Joshua Zirkzee

Status
Not open for further replies.
With Rashford coming back, and the emergence of Lacey, there is just no role for him in the squad. After he rejected Fiorentina and Juventus signed Woltemade instead, an 11th hour deal to Everton seems about the best we could hope for.

People acting like the 6m in saved wages is chump change, but it’s still 6m quid that we were throwing down the drain but will now save. An obligation to buy would be preferable, but given he has no actual playing value to us, breaking down the move because we insist on it, seems dumb. I would rather save the 6m in wages.

If he does okay, or even well, we’ll have increased his value for next summer, if he doesn’t, well we are right where we started. No worse off.

Everton have a say in this. If faced with an obligation to buy for 25m or more, with no time to negotiate and assess other options, they could easily just decide it’s not worth the risk on a player that has failed to perform in England for two seasons. Personally I’d rather bank the wages savings.

But I get this is low hanging fruit for the perpetually outraged. So you do you.

Edit: it’s off. We aren’t saving 6m.
 
El Presidente said:
Who’s going to play Bolton away?
Who’s going to give Sesko a breather for the last 20min when we lead 3-0 vs Coventry - Cunha, Mbeumo? Well, surprise, they’re already playing. This is not how you prepare a squad for a long season ahead, but I wouldn’t expect INEOS to do anything properly.
Click to expand...
When are we playing Bolton?
 
Dirty bast@rds! Sky went back to the Everton bloke with the photo of Zirkzee in the panel 'Just confirmed a season long loan deal has been agreed..'

Fk yes!

'... for Jack Grealish'

Oh you fkers. How dare you.
 
2 man midfield said:
So an option to buy for 10m? feck me you can't get a league one goalkeepers legs for that nowadays, I'm not surprised we turned it down.
Click to expand...
No, it was a combined 10m for this season made up of a fee and his wages. No idea what the option would have been.
 
VP89 said:
The posts here are hilarious

"Why let him go if we can't get a replacement!"
"What's the point in a loan with option!"

News breaks he stays

"Jesus wept!"
"Hopeless!"
Click to expand...
Was it the same people with those conflicting opinions?
 
strandty said:
No, it was a combined 10m for this season made up of a fee and his wages. No idea what the option would have been.
Click to expand...
Ah I see. That's the important bit really, so if we turned it down I can't imagine the option was very much.

Would not be surprised if we preferred a straight loan to put him in the shop window
 
rimaldo said:
i think we all agree options are nice. for example, i like having a couple of options for lunch. but if one of the two options is a dog shit sandwich, then i’m stuck with a chicken wrap.
Click to expand...
And come Christmas with fatigue and injuries the same posters will be annoyed that we didn't keep Zirkzee. This was always a lose lose situation with the club, and I think the right decision was made, as our lck of options in the striker position could cripple our season.
 
Matt851 said:
10m, we definitely should be taking that. His value will only go down with no football
Click to expand...

It’s all a big mess, money is apparently so tight but turning down a loan worth 10m to keep someone we don’t want, don’t play and can’t sell.

Maybe he’ll improve and we’ll find a way to sell him in one of the next two windows but got to start raising money somehow.
 
Not enough time to find a replacement? Why didn't we have someone lined up just in case?

It's not like Juventus and fiorentina both enquired. What were we going to do? Spend a day "assessing the market again"?

 
Roboc7 said:
It’s all a big mess, money is apparently so tight but turning down a loan worth 10m to keep someone we don’t want, don’t play and can’t sell.

Maybe he’ll improve and we’ll find a way to sell him in one of the next two windows but got to start raising money somehow.
Click to expand...
Depends what the option was. If it was 30m I'm sure we'd have taken it. It was probably something really low, so I'm not surprised we turned it down.

If he's going on loan we either need to be able to sell him off the back of his form, or get good money guaranteed. Perhaps this deal was neither.

Edit: briefing that we just didn't have time to replace him. Hmm.
 
Rolaholic said:


:lol:
Click to expand...


Thin. Yeah, right...

We hardly ever use him and I doubt many would notice he was actually on the pitch for the few minutes he may occasionally get from the bench.

Would have been better to earn a few million and put him in the shop window. Knowing Everton, they would have made the deal permanent after a couple of goals.
 
edgecutter said:
And come Christmas with fatigue and injuries the same posters will be annoyed that we didn't keep Zirkzee. This was always a lose lose situation with the club, and I think the right decision was made, as our lck of options in the striker position could cripple our season.
Click to expand...

I would honestly rather they put Dermot Mee up top than watch this total waste of space play for us again so there is that.
 
So basically we are not selling Zirkzee because we couldnt find a LB on loan on deadline day. Seems like that was our strategy, wait for deadline day and hope a LB drops on our lap.
 
van Nistelrooy said:
Thin. Yeah, right...

We hardly ever use him and I doubt many would notice he was actually on the pitch for the few minutes he may occasionally get from the bench.

Would have been better to earn a few million and put him in the shop window. Knowing Everton, they would have made the deal permanent after a couple of goals.
Click to expand...
I think it was fear of numbers rather than seeing him as a genuine attacking option. I agree with you we hardly ever use and I don’t think he will be used in any games of significance - I think it’s more his literal body more than anything else!

I think Carrick sees his no.9 options as Sesko, Cunha, and Mbeumo. Zirkzee is probably 4th choice after that.
 
El Presidente said:
Who’s going to play Bolton away?
Who’s going to give Sesko a breather for the last 20min when we lead 3-0 vs Coventry - Cunha, Mbeumo? Well, surprise, they’re already playing. This is not how you prepare a squad for a long season ahead, but I wouldn’t expect INEOS to do anything properly.
Click to expand...
3-0 is very optimistic. Can't imagine us keeping a clean sheet.
 
DWelbz19 said:
I think it was fear of numbers rather than seeing him as a genuine attacking option. I agree with you we hardly ever use and I don’t think he will be used in any games of significance - I think it’s more his literal body more than anything else!

I think Carrick sees his no.9 options as Sesko, Cunha, and Mbeumo. Zirkzee is probably 4th choice after that.
Click to expand...

That would be fine but we are hardly stacked on the wings if you take them out of the equation. They are going to be run into the ground with our increased fixtures.

At least it means we will see more of Lacey.
 
Woodzy said:
That would be fine but we are hardly stacked on the wings if you take them out of the equation. They are going to be run into the ground with our increased fixtures.

At least it means we will see more of Lacey.
Click to expand...
And I guess that’s probably what Zirkzee is banking on. If - big if - Sesko, Amad, and Rashford stay fit all season (well for the rest of it now for Amad), he probably won’t see any matches of consequence. If we start having fitness issues or injuries in tight run-ins, our false forward will get some minutes.
 
Overhaul FC said:
Not enough time to source a replacement? They had a year!
Click to expand...

Shame a stopgap option like Welbeck wasn't available for free this window, would have given us time to find a buyer and meant we could have taken advantage of clubs making last minute decisions.
 
Overhaul FC said:
Not enough time to source a replacement? They had a year!
Click to expand...
On the one hand yes but the fact is the offer came just before the window closes so they may well have had targets but Everton left it too late for us to move on one of them. I would have let him go anyway, he is going to get next to no minutes here and we will be loaning him to a Serie B side next summer for a bottle of Grappa and 5% of his wages covered.
 
If we turned down 10 million compensation for a loan we're idiots. That's effectively paying 10m to loan Zirkzee for a season ourselves, for what a 3rd or 4th choice striker who can't score? Madness
 
edgecutter said:
And come Christmas with fatigue and injuries the same posters will be annoyed that we didn't keep Zirkzee. This was always a lose lose situation with the club, and I think the right decision was made, as our lck of options in the striker position could cripple our season.
Click to expand...
A situation the club could have remedied before today but instead they done the bare minimum of getting 3 midfielders and let's face it none of the 3 where the preferred options.

If the Glazers and Ineos where to invite 100 people for a dinner they'd buy enough food for 30
 
Steve Bruce said:
A situation the club could have remedied before today but instead they done the bare minimum of getting 3 midfielders and let's face it none of the 3 where the preferred options.

If the Glazers and Ineos where to invite 100 people for a dinner they'd buy enough food for 30
Click to expand...

Which is fine cos they'd invite Jesus.

Wait no, they'd consider inviting Jesus... Be prepared to invite Jesus... And invite one of the disciples instead.

The one from Chelsea
 
Status
Not open for further replies.