Keep seeing people saying this. We have paid big money for the last 3 summers on CM signings. Casemiro (60m), Mount (55m, he isn't a CM but ten hag signed him to be one) and ugarte (42.5m).Agree. It’s so obvious I don’t understand why it isn’t (CM) being prioritized. Year after year I see links and chasing of just about every position but midfielders.
I suppose the system is considered to be predicated on attacking midfielders both progressing the ball and tracking all the way back to the edge of the box [shrug]
Well, then u can say the same for Etikeke. Also for Gyokeres since he was playing in farmer league.How is he not?
I like Mitten but I don’t get why he’d just sit on that for a year and not say anything? I get that he doesn’t like reporting on transfer speculation but I’ve never even heard him say Sesko’s name on any podcast when talking about striker options that we could go for.
Tbf to Mitten I think he really prides himself on his connections and his reputation as a trustworthy journalist.Yeah will admit that's definitely a bit odd
Hojlund makes good runs too. Zirkzee is a better fit for the system.Watkins is a much better fit for this system bc of his pace and his tendency to make runs in behind
De Bruyne, Berbatov, Gvardiol, Kompany, Haaland, Aubameyang, Son, Gundogan, Firmino, Sane, Konate, van de Ven, Mazraoui, Mateta, GravenberchJust play it safe, get Watkins and not worry about another £80m flop, Šeško may look good, but I’m generally wary of players coming from Bundesliga. Sancho, Werner, Mikh, Havertz, the list of Bundesliga flops in the Premier League doesn't end.
Pretty much where I am too.I'd prefer Watkins, but £60million for a player turning 30 this year is insanity. I'd be tempted if we were in Arsenal's position and only being a few missing pieces away from a complete team, but alas we're not. Would rather we take the punt on the Sesko project considering his age and where we currently are in our rebuilding phase.
Watkins is the furthest thing from safe. About to hit 30 years old, he could decline at any moment. It's downright silly to pay big money for someone so likely to decline quickly. Casemiro pt 2.Just play it safe, get Watkins and not worry about another £80m flop, Šeško may look good, but I’m generally wary of players coming from Bundesliga. Sancho, Werner, Mikh, Havertz, the list of Bundesliga flops in the Premier League doesn't end.
40m for Watkins? Try 60m. Villa say not for salesWatkins is the furthest thing from safe. About to hit 30 years old, he could decline at any moment. It's downright silly to pay big money for someone so likely to decline quickly. Casemiro pt 2.
The idea of Watkins for £40M+ and big wages for 4-5 years is so bad I can only hope it's just something teased to placate Amorim. If Wilcox/Vivell are serious about it it portends poorly for our future IMO.
I don't love the idea of Sesko for £70M either -- the best option may be neither of them. But there's a chance it's a home run, and compared to the dismal work Watkins would be I'd definitely take Sesko.
Yeah I know. My point is even paying £40M would be a horrific signing, given his age. Anything above that's a disaster.40m for Watkins? Try 60m. Villa say not for sales
Madness. 40m for Watkins would be decent business. He doesn't have the amount of football that someone like Rooney had in his legs at the same age and there's absolutely no reason we couldn't get four decent years out of him. Name a better CF that is gettable for 40m. All academic of course because Villa will never take 40 for him and we should swerve for anything over 50 or so imo.Yeah I know. My point is even paying £40M would be a horrific signing, given his age. Anything above that's a disaster.
Personally, I'd rather we sign no one than Watkins.
Particularly given the state of our squad, it'd be a bad deal. As another poster said, if we were Arsenal and just needed a striker for a potential title, maybe you go for him. 15th with holes all over the place? As you said, it'd truly be madness.Madness. 40m for Watkins would be decent business. He doesn't have the amount of football that someone like Rooney had in his legs at the same age and there's absolutely no reason we couldn't get four decent years out of him. Name a better CF that is gettable for 40m. All academic of course because Villa will never take 40 for him and we should swerve for anything over 50 or so imo.
De Bruyne, Berbatov, Gvardiol, Kompany, Haaland, Aubameyang, Son, Gundogan, Firmino, Sane, Konate, van de Ven, Mazraoui, Mateta, Gravenberch
I didn't guarantee four years, just like you can't guarantee it's max two. You said that 40 million for him would be madness, which it obviously wouldn't be. You can say it's a risk but given the sums bandied around for strikers as proven as him, coming from a PL team, 40 is absolutely a fair price. And as for 'is a 32 year old Watkins and upgrade over our other attackers?'...what sort of question is that?! Who knows?! I imagine he'd probably still be an upgrade over Hojlund, who seems to be the only other viable 9 we have available at the mo. Watkins could be the difference between nothing and EL or even (whisper it) CL. At which point the ROI starts making a lot of sense.Particularly given the state of our squad, it'd be a bad deal. As another poster said, if we were Arsenal and just needed a striker for a potential title, maybe you go for him. 15th with holes all over the place? As you said, it'd truly be madness.
And of course, there's no way you can guarantee "four decent years". Is a 32 year old Watkins even an upgrade over our other attackers? Probably not. I'm betting he's got max two more years as a good player. Meanwhile, you've got to pay £100M for him most likely (£60M fee + at least £10M a year in wages). I'll bet it's another bad contract rotting on our bench before the end of it.
Yeah very good pointI think we should stop mentioning 40m for Watkins. No way Villa is going to sell him at that price. Also, Watkins will be on higher wages.
The comparison for consideration should be (approximate):
1. Watkins at 60m @ 200-250k p/w - 29 y/o.
2. Sesko at 70m @ 100-150k p/w - 22 y/o.
Watkins will be on high wages and no resale value. If things go south we are stuck with him again.
Sesko is not too far behind Watkins in term of quality. He is much lesser risks as he is cheaper and have resale value. He will also be on lower wages and easier to offload. If he can develop as expected we will have 10 more years for his service.
I think it's quite clear for long term planning Sesko is the better choice
Do you know these guys personally, and well enough to be familiar with their contractual demands? Or are you just making up facts to suit your opinion? According to Capology they are on fairly similar terms right now, with Watkins at 130k and Sesko at 108k per week. I think it's fanciful to assume that Sesko wouldn't demand an equal payrise to what Watkins might want.I think we should stop mentioning 40m for Watkins. No way Villa is going to sell him at that price. Also, Watkins will be on higher wages.
The comparison for consideration should be (approximate):
1. Watkins at 60m @ 200-250k p/w - 29 y/o.
2. Sesko at 70m @ 100-150k p/w - 22 y/o.
Watkins will be on high wages and no resale value. If things go south we are stuck with him again.
Sesko is not too far behind Watkins in term of quality. He is much lesser risks as he is cheaper and have resale value. He will also be on lower wages and easier to offload. If he can develop as expected we will have 10 more years for his service.
I think it's quite clear for long term planning Sesko is the better choice
There's no doubt he's the riskier choice, however I have muppeted over Sesko since he came on scene so not gonna stop now. Reckon we have unsettled Watkins now anyway so maybe we could have both by next summer.Do you know these guys personally, and well enough to be familiar with their contractual demands? Or are you just making up facts to suit your opinion? According to Capology they are on fairly similar terms right now, with Watkins at 130k and Sesko at 108k per week. I think it's fanciful to assume that Sesko wouldn't demand an equal payrise to what Watkins might want.
I also believe that Sesko is a far bigger risk than you're proposing, compared to Watkins who's tried and tested in the Premier League. We're also in no position to take risks for a potentially higher upside at this moment. If we want to climb up the ladder, we need sure thing players who can come in and make us a contender for European competitions again. Once we're there, we'll be in a position to worry about peak potential.
So, in my opinion, it's quite clear for long term planning that Watkins is the better choice.
It's quite simple, some folks believe that neither are the right option and we shouldn't spend money on such a playerWhile I understand that Sesko is leading by far in the poll and rightly so, I don't understand those that choose "neither".
Our main strikers are Hojlund and Zirkzee who combined get less than 10 PL goals last season?
We should have a pool option of rotate Cunha/Mbeumo up top.It's quite simple, some folks believe that neither are the right option and we shouldn't spend money on such a player
Do you know these guys personally, and well enough to be familiar with their contractual demands? Or are you just making up facts to suit your opinion? According to Capology they are on fairly similar terms right now, with Watkins at 130k and Sesko at 108k per week. I think it's fanciful to assume that Sesko wouldn't demand an equal payrise to what Watkins might want.
I also believe that Sesko is a far bigger risk than you're proposing, compared to Watkins who's tried and tested in the Premier League. We're also in no position to take risks for a potentially higher upside at this moment. If we want to climb up the ladder, we need sure thing players who can come in and make us a contender for European competitions again. Once we're there, we'll be in a position to worry about peak potential.
So, in my opinion, it's quite clear for long term planning that Watkins is the better choice.
Keep in mind that because most of your roster gets a 25% pay bump when you make UCL, it's not as though the ~£100M in TV money is just added to your transfer budget. Given our level of spending, probably about half of it just gets doled out to your current players.I didn't guarantee four years, just like you can't guarantee it's max two. You said that 40 million for him would be madness, which it obviously wouldn't be. You can say it's a risk but given the sums bandied around for strikers as proven as him, coming from a PL team, 40 is absolutely a fair price. And as for 'is a 32 year old Watkins and upgrade over our other attackers?'...what sort of question is that?! Who knows?! I imagine he'd probably still be an upgrade over Hojlund, who seems to be the only other viable 9 we have available at the mo. Watkins could be the difference between nothing and EL or even (whisper it) CL. At which point the ROI starts making a lot of sense.
Zirkzee is a TERRIBLE fit for this systemHojlund makes good runs too. Zirkzee is a better fit for the system.
Has Mateta really been that much of a Premier League success?De Bruyne, Berbatov, Gvardiol, Kompany, Haaland, Aubameyang, Son, Gundogan, Firmino, Sane, Konate, van de Ven, Mazraoui, Mateta, Gravenberch
