Summer Silly Season Transfer Thread 2024

[Arthur]

One gripe I have with our recruitment is that we don't bring in players as an understudy who could succeed a player like Joao while they're still here, or even before selling.

This is a really good point and highlights serious flaws in our recruitment ever since the khans came in. Silva also has a challenge in that he doesn't seem to give mins to young players really

Not so easy to do when we were newly promoted as the onus is to strengthen the starting XI in order to stay up rather than find players to understudy the ones you already have.

With the experienced players who have departed this summer, it doesn't surprise me that Marco has looked to the likes of Berge and Andersen. These are not players whose performance levels are likely to decline within a year or two; their ability and their experience should serve the starting XI well for a few seasons at least. And their presence will, in my opinion, make it easier to now introduce younger players without sliding down the table. I expect next summer will see us targeting more younger players and fewer, if any, who are already at their peak. If so, then it would be seen that our strategy to reduce the average age of the playing squad is actually a sensible two-year plan. That's my guess.

[Bassey the warrior]

One gripe I have with our recruitment is that we don't bring in players as an understudy who could succeed a player like Joao while they're still here, or even before selling.

Apparently Wolves see André as a long term successor to Gomes who is expected to move to a bigger club. No waiting for him to go, and they already have good depth in CM with Lemina.

I agree but we don't know how much budget is available. Wolves are using money they made from selling Neto and Kilman, nearly £100m made.

[LC]

I would love to see Reiss Nelson join us. From what I've seen of him he can play on the left and the right and he already knows a few of our players. I think he'll be a good signing

[Willham]

One gripe I have with our recruitment is that we don't bring in players as an understudy who could succeed a player like Joao while they're still here, or even before selling.

Apparently Wolves see André as a long term successor to Gomes who is expected to move to a bigger club. No waiting for him to go, and they already have good depth in CM with Lemina.

I agree but we don't know how much budget is available. Wolves are using money they made from selling Neto and Kilman, nearly £100m made.

You also have the worry that the backup player stagnates,  knowing there's little game time on offer they turn off so when the time comes to call upon them you have a player who hasn't played much recently, rather than buying in a fresh and ready player.

Bit like starting a new job, you want to show off with that early excitement.

[junior white]

So confirmation had we opted to wait till the end of the window hed have been cheaper than what we allegedly offered earlier (25m) and 10-13m euros cheaper than what fluminese allegedly led with in their counter offer (35m)

We opted in this case to go after a different target silva wanted and that weve equally been linked to before as we have andre. And at the point we chose to sign berge it was clear fluminese were getting more desperate and were still offerless, so had we wanted to make a final move we could have then but, we chose the player we did.

Time will tell which option might have been preferable. I liked the look of André but having watched a bit of the league it was several levels below the prem. time will tell if he makes it at this level, perhaps hell be one we missed on, or perhaps hell be one we dodged a bullet on. Either way good luck to him. Whats important for us is how berge and the team get on from here.

It seems that way, but then many on here would have moaned we were waiting and not giving Marco players early enough. Sometimes the club cannot win in someways.

I always found it awkward to judge Andre, never seen him play, Brazilian football is hard to find (if at all) on UK tv, but if Marco had really wanted him the i am sure this club would have backed him. They seem to have done that this window.

I do agree with you on this topic 100%, to me it seems we obviously wanted a different profile (size) of player in the middle

[junior white]

I see Man Utd are taking less for McTominay that we were to reported to have offered as well, that makes me laugh.

[Roberty]

We certainly do need to bring in more youth in the coming years. Our average age (of players used so far) has only dropped by 0.6 years since last season and we still have the second oldest team in the division.

We still need that DOF figure who can implement (A) a genuine international scouting framework and (B) a strategy that looks further into the future than the 1-2 years Silva will be with us

Just a simple question this time
Why do you think we have an Academy at Motspur Park ?
It's common knowledge that SK has shelled out to buy the former BBC sports ground to expand the facilities there

Is there any possibility that this is "a strategy that looks further into the future than the 1-2 years Silva will be with us" ?

[Roberty]

So confirmation had we opted to wait till the end of the window hed have been cheaper than what we allegedly offered earlier (25m) and 10-13m euros cheaper than what fluminese allegedly led with in their counter offer (35m)

We opted in this case to go after a different target silva wanted and that weve equally been linked to before as we have andre. And at the point we chose to sign berge it was clear fluminese were getting more desperate and were still offerless, so had we wanted to make a final move we could have then but, we chose the player we did.

Time will tell which option might have been preferable. I liked the look of André but having watched a bit of the league it was several levels below the prem. time will tell if he makes it at this level, perhaps hell be one we missed on, or perhaps hell be one we dodged a bullet on. Either way good luck to him. Whats important for us is how berge and the team get on from here.

It seems that way, but then many on here would have moaned we were waiting and not giving Marco players early enough. Sometimes the club cannot win in someways.

I always found it awkward to judge Andre, never seen him play, Brazilian football is hard to find (if at all) on UK tv, but if Marco had really wanted him the i am sure this club would have backed him. They seem to have done that this window.

I do agree with you on this topic 100%, to me it seems we obviously wanted a different profile (size) of player in the middle

There is another possibility - Berge was not available earlier and MS switched when he became available?

[roberto w6]

It has been a very good window so far and I see we're supposedly in for a couple of wingers before the deadline.

I'd have preferred to be in for another central striker. Muniz and Jiminez are both prone to going periods without scoring

[LRCN]

One gripe I have with our recruitment is that we don't bring in players as an understudy who could succeed a player like Joao while they're still here, or even before selling.

This is a really good point and highlights serious flaws in our recruitment ever since the khans came in. Silva also has a challenge in that he doesn't seem to give mins to young players really

Not so easy to do when we were newly promoted as the onus is to strengthen the starting XI in order to stay up rather than find players to understudy the ones you already have.

With the experienced players who have departed this summer, it doesn't surprise me that Marco has looked to the likes of Berge and Andersen. These are not players whose performance levels are likely to decline within a year or two; their ability and their experience should serve the starting XI well for a few seasons at least. And their presence will, in my opinion, make it easier to now introduce younger players without sliding down the table. I expect next summer will see us targeting more younger players and fewer, if any, who are already at their peak. If so, then it would be seen that our strategy to reduce the average age of the playing squad is actually a sensible two-year plan. That's my guess.

I think that's an overly simple way of looking at it and mid - long term is bad for our finances and bad for our chances of staying up. I'm also talking about generally over the last decade, not just the last 2 years

[junior white]

One gripe I have with our recruitment is that we don't bring in players as an understudy who could succeed a player like Joao while they're still here, or even before selling.

This is a really good point and highlights serious flaws in our recruitment ever since the khans came in. Silva also has a challenge in that he doesn't seem to give mins to young players really

Not so easy to do when we were newly promoted as the onus is to strengthen the starting XI in order to stay up rather than find players to understudy the ones you already have.

With the experienced players who have departed this summer, it doesn't surprise me that Marco has looked to the likes of Berge and Andersen. These are not players whose performance levels are likely to decline within a year or two; their ability and their experience should serve the starting XI well for a few seasons at least. And their presence will, in my opinion, make it easier to now introduce younger players without sliding down the table. I expect next summer will see us targeting more younger players and fewer, if any, who are already at their peak. If so, then it would be seen that our strategy to reduce the average age of the playing squad is actually a sensible two-year plan. That's my guess.

I think that's an overly simple way of looking at it and mid - long term is bad for our finances and bad for our chances of staying up. I'm also talking about generally over the last decade, not just the last 2 years

It could be a simplistic way of looking at things for sure. I remember when everyone was crying out for a Mitro back up, yet we could not sign anyone as who would want to come to a championship club and be back up to someone who scores freely knowing they wouldn't play, then when we went up the same things happen with players thinking they are mid table at best I should be playing for them not back up to their leading scorer. My point is players will not want to be back u at certain clubs as they think they are above that. SO then you end up taking a chance on someone and spend a large someone an unproven striker who either doesn't pan out or doesn't play and you lose money (not good for FFP or PSR what ever it is called). It isnt as easy I would think as we all hope or hope dit would be.

[FFC1987]

So confirmation had we opted to wait till the end of the window hed have been cheaper than what we allegedly offered earlier (25m) and 10-13m euros cheaper than what fluminese allegedly led with in their counter offer (35m)

We opted in this case to go after a different target silva wanted and that weve equally been linked to before as we have andre.

Fairly reliable Brazilian sources reported in July that our rejected package was EUR 25m inclusive of add-ons and that got us close to an agreement. If the price has dropped, it's by a marginal amount, and no more than the small premium you'd expect to pay to secure a signing before other clubs start sniffing around in the late stages of the window. If we were still in this negotiation, Wolves now coming in and competing with our terms to the player would be a major spanner in the works. Not only that, but it's also way less than the premium we've paid for Berge being an established PL player. Keep banging that drum though - I thought we agreed to let it go, but guess someone has to try to retrospectively justify TK's last-minute approach to transfer negotiations circa 2018 to 2022. 

As it happens, and as I've said before, I'm inclined to agree with your alternative explanation that "We opted in this case to go after a different target silva wanted" and simply made a footballing judgment that Berge offered more quality or a better fit.

IF (big IF) Andre was our first choice, then of course I'd agree with others that letting the deal fall through for the sake of a few million, only to then spend the same on Berge, would be terrible business.

Wasn't intended to drum beat but draw a line, as It's pretty conclusive and over the 10% premium line you yourself drew in another thread.  But if you still wish to wiggle a way to see it differently go ahead that's fine. "reading between the lines a deal was always doable around €25m" ...this is personal opinion and fabrication based not in what was actually laid out to us at the time, but what came.... later in the window. We offered 25m they said 35m. Even if we'd spent weeks negotiating and met halfway (which would be more reasonable to argue likely at the time, than conveniently assuming *at that time* a deal was "always possible" at just above 25m- just because it materialised that way a month or more later once no one bid for him.)... that 30m would still make it 5m more expensive than what got settled on with total addons.

I too am glad this time we've got most of the business done before the last week - (although early in the window before the signings landed this was still deemed too late by many.) Good position to be in that theres just 1 more absolute necessity to go before DD in the eyes of the manager and hopefully we pull out a cracking wing option to end the window... the point was the point though, and never just about Andre (not sure how it ended up being presented that way as that didn't come from my end) but that said it turns out its been another example of how holding out can be risky if you chose to do it, but can* save multiple millions if you wanted to wait it out... and such savings can* be useful to a clubs overall transfer balancing at clubs where every few million counts.

Waiting till the end of window in this instance would have worked out as 30%  cheaper on the fee they asked for earlier on if you include all add-ons (closer to 40% cheaper if he doesn't hit those)...and at the fictional price of us meeting them halfway in a negotiation for the sake of argument- (30m) 17% cheaper still than that end of window. below the yardstick mentioned regarding premiums elsewhere.

Anyway. Regardless as you say, and as we agree, it seems for whatever reason we opted for Berge anyway in the end, still later in the day when we actually tied it up, but given we still had the choice to return for Andre, we didn't for whatever reason and have had another overall seemingly successful window on paper which hopefully we're all feeling pretty positive about which is the main thing in the end.

Still waiting for the final move to tie it up and then hope we're all ready to get behind this current crop. Hopefully between Marco and the board they've backed the right player anyway at DM for us.

I'd have to disagree with the start of that assessment that you've got concrete evidence and therefore you can draw a line from it. I've been following the Andre saga like most and I only saw a handful mention the coveted 35m you mention here as the primo rate. The most reliable journal I followed mainly said it was payment plans, time of transfer and closing the valuation to closer to 25m rather than bids of 20m. I read from a lot of sources our 25m was 20+adds.  But then again, like your point, I can't say that's 100% either but I guess that's the point. It's not an objective line being drawn with facts. It's subjective based on who we decide to listen to. But I certainly wouldn't try and use it as a way to prove a previous point about closing later in the window. As someone else said, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't for the club. They proactively get deals done at sensible levels, earlier, and some aren't happy, and others still think we should wait and squeeze value and players at last minute rates. Games about opinions I suppose. The only line I've drawn from this and the last few windows is just how well run a club we are. Seeing 11 changes and how strong our starting 11 was against Birmingham really emphasised that for me.

[JimmyConway]

Can't fathom the Almiron link? Why spend whatever when I don't see much difference between him and Harry Wilson? Both play on the right where we have lots of options and both rely heavily on left foot? I would go as far to say Wilson's left foot is more cultured than Almiron's?
It's the other wing where we need perhaps option/s?

[FFC1987]

Ramsdale off to Saints is an interesting transfer. Quite the fall from grace really!

[JimmyConway]

Ramsdale off to Saints is an interesting transfer. Quite the fall from grace really!

Tend to agree. From Arsenal No1 a year ago to potentially Championship in two seasons?

[keithh]

Don't understand the rush to get to 300 pages.

[jayffc]

So confirmation had we opted to wait till the end of the window hed have been cheaper than what we allegedly offered earlier (25m) and 10-13m euros cheaper than what fluminese allegedly led with in their counter offer (35m)

We opted in this case to go after a different target silva wanted and that weve equally been linked to before as we have andre.

Fairly reliable Brazilian sources reported in July that our rejected package was EUR 25m inclusive of add-ons and that got us close to an agreement. If the price has dropped, it's by a marginal amount, and no more than the small premium you'd expect to pay to secure a signing before other clubs start sniffing around in the late stages of the window. If we were still in this negotiation, Wolves now coming in and competing with our terms to the player would be a major spanner in the works. Not only that, but it's also way less than the premium we've paid for Berge being an established PL player. Keep banging that drum though - I thought we agreed to let it go, but guess someone has to try to retrospectively justify TK's last-minute approach to transfer negotiations circa 2018 to 2022. 

As it happens, and as I've said before, I'm inclined to agree with your alternative explanation that "We opted in this case to go after a different target silva wanted" and simply made a footballing judgment that Berge offered more quality or a better fit.

IF (big IF) Andre was our first choice, then of course I'd agree with others that letting the deal fall through for the sake of a few million, only to then spend the same on Berge, would be terrible business.

Wasn't intended to drum beat but draw a line, as It's pretty conclusive and over the 10% premium line you yourself drew in another thread.  But if you still wish to wiggle a way to see it differently go ahead that's fine. "reading between the lines a deal was always doable around €25m" ...this is personal opinion and fabrication based not in what was actually laid out to us at the time, but what came.... later in the window. We offered 25m they said 35m. Even if we'd spent weeks negotiating and met halfway (which would be more reasonable to argue likely at the time, than conveniently assuming *at that time* a deal was "always possible" at just above 25m- just because it materialised that way a month or more later once no one bid for him.)... that 30m would still make it 5m more expensive than what got settled on with total addons.

I too am glad this time we've got most of the business done before the last week - (although early in the window before the signings landed this was still deemed too late by many.) Good position to be in that theres just 1 more absolute necessity to go before DD in the eyes of the manager and hopefully we pull out a cracking wing option to end the window... the point was the point though, and never just about Andre (not sure how it ended up being presented that way as that didn't come from my end) but that said it turns out its been another example of how holding out can be risky if you chose to do it, but can* save multiple millions if you wanted to wait it out... and such savings can* be useful to a clubs overall transfer balancing at clubs where every few million counts.

Waiting till the end of window in this instance would have worked out as 30%  cheaper on the fee they asked for earlier on if you include all add-ons (closer to 40% cheaper if he doesn't hit those)...and at the fictional price of us meeting them halfway in a negotiation for the sake of argument- (30m) 17% cheaper still than that end of window. below the yardstick mentioned regarding premiums elsewhere.

Anyway. Regardless as you say, and as we agree, it seems for whatever reason we opted for Berge anyway in the end, still later in the day when we actually tied it up, but given we still had the choice to return for Andre, we didn't for whatever reason and have had another overall seemingly successful window on paper which hopefully we're all feeling pretty positive about which is the main thing in the end.

Still waiting for the final move to tie it up and then hope we're all ready to get behind this current crop. Hopefully between Marco and the board they've backed the right player anyway at DM for us.

I'd have to disagree with the start of that assessment that you've got concrete evidence and therefore you can draw a line from it. I've been following the Andre saga like most and I only saw a handful mention the coveted 35m you mention here as the primo rate. The most reliable journal I followed mainly said it was payment plans, time of transfer and closing the valuation to closer to 25m rather than bids of 20m. I read from a lot of sources our 25m was 20+adds.  But then again, like your point, I can't say that's 100% either but I guess that's the point. It's not an objective line being drawn with facts. It's subjective based on who we decide to listen to. But I certainly wouldn't try and use it as a way to prove a previous point about closing later in the window. As someone else said, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't for the club. They proactively get deals done at sensible levels, earlier, and some aren't happy, and others still think we should wait and squeeze value and players at last minute rates. Games about opinions I suppose. The only line I've drawn from this and the last few windows is just how well run a club we are. Seeing 11 changes and how strong our starting 11 was against Birmingham really emphasised that for me.

Ok, but I'm taking it directly from Their own president who himself mentioned 35m as the top end of what they had been looking for from their counter proposal as part of a range they had in mind (which he said over a month or so later when no one came back in for the player), Safe to say you don't have zero chance of getting the top end of that if you the selling party don't ask for, at least, that figure in any counter.

He said publically that they had wanted somewhere between 25-35 range out of the counter negotiation... I think its pretty damn safe to say if thats the case they didn't ask for £25m at the time , given that's what were reported everywhere to have offered, all evidence points therefore to the 35m figure reported being correct as the counter proposal, or why would he even mention that in the range at all, you lead with top end.

So it remains what was quoted for earlier in window... and what was settled on end of the window, one can argue about how far down that range ya could get and when that would have been, but that part is harder to conclude on 100% , especially given them wanting to keep the player long as possible anyway, negotiating could have taken a while, so I met that halfway at 30, ( generous) for the sake of saying that could conclude a swift negotiation at that time and the figures there are whats mentioned. And again, not just about one player anyway, just another example of where such a strat could and would have paid off if one wanted to play that game. We didn't this time.

But anyway, people can conclude what they wish or fight to see it differently if they want.

Sagas over. Berge it is regardless.

[FFC1987]

So if your taking the top end of what the president said, but he mentioned the bottom end and seemingly opted for roughly 20m suggests he got a real humbling at some stage in quick succession. He might of come back to us initially and said 20m, increase to 35m, but everyone involved knows that's a stupid position so not one I'd draw any conclusion from.

[FFC1987]

If true, one which wouldn't work in your scenario Jay is Pereria 'a PL clubs wants to pay £40 million over 5 years'.....Reported by the ever reliable Sport Brasil but going from £20m ish bids, then a week later, £25m and now £40m is quite the up tick.

[hovewhite]

Make those amends and add in a 20 year old winger and I make the average age circa 26 around mid table in the prem. Raul and Cairney may be replaced next year dropping it even further.

...

We have significantly lowered average age...

You make some good points but your statements above are based on conjecture about the future and/or just false as it stands, and we're still going to end this window with a squad that's squarely in the old/very old range. The implication of that is we're probably having to spend ~£40-50m per year for the next few years just to replace our oldest players (eg Raul and Cairney next year as you say) and sustain the same quality level, and for a smaller club like us that significantly undermines any aims we have for sustainability or growth.

The average age of our recruits this year (around 25) would be ok ordinarily but for a club like us that's generally recruited older players in the last couple of years, I'd like to have seen us counterbalance that more dramatically this summer, now that we're settled and should be looking further than just short-term survival.     

This isn't necessarily a critical failing IMO, but nonetheless sub-optimal.

The new arrivals must being average age over the squad down to under 30 and if a 22 Y.O coming in it would reduce further .my view the squad age is OK as you need experience.