Chez

Yep. Been on the United bench continuously since end of November. Played one full game in January. Featured briefly in three of last 6 games.

Prem appearances and goals for our strikers since rejoining the prem. Ings apart, goalscoring certainly ain't been easy. Armstrong 23/2 Broja 32/6 Che Adams 96/20 Obafemi 32/4 Ings 91/41 Carrilo 7/0 Gabbiadini 51/10 Austin 71/16 Long 198/28 Pelle 68/23 Osvaldo 13/3 Rodriguez 104/26 Mayuka 16/0 Lambert 75/28

Hull played 3-4-2-1, with him on the left of that two. Left winger.

not sure if that's a good or bad thing.

Bednarek does that too. Is Jones quicker? Does he make less mistakes? Is he better than Bednarek? Genuine question.

I thought Diop was a player we should have signed back in 2018. Maybe he was a fraction out of a price range? If West Ham have paid him, then wages may be an issue for us. He seems to have the right physical attributes, power and pace etc. Good age too. Not seen a huge amount of West Ham games. Is he poor on the ball/positionally? Does he make significant mistakes?

he plays more of the passive and watching the game go on around him role

Good point. The Youtube video I watched makes him look like Stuart Armstrong. Not sure what his best position is either. Buy a few half decent midfielders and maybe the current system can evolved, enhanced or be chucked in the bin where it belongs (depending on your opinion)?

Is the Turkish Super Lig not competitive? If we liked what we saw of him playing there, what do we learn from him playing French second division football that we don't already know? If we are unsure, then why sign him? If we had three keepers on the books and he was too good to miss out, so we stock pile, like Chelsea do, I could understand it, but we have one keeper - so actually need to sign keepers to actually play for us. As I have said. This story just seems strange. It doesn't stack up. However, because it is so specific, it may well be true. Who knows.

I notice that option only available on small and extra small sizes, so perhaps still aimed at kids market. I know some people pay extra for Prem badges and names etc to be added. Wonder if some would pay extra for sponsors logo added - so as to make the shirt more like the one worn by players? Or, would there be a market for paying more to NOT have the sponsors logo.

So, basically half the Prem team shirt sponsors (are betting companies) and they don't appear on the majority of shirts sold (assuming more kids shirts are sold than adults), and those sponsors are fine with that, because the real value is reaching millions of eyes via TV and other media. So your point about it being a hard task for the commercial department is therefore incorrect. They have already done it. I don't follow your point above about no shirts being sold unless a sponsors logo is on it, or is your reply poorly worded and you meant none would be sold with a sponsors logo if there was an option not to have it?

Like the betting companies not appearing on the kids shirts?

I kind of like that design. Not perfect, but the red white balance is nice. Shorts good too.

That rumour seems strange. I don't really understand why we would do it. How do we benefit? We sign and then pay the wages of a 25 year old keeper we don't rate enough to even be third choice?

Yep, £20m seems a lot for Pope for a club like us. Can we get a decent keeper without spending a bit though? Wage bill is £114m. So the circa £113m we get each year simply goes on wages. £140m combined losses the last three years and a £100m debt with about £20m in the bank. So yes, we are relatively skint, but doesn't mean we won't spend and then recoup afterwards.

I don't know what our budget will be. I just picked that figure out of a hat. We've made huge losses over the last there years. There is very little money left in the bank of the loan. I am not sure there are huge funds available, but perhaps the owners add more debt to the business in the short term or we sell Salisu for £40m or suchlike. The budget then instantly changes. Pope for £20m, with zero sell on value doesn't sound like a deal we will be doing. I might be wrong.

The question was, how much would you spend on Pope. If we have £40m available, would you spend £20mon him? Just asking. If you don't want to answer fine. Anyone else?

For me, "there won't be a revolution" suggest "we will continue to be self-sustaining", so I don't really see the club running at huge losses (by that, I mean even bigger losses than that have been experienced in recent years due to COVID etc.) with the owners loaning (or gifting) the business money to cover them. We shall see...

How much would you spend on him DT? I've no idea what our budget is (and of course sales will change things), but lets say its £40m, how much of that would you spend on a keeper?

Clarify what you mean by investing? Do you mean allowing the business to build up debt, give the business a loan or give it a gift?

so, the same transfer philosophy we have pretty much always had. Buy players for amounts less than we buy them to balance the books. I don't have a problem with this by the way, I just don't see any real change.

To balance the books if you are spending more, you need to bring more money in. The prize money is pretty much the same, the match day income is the same, the sponsorship the same...so I am struggling to understand how we will `operate with bigger numbers'? We now have a debt to pay down, so our available cash is actually lower. I guess the price of players is going up, so when we sell our talent, we'll bring more in so able to spend more, but as the price of players have gone up, nothing has really changed.

What do you mean? It's already been stated by the owners that there won't be a revolution. The transfer policy and budget will be pretty much the same. The only difference is the order we balance the books. Buy first, sell afterwards. Am I mistaken?

Agreed. We ain't signing a 25 year old keeper and then loaning him out. We have one keeper on the books. We may sign Cabellero on a new deal, and then this fella might be the new number 2, but loaning a new signing out. Nope.

I don't buy football shirts, but who wants to be walking billboard?