| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed 11:06 - Feb 3 with 3307 views | yorkshire |
Seems as though most of the ones discussed weren’t seen to improve the squad.
Hirst, Azon and Akpon appear to be better options than most Championship or L1 strikers. There may be an argument for Armstrong but I am not overly convinced about him - so who should we have realistically gone for ? |  | | |  |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 11:08 - Feb 3 with 2482 views | suffolkpoker |
Marco Van Basten- any other answer will be wrong! |  |
| |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 11:18 - Feb 3 with 2410 views | suffolkpoker |
The 2nd top scorer in the Championship looks tasty! | |
| |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 11:27 - Feb 3 with 2361 views | tractorshark |
I think it’s a valid argument. Clearly we all thought we needed another striker, including McKenna and Ashton otherwise they wouldn’t have pursued Bamford, Piroe and presumably Wilson and Surridge.
Signing Armstrong would have been good for the Championship but he doesn’t really fit the tactics and he won’t cut it in the Prem. Him signing for Wolves and not Boro has done us a favour.
I was completed underwhelmed when I saw Maja linked yesterday. The likes of him and Kone are no better than what we’ve got.
And maybe we didn’t rate Vipotnik or Swansea wouldn’t let him go.
So that leaves players abroad or going under the radar. Maybe we’ve missed out, maybe they weren’t available or maybe they aren’t an upgrade, I genuinely don’t know.
I am disappointed but I will support Hirst or Azon tonight because we need them to start firing and mindless abuse is never going to help that.
The bid for Azeez obviously says a lot about our goal threat from the right and the centre as well, so it’s not completely fair to blame Hirst when his numbers aren’t too dissimilar to our promotion seasons.
It’s just his all-round game looks so short of confidence and his touch has deserted him. Hopefully, now the uncertainty is over, tonight will be a turning point. | | | |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 13:41 - Feb 3 with 2191 views | Vic |
There was talk of a list of players drawn up by scouts and analysts which McKenna said 'No thanks' to. Some suggested this implied some sort of friction behind the scenes. But could it not have simply been that these names were just that - 'possibles' if he wanted to take it further - but which he then looked at and said 'no thanks, no better than what we have'?
Interesting to see that we now have 2 of the championship top 6 assist players so far this season - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/fo
Just need Hirst, Akpom, etc to take some of the load of clarke and Jaden by start putting more chances away. |  |
| |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 14:50 - Feb 3 with 2066 views | Blooos |
Said it in a thread yesterday, thats what a recruitment team / scouts are paid to do. Go and find players that are better than what we have. Fact is though our recruitment has been pretty poor since we were promoted to the Prem. Spent a near fortune and we were relegated by March, this Championship probably the lowest quality of recent times and we find ourselves 4th... | | | |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 15:13 - Feb 3 with 1900 views | Herbivore |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 14:50 - Feb 3 by Blooos |
Said it in a thread yesterday, thats what a recruitment team / scouts are paid to do. Go and find players that are better than what we have. Fact is though our recruitment has been pretty poor since we were promoted to the Prem. Spent a near fortune and we were relegated by March, this Championship probably the lowest quality of recent times and we find ourselves 4th... |
They can't pull players out of thin air though, which is what some fans seem to expect. |  |
| |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 15:17 - Feb 3 with 1884 views | stiff_talking |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 15:13 - Feb 3 by Herbivore |
They can't pull players out of thin air though, which is what some fans seem to expect. |
Sturridge is better than what we have, suits Mckenna style and play and value was $5m with Nashville wanting to sell. He has scored 53 goals in 83 games for Nashville. MLS is pre season so he also would have been fresh. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 15:20 - Feb 3 with 1855 views | StokieBlue |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 15:17 - Feb 3 by stiff_talking |
Sturridge is better than what we have, suits Mckenna style and play and value was $5m with Nashville wanting to sell. He has scored 53 goals in 83 games for Nashville. MLS is pre season so he also would have been fresh. |
I wasn't paying too much attention but pretty sure the information yesterday was that they wanted a lot more than 5m and that his wage was huge.
Any evidence they would have accepted 3.5m GBP and then further evidence he was willing to come?
SB |  | | |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 15:21 - Feb 3 with 1849 views | Horsham |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 15:17 - Feb 3 by stiff_talking |
Sturridge is better than what we have, suits Mckenna style and play and value was $5m with Nashville wanting to sell. He has scored 53 goals in 83 games for Nashville. MLS is pre season so he also would have been fresh. |
And the story that we made a very decent offer for him and couldn’t get it over the line kind of illustrates that it isn’t as easy as all that.
Edit - the story was we offered a £8m plus add ons so I think your valuation might not be the same as Nashville’s. [Post edited 3 Feb 15:23]
|  | | |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 15:23 - Feb 3 with 1830 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 11:18 - Feb 3 by suffolkpoker |
The 2nd top scorer in the Championship looks tasty! |
We wouldn’t get him. No decent players would want to come here as we don’t create any chances. |  |
| |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 15:27 - Feb 3 with 1797 views | nrb1985 |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 15:20 - Feb 3 by StokieBlue |
I wasn't paying too much attention but pretty sure the information yesterday was that they wanted a lot more than 5m and that his wage was huge.
Any evidence they would have accepted 3.5m GBP and then further evidence he was willing to come?
SB |
I think like lots of us, I felt there were some fairly ridiculous takes on our lack of business yesterday.
However, re Surridge, EADT and other ITKs had said that a fee was agreed but they gazumped us on wages.
Without knowing full details - I think you could legitimately say, given he's about as sure thing as we could sign, and in the context of our current striker woes, we shouldn't have let anybody gazump us on wages.
Promotion back to PL (£200m over 3 seasons?) would make Surridge's wages look like chicken feed presumably?
If that info, as presented, is correct and we don't go up, I think that might be something we as fans could question. [Post edited 3 Feb 16:39]
| | | |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 15:31 - Feb 3 with 1767 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 15:17 - Feb 3 by stiff_talking |
Sturridge is better than what we have, suits Mckenna style and play and value was $5m with Nashville wanting to sell. He has scored 53 goals in 83 games for Nashville. MLS is pre season so he also would have been fresh. |
They did not want to sell - it was the exact opposite. The basically doubled his wages for him to stay. They paid to convince him not to sign for us. | | | |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 15:36 - Feb 3 with 1735 views | pingu67 |
Out of interest what makes you believe 'Hirst, Azon and Akpon appear to be better options than most Championship or L1 strikers?
I just think maybe you are seeing something in them that I've missed since August? | | | |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 15:54 - Feb 3 with 1638 views | Blooos |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 15:13 - Feb 3 by Herbivore |
They can't pull players out of thin air though, which is what some fans seem to expect. |
But thats my point, thats the reason you have scouts / a scouting network. They find players us as fans may not have heard of but would improve our squad. | | | |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 15:59 - Feb 3 with 1619 views | Wright1 |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 15:27 - Feb 3 by nrb1985 |
I think like lots of us, I felt there were some fairly ridiculous takes on our lack of business yesterday.
However, re Surridge, EADT and other ITKs had said that a fee was agreed but they gazumped us on wages.
Without knowing full details - I think you could legitimately say, given he's about as sure thing as we could sign, and in the context of our current striker woes, we shouldn't have let anybody gazump us on wages.
Promotion back to PL (£200m over 3 seasons?) would make Surridge's wages look like chicken feed presumably?
If that info, as presented, is correct and we don't go up, I think that might be something we as fans could question. [Post edited 3 Feb 16:39]
|
Google says he was on $3.18m a year - if they have then significantly increased that to keep him, there has to be a limit to what we are willing to pay doesn't there? Pinch of salt stuff with the numbers but he isn't worth over £80k a week to us. | | | |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 16:12 - Feb 3 with 1545 views | NederlandseBlue |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 15:59 - Feb 3 by Wright1 |
Google says he was on $3.18m a year - if they have then significantly increased that to keep him, there has to be a limit to what we are willing to pay doesn't there? Pinch of salt stuff with the numbers but he isn't worth over £80k a week to us. |
I imagine the impact on the harmony of the squad is also considered when bringing in anyone new on high(er) wages. | | | |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 16:18 - Feb 3 with 1509 views | surreyblue |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 16:12 - Feb 3 by NederlandseBlue |
I imagine the impact on the harmony of the squad is also considered when bringing in anyone new on high(er) wages. |
There might also be players with clauses in contracts that their wage needs to match or be within a certain threshold of the higher paid players at the club. | | | |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 16:25 - Feb 3 with 1478 views | ADStephenson |
Sorry, accidental downvote there. Missed the link completely. |  |
| |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 16:30 - Feb 3 with 1450 views | Herbivore |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 15:17 - Feb 3 by stiff_talking |
Sturridge is better than what we have, suits Mckenna style and play and value was $5m with Nashville wanting to sell. He has scored 53 goals in 83 games for Nashville. MLS is pre season so he also would have been fresh. |
Hmmm, almost none of that is true though based on what's been reported. | |
| |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 16:33 - Feb 3 with 1434 views | Herbivore |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 15:54 - Feb 3 by Blooos |
But thats my point, thats the reason you have scouts / a scouting network. They find players us as fans may not have heard of but would improve our squad. |
And my point is they can only find those players if they exist. And when they find those players and they do exist, those players have to want to join us, their club has to be willing to sell them, and we have to be able to afford their wages and fee. We also have to consider whether they represent an upgrade or not and now likely they are to make an immediate impact. | |
| |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 16:38 - Feb 3 with 1405 views | nrb1985 |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 15:59 - Feb 3 by Wright1 |
Google says he was on $3.18m a year - if they have then significantly increased that to keep him, there has to be a limit to what we are willing to pay doesn't there? Pinch of salt stuff with the numbers but he isn't worth over £80k a week to us. |
Yikes!
Hadn’t seen that. Well if that’s true then certainly yes I agree.
Had assumed he was on 15-20k a week which was upped to 30+.
Seems outlandish a MLS club would pay a championship level striker 80k a week though? | | | |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 16:44 - Feb 3 with 1363 views | Herbivore |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 16:38 - Feb 3 by nrb1985 |
Yikes!
Hadn’t seen that. Well if that’s true then certainly yes I agree.
Had assumed he was on 15-20k a week which was upped to 30+.
Seems outlandish a MLS club would pay a championship level striker 80k a week though? |
He was the second top scorer in the league, I imagine they see him as a big asset. | |
| |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 16:45 - Feb 3 with 1353 views | StokieBlue |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 15:27 - Feb 3 by nrb1985 |
I think like lots of us, I felt there were some fairly ridiculous takes on our lack of business yesterday.
However, re Surridge, EADT and other ITKs had said that a fee was agreed but they gazumped us on wages.
Without knowing full details - I think you could legitimately say, given he's about as sure thing as we could sign, and in the context of our current striker woes, we shouldn't have let anybody gazump us on wages.
Promotion back to PL (£200m over 3 seasons?) would make Surridge's wages look like chicken feed presumably?
If that info, as presented, is correct and we don't go up, I think that might be something we as fans could question. [Post edited 3 Feb 16:39]
|
Doesn't sound like the ITK knew very much because it makes no sense at all for them to agree a fee then increase his wages so he doesn't leave.
I can't remember the EADT saying it was agreed on podcasts, more that he was "one on the list". I could be wrong but I can't find anything about agreeing a fee either.
SB | | | |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 16:51 - Feb 3 with 1330 views | braveblue |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 14:50 - Feb 3 by Blooos |
Said it in a thread yesterday, thats what a recruitment team / scouts are paid to do. Go and find players that are better than what we have. Fact is though our recruitment has been pretty poor since we were promoted to the Prem. Spent a near fortune and we were relegated by March, this Championship probably the lowest quality of recent times and we find ourselves 4th... |
4th isn’t a disaster with a game in hand. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
