Lewis Hall

Zumbi said:
This seems a little disingenous. So far we have a net spend of less than 40 million, Ugarte's wages are being covered because he was injured at the WC, and we've already saved a bunch of money by getting Casemiro's wages of the books. We aren't "hemorrhaging transfer funds" because one player on big wages is staying, especially when him staying means we're not bringing in a forward to replace him. We want Hall because our recruitment team recognise that we don't have sufficient cover at LB. They're just likely too cheap to stump up the money Newcastle will demand so will probably go for a cheaper target instead.
Click to expand...

Fair point on his wages, but we're still losing about 25m (being generous here) on a potential Ugarte transfer and more importantly, we're losing far more on Rashford staying this year (which hopefully isn't the case).
 
Raoul said:
I'd prioritize a cheap and reliable backup striker like Welbeck. Unfortunately, Xabi Alonso agreed with me.
Click to expand...

But according to your logic we have Mbeumo and Cunha and Rashford who can all be back up.
 
Raoul said:
Happy to eat a double serving of humble pie if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
You are wrong.

Because the literal only point that's ever been argued by me is whether it's a good idea to go in to the season with our currently options at left back.

You can try to reframe the argument to whether we will sign Hall or not. I doubt Newcastle will sell him.

Again, not what I ever said or argued.
 
Raoul said:
Fair point on his wages, but we're still losing about 25m (being generous here) on a potential Ugarte transfer and more importantly, we're losing far more on Rashford staying this year (which hopefully isn't the case).
Click to expand...

Ugarte was most likely going out on loan. Rashford staying obviously isn't limiting us to a net spend of just 40 million.
 
Zumbi said:
Ugarte was most likely going out on loan. Rashford staying obviously isn't limiting us to a net spend of just 40 million.
Click to expand...

Hard to say whether he would've gone on loan or not, but the broader point is even if he did, we would've still not gotten a decent transfer fee for him.
 
Raoul said:
Hard to say whether he would've gone on loan or not, but the broader point is even if he did, we would've still not gotten a decent transfer fee for him.
Click to expand...

Agreed, which is why I don't think him staying can be accurately described as "hemorrhaging transfer funds".
 
Zumbi said:
Agreed, which is why I don't think him staying can be accurately described as "hemorrhaging transfer funds".
Click to expand...

Other than Ugarte's wages (which are the least in the equation), we are still losing money by keeping Rashford (£40m) and his wages (£16-17m), plus we're losing a transfer fee for Ugarte which could fetch another 25m or so. His wages are the smallest factor among the aforementioned.
 
Raoul said:
Other than Ugarte's wages (which are the least in the equation), we are still losing money by keeping Rashford (£40m) and his wages (£16-17m), plus we're losing a transfer fee for Ugarte which could fetch another 25m or so. His wages are the smallest factor among the aforementioned.
Click to expand...

We’re not “losing money” - we already own them. We’re just not gaining additional transfer funds from selling them. And our transfer funds are obviously not dependent on shifting the wages of one single player, even if he is a high earner.

The fact remains that our net spend is still only 40 million-ish. The idea that we can’t spend more this window because of Ugarte and Rashford is absurd.
 
Raoul said:
I wanted to give you some credit for attempting to be clever, but your point was just too easy to debunk.
Click to expand...

No, your “logic” is being exposed again and again as completely inconsistent and contradictory, and you are tying yourself in knots trying to deflect from it.
 
Raoul said:
Other than Ugarte's wages (which are the least in the equation), we are still losing money by keeping Rashford (£40m) and his wages (£16-17m), plus we're losing a transfer fee for Ugarte which could fetch another 25m or so. His wages are the smallest factor among the aforementioned.
Click to expand...
We’re not getting 40m for Rashford.
He’s refusing to be a commodity and the only deals he’d take would see the other team pay a season loan.
 
Raoul said:
I wanted to give you some credit for attempting to be clever, but your point was just too easy to debunk.
Click to expand...
Maz playing at left back in the world cup is proof that we don't need cover there. Yet Cunha starting most games as Brazil's number 9 doesn't matter and you wanted Welbeck as backup.

There's nothing clever about any of this. Your stance is wildly inconsistent and you have spent an hour trying to duck and dive in an attempt to defend it whilst being strangely rude about it.

I'll let anyone reading it make their minds up.
 
Zumbi said:
We’re not “losing money” - we already own them. We’re just not gaining additional transfer funds from selling them. And our transfer funds are obviously not dependent on shifting the wages of one single player, even if he is a high earner.

The fact remains that our net spend is still only 40 million-ish. The idea that we can’t spend more this window because of Ugarte and Rashford is absurd.
Click to expand...

We are losing money, because we would be making money if we sold them as many believed we would.
 
AkaAkuma said:
We’re not getting 40m for Rashford.
He’s refusing to be a commodity and the only deals he’d take would see the other team pay a season loan.
Click to expand...

Sadly, I think you may be right. Barca could've retained him but instead spent twice as much on Gordon
 
OverratedOpinion said:
Maz playing at left back in the world cup is proof that we don't need cover there. Yet Cunha starting most games as Brazil's number 9 doesn't matter and you wanted Welbeck as backup.

There's nothing clever about any of this. Your stance is wildly inconsistent and you have spent an hour trying to duck and dive in an attempt to defend it whilst being strangely rude about it.

I'll let anyone reading it make their minds up.
Click to expand...

Welbeck cost Cheslea a whopping £5m, which is less than we spent on Tynan Thompson. That's a far cry from buying Hall at £60. But I appreciate the comparison.
 
Raoul said:
We are losing money, because we would be making money if we sold them as many believed we would.
Click to expand...

You can’t lose something you didn't have. Until we successfully sold them, we didn’t have any money for them.
 
Raoul said:
Welbeck cost Cheslea a whopping £5m, which is less than we spent on Tynan Thompson. That's a far cry from buying Hall at £60. But I appreciate the comparison.
Click to expand...

Which makes it even more bizarre that if we could only sign one more player you’d go for Welbeck. A 35 year old five million pound striker seems like a much worse asset to have than a 21 year old 60 million pound left back.
 
Raoul said:
I'd prioritize a cheap and reliable backup striker like Welbeck. Unfortunately, Xabi Alonso agreed with me.
Click to expand...

Raoul said:
None are strikers though
Click to expand...

I find this very strange and double standard opinion. You think we should priorities striker because Cunha, Mbeumo, and Rashford are not striker despite that they can cover the striker positions and we have 7 attackers right now. But you are okay with Shaw as our only natural left back because you are accepting Mazraoui as left back despite of Mazraoui is not a left back, just based on him capable to cover the left back position. Signing left back would be considered as two things, left footed left back to compete with Luke Shaw as we need 2 players per positions and long term left back for the club due to Shaw's contract is expired next year.

Based on what I watched with Carrick, we played more fluid or free flowing with our front three that they tend to exchange positions in comparison to how Amorim set his no 9. We don't really necessary desperate for striker given the way how our front three operate.
 
croadyman said:
Physicality you would say Diouf fits that profile
Click to expand...
I must say I wasn't impressed with Diouf everytime I watched West Ham. I think he is good enough to play in some PL teams and he could be top wing back due to his quality crossing and what he can offer going forward. But I wasn't impressed with his general play and his decision making as full back.
 
Araujo seems like Enzo Fernandes but as LB. A d*ck to play against. Is he good defensively enough to play LB for United? Otherwise seems quite technical and versatile.

Only just watched highlights but Seys for Belgium is a left footed LB that is used quite often to play on the right.

Seems like the type of player that replace Mazroui & Dalots role in the squad one day as fullbacks than can cover both sides.
 
Last edited:
croadyman said:
Physicality you would say Diouf fits that profile
Click to expand...

Yes he’s a good example. A bit raw maybe but will get up and down, win some duels and can whip a decent cross in. Depending on the fee we could always go back in for Hall at a later time as he’s more technical and would give us a good mix
 
If this doesn't happen, which looks likely, especially since Howe has left. I'd want us to go for Djed Spence. Top 3 English players at the WC and from what I've read online at least, would be somewhere around the 35m-ish mark.
 
Zumbi said:
Which makes it even more bizarre that if we could only sign one more player you’d go for Welbeck. A 35 year old five million pound striker seems like a much worse asset to have than a 21 year old 60 million pound left back.
Click to expand...
How if that asset has a ton of Premier League experience, can score you double digits goals, gets you into the Champions League?

We have to wait for that to actually happens but if it does he’s a bargain.
 
JE-0801 said:
I must say I wasn't impressed with Diouf everytime I watched West Ham. I think he is good enough to play in some PL teams and he could be top wing back due to his quality crossing and what he can offer going forward. But I wasn't impressed with his general play and his decision making as full back.
Click to expand...
I quite like Diouf but he’s very, very raw. Would be a “project” signing. He’s very inexperienced and only 21. Wouldn’t hate it if the plan was for him to job share with Shaw for a season or two and the fee was sensible.
 
DiceRoller said:
How if that asset has a ton of Premier League experience, can score you double digits goals, gets you into the Champions League?

We have to wait for that to actually happens but if it does he’s a bargain.
Click to expand...

You can make up hypotheticals about lots of things. Doesn’t make it the better option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.