used Downes as an example.