Alex Scott | Bournemouth reject Chelsea approach

WeePat said:
I was thinking we still need to replace Santos. Lavia is a sick note so we don't really have any other realistic midfield options outside of Enzo and Caicedo.

I think if Enzo does leave, it would mean we would target two midfielders. Alex Scott and someone else. Bruno G + Scott to replace Enzo and Santos wouldn't be bad business I suppose.
Click to expand...
Maybe the plan is more of James in midfield
 
hellhunter said:
Maybe the plan is more of James in midfield
Click to expand...

I wouldn't make any squad building decisions around James tbh. He's a great option in midfield but his fitness isn't reliable enough to build a plan with him as a crucial component.
 
WeePat said:
I was thinking we still need to replace Santos. Lavia is a sick note so we don't really have any other realistic midfield options outside of Enzo and Caicedo.

I think if Enzo does leave, it would mean we would target two midfielders. Alex Scott and someone else. Bruno G + Scott to replace Enzo and Santos wouldn't be bad business I suppose.
Click to expand...
Barco replaces Santos, other new midfielder will replace Enzo is my guess.
 
Orc said:
Barco replaces Santos, other new midfielder will replace Enzo is my guess.
Click to expand...

So Barco + one other midfielder if Enzo leaves. Makes sense. Seems like Chelsea know Enzo is definitely leaving then, if we're literally bidding for Scott.
 
sp_cgb said:
Of course it was, because it was in response to a post "vaguely" arguing every rival being worse for some reason.

Disrespecting the competition and thinking we can go into a season thinking everyone else will remain the same or get worse, as a defensive argument for our current transfer window, is an obvious recipe for disaster. Two out of the clubs mentioned are already quite ahead of us and with a narrow budget approach it is high unlikely, that we will close the gap, while they keep spending on top of what they already have. What happens to the clubs that finished just behind us, is of course far more speculative. But looking at Chelsea's schedule and combined with a promising manager and the willingness to back that manager, they shouldn't be underestimated. Same goes for Liverpool in regards to the manager, but they haven't done anything of note in the market and a lot of their previous key players are either another year older or gone for good. I'd expect them to be similar to last season in the beginning, but to kick on once Iraola has settled. Villa could well be worse. Selling Tielemans and Rogers and bringing in Garnacho of all people doesn't seem a particularly great strategy.

Like I said in the subsequent post to my "vague speculation". United have made some decent signings so far, but it's far from enough. And if we want to safely finish in the CL places again next season, we'll need more. Most likely at least another starter(or two) for the first eleven and some additional depth. As it stands it's a coin flip, if we will be able to (mostly) keep up with our positive results since January, or if we unceremoniously slide out of the Top 5 again. The way our injury issues already keep piling up and the frugality being shown in regards to fixing longstanding problems in the team, I am not too optimistic. Thankfully there's still enough time to do business and that outlook can change.
Click to expand...

Are they though? We had a better points total than both after Carrick came in. It’s worth remembering that half our season was severely hamstrung by Amorim being pretty rubbish. We had an easier schedule of course and they both have a bit better depth, but I don’t think we’re as far off as many claim, and there’s still time to go in this window. And we know that how much a team spends in one window isn’t a great barometer of anything - it’s how well it’s spent along with a fair dose of luck. The success of a particular transfer window can only ever be determined with hindsight.
 
WeePat said:
So Barco + one other midfielder if Enzo leaves. Makes sense. Seems like Chelsea know Enzo is definitely leaving then, if we're literally bidding for Scott.
Click to expand...
I think the fact your bidding big for players in general, was enough to convince me he's gone.
 
0le said:
Not really no. Adjacently paid retweets have been a thing…

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...t-retweets-japanese-billionaire-splashes-cash

And lots of services claim to provide followers.

And by the way, the number of tweets on the forum from aggregator accounts seems to have grown and grown, many of which dont even bother linking the original story. I have even seen tweets from aggregators linking BBC articles instead of just posting the BBC link or a tweet from the actual BBC journo. Either people are being lazy (possible), dumb (do not believe this) or maybe there is something else (unlikely but not impossible).

I know you enjoy to post tweets here so maybe you took that personally but be objective, do you really think our forum, reddit, and other social media are immune to manipulation like that? It is not something I sit here worrying about, nor think its definitely happening but can you definitively say it has and will never happen across those platforms?
Click to expand...
I really don’t think a forum users would be paid to post tweets from accounts they see on Twitter when they’re sharing news.

It doesn’t affect things as much as we’d like to think they do and at the end of the day online us such an echo chamber of what the wider fanbase actually thinks and feels.

I didn’t take it personally no, I’m just astounded that this can even be a thing when the eyes on a forum, would be miniscule compared to the reach that large YouTube accounts and twitter accounts would reach.
 
If we really believe around 64m is too much for him, we're not really living in the real world currently. It's a lot but, with how the market is now it's not crazy.
 
Judas said:
If we really believe around 64m is too much for him, we're not really living in the real world currently. It's a lot but, with how the market is now it's not crazy.
Click to expand...
Our valuations have always been an issue. We don't seem to be able to gauge the market and the seller at all.
 
Judas said:
If we really believe around 64m is too much for him, we're not really living in the real world currently. It's a lot but, with how the market is now it's not crazy.
Click to expand...
I think it's more about moving towards clubs not adding a 'United Tax' any more.
We're doing solid deals and we aren't falling for huge sums for average players.
I think Scott is probably worth 60-70, but he's not going to go for that is he.
United would end up having to match the 85 for Fernandez.
 
Top_Bins said:
I think it's more about moving towards clubs not adding a 'United Tax' any more.
We're doing solid deals and we aren't falling for huge sums for average players.
I think Scott is probably worth 60-70, but he's not going to go for that is he.
United would end up having to match the 85 for Fernandez.
Click to expand...
Yup, 80-85m probably. We are not paying that. Maybe less in January if he doesn't sign a new contract.
 
Judas said:
If we really believe around 64m is too much for him, we're not really living in the real world currently. It's a lot but, with how the market is now it's not crazy.
Click to expand...
I think it’s a sign of the budget restraints that we’re working under. We’ve supposedly pulled out of a few deals now because it was too expensive. I also read that we are interested in Tchouameni but only if he fits within budget of 70m
 
Judas said:
If we really believe around 64m is too much for him, we're not really living in the real world currently. It's a lot but, with how the market is now it's not crazy.
Click to expand...

There aren’t any indications Bournemouth would sell for that amount anyway so it’s a moot point.
 
golden_blunder said:
I think it’s a sign of the budget restraints that we’re working under. We’ve supposedly pulled out of a few deals now because it was too expensive. I also read that we are interested in Tchouameni but only if he fits within budget of 70m
Click to expand...
Yeah and you get arrogant feckers like City and Chelsea lauding it up with their extravagant spending. Makes me sick to my stomach the antics of those two clubs while we scrimp and struggle. Expect this guy to probably end up reuniting with last summers big spenders instead.
 
croadyman said:
Yeah and you get arrogant feckers like City and Chelsea lauding it up with their extravagant spending. Makes me sick to my stomach the antics of those two clubs while we scrimp and struggle
Click to expand...
Blame the glazers, there isn't any other top flight club leveraged with as much debt as we are by the glazers.

We really need someone to come in, buy the club and wipe out the debt. Otherwise will we always be in this situation with the glazers, leeching money off Utd. Where will it stop? When they have taken £2billion ? £3billion out of the club for themselves?
 
croadyman said:
Yeah and you get arrogant feckers like City and Chelsea lauding it up with their extravagant spending. Makes me sick to my stomach the antics of those two clubs while we scrimp and struggle. Expect this guy to probably end up reuniting with last summers big spenders instead.
Click to expand...

My friend Chelsea have sold almost as much as we've spent this summer.
 
Rolaholic said:
How did someone like Garnacho gain more value at Chelsea than United?
Click to expand...

He hasn't, the market has. Chelsea just about breaking even on him, despite the market going crazy, shows how much he has stagnated.
 
Making Alex Scott one of United biggest transfer ever! Is not an idea I can really get behind tbh, no matter how inflated the transfer fees have become this summer.

He is decent from the little I’ve watch him, but not one you break the bank for imo.
 
RuudTom83 said:
Making Alex Scott one of United biggest transfer ever! Is not an idea I can really get behind tbh, no matter how inflated the transfer fees have become this summer.

He is decent from the little I’ve watch him, but not one you break the bank for imo.
Click to expand...
His stats look good from last season but so much probably depends on team tactics and what the player is asked to do in their role.

Judging by the signings so far it looks like we're going for the two hybrid 6/8s rather than one defined CDM and one CM.

I can see Santos being one of the more defensive focused players with Tielemans and Mainoo being the two slightly advanced CMs. Tielemans mostly played alongside Kamara at Villa who was the more defensive minded player.

I think the final signing for us will be slightly more defensive minded and not a box to boxer like Scott. It's why we're probably waiting to see what happens with Rodri and therefore Tchouameni. He'd slot in nicely with a Tielemans or Mainoo. Sangare from Lens is another I hope we're considering for that position.
 
Unsurprisingly, I read from Simon Mullock that we consider even the £64m Chelsea proposed for him as ‘excessive’. I have no idea why we are wasting our time with these pursuits, go to Netherlands, France or Norway and do your shopping if you want the best you can get for 30-50m.

We’re the only big club in England yet to land a £100m player, and tbh, we’d do well to spend £100m net this entire window from what I’m seeing.
 
Berbasbullet said:
Annnnd because you’ve made a dodgy deal with Villa.
Click to expand...

Even with the dodginess of it, the fact that his valuation stayed more or less the same in an inflated market shows he's stagnated. If he had a similar season to the one he had at United, which was nothing special, his value could have been around 60m this summer. So in the grand scheme of things, he actually lost value, not gained.
 
WeePat said:
Even with the dodginess of it, the fact that his valuation stayed more or less the same in an inflated market shows he's stagnated. If he had a similar season to the one he had at United, which was nothing special, his value could have been around 60m this summer. So in the grand scheme of things, he actually lost value, not gained.
Click to expand...

Don't agree with that. His attitude stinks and his returns are just not good enough. We would have struggled to get 30m for him if he stayed.
 
Rozay said:
Unsurprisingly, I read from Simon Mullock that we consider even the £64m Chelsea proposed for him as ‘excessive’. I have no idea why we are wasting our time with these pursuits, go to Netherlands, France or Norway and do your shopping if you want the best you can get for 30-50m.

We’re the only big club in England yet to land a £100m player, and tbh, we’d do well to spend £100m net this entire window from what I’m seeing.
Click to expand...
All signs point to us being short of cash. I think the whole “fees too much” angle is just put out there to deflect from the fact that we’re a bit skint
 
golden_blunder said:
All signs point to us being short of cash. I think the whole “fees too much” angle is just put out there to deflect from the fact that we’re a bit skint
Click to expand...
Are we actually 'skint' for any good reason or are the owners just skimping?

It doesn't seem like we are moving lime an ambitious club and with the additional pressure of competing in the champions league I worry we may end up in the europa

Hopefully we have some other options at left back than hall becsuse there doesn't appear to be any chance of getting on our budget
 
Matt851 said:
Are we actually 'skint' for any good reason or are the owners just skimping?

It doesn't seem like we are moving lime an ambitious club and with the additional pressure of competing in the champions league I worry we may end up in the europa

Hopefully we have some other options at left back than hall becsuse there doesn't appear to be any chance of getting on our budget
Click to expand...

Aside from having parasitic owners, our TV and match day revenues were both hit from the lack of games last season - our lowest number of competitive games in over a hundred years. Early departures from both domestic cups plus no Europe has likely had a detrimental effect on our transfer funds.
 
Matt851 said:
Are we actually 'skint' for any good reason or are the owners just skimping?

It doesn't seem like we are moving lime an ambitious club and with the additional pressure of competing in the champions league I worry we may end up in the europa

Hopefully we have some other options at left back than hall becsuse there doesn't appear to be any chance of getting on our budget
Click to expand...
We’re skint because we’ve been buying players on credit and we now need to pay big sums every summer to keep up. Supposedly that let the reason they borrowed again off the credit facility to pay some of the credit card

Im sure that’s not the only reason too
 
Rozay said:
Unsurprisingly, I read from Simon Mullock that we consider even the £64m Chelsea proposed for him as ‘excessive’. I have no idea why we are wasting our time with these pursuits, go to Netherlands, France or Norway and do your shopping if you want the best you can get for 30-50m.

We’re the only big club in England yet to land a £100m player, and tbh, we’d do well to spend £100m net this entire window from what I’m seeing.
Click to expand...

I have no idea why you’re wasting your time with such reports in the media - 99% are bollocks with the press having precious little clue what we’re actually doing this summer.
 
golden_blunder said:
All signs point to us being short of cash. I think the whole “fees too much” angle is just put out there to deflect from the fact that we’re a bit skint
Click to expand...

Barcelonas Rashford pivot and Ugartes injury have robbed us of a big chunk of budget this year. Particularly Rashford whose wage which will bite the cashflow and affect what we can offer new recruits

Should they manage to find a buyer for Marcus I expect there may be a a late scramble for further recruits but imagine that will be pretty late in the window
 
Red_Aaron said:
Barcelonas Rashford pivot and Ugartes injury have robbed us of a big chunk of budget this year. Particularly Rashford whose wage which will bite the cashflow and affect what we can offer new recruits

Should they manage to find a buyer for Marcus I expect there may be a a late scramble for further recruits but imagine that will be pretty late in the window
Click to expand...
Fair points
 
Rozay said:
Unsurprisingly, I read from Simon Mullock that we consider even the £64m Chelsea proposed for him as ‘excessive’. I have no idea why we are wasting our time with these pursuits, go to Netherlands, France or Norway and do your shopping if you want the best you can get for 30-50m.

We’re the only big club in England yet to land a £100m player, and tbh, we’d do well to spend £100m net this entire window from what I’m seeing.
Click to expand...

I don't why that's such a bad thing. Isak, Rogers, Anderson, Wirtz, Enzo, Grealish, Rice, Caicedo, Lukaku, Tonali. Not many of those have proven themselves to be worth the price.
 
golden_blunder said:
We’re skint because we’ve been buying players on credit and we now need to pay big sums every summer to keep up.
Click to expand...
In previous summer windows, I remember reading posts that said "It doest matter if we are paying 60M, its 10M per year over 6 years so its actually cheap" and just laughing. No forward thinking at all.
 
golden_blunder said:
We’re skint because we’ve been buying players on credit and we now need to pay big sums every summer to keep up. Supposedly that let the reason they borrowed again off the credit facility to pay some of the credit card

Im sure that’s not the only reason too
Click to expand...
Plus won’t increase in CL money only hit next summer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.