| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed 11:06 - Feb 3 with 3502 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 16:59 - Feb 3 with 774 views | Wright1 |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 16:44 - Feb 3 by Herbivore |
He was the second top scorer in the league, I imagine they see him as a big asset. |
He is one of their "designated players" which in MLS talk means he is one of the limited number of big money contracts they are allowed to hand out - presumably they lured him out there with the money which is why he was happy to move there at this stage of his career.
It may sound strange but I believe they are one of the newer franchises in the league and aren't in a "big market city" so presumably it is harder to attract names to play for them. | | | |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 17:06 - Feb 3 with 762 views | Smoresy |
| 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? |
His "verified" salary was $53,365 p/w according to Capology, "typically meaning the data has been confirmed by at least two independent, reliable sources, or directly by the player or agent".
All our players' wages are unverified, so estimated, except for Cajuste, whose base salary is reportedly £35k p/w gross, which is roughly £5k below Surridge's earnings prior to this new contract. Doubtful they'd have needed to double up it to ward us off really. Too rich for me. | | | |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 17:08 - Feb 3 with 746 views | Smoresy |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 16:59 - Feb 3 by Wright1 |
He is one of their "designated players" which in MLS talk means he is one of the limited number of big money contracts they are allowed to hand out - presumably they lured him out there with the money which is why he was happy to move there at this stage of his career.
It may sound strange but I believe they are one of the newer franchises in the league and aren't in a "big market city" so presumably it is harder to attract names to play for them. |
Nashville is Ed's favourite city, famous fact. US of A anyway. Sure he put in a word for us but wasn't enough. [Post edited 3 Feb 17:09]
| | | |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 17:34 - Feb 3 with 693 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| 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... |
"... this Championship probably the lowest quality of recent times..."
Based on what assessment criteria. Yesterday I posted a plausible argument as to why it's the exact opposite. | | | |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 17:54 - Feb 3 with 657 views | nrb1985 |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 16:45 - Feb 3 by StokieBlue |
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 |
You may be right but sure I heard it and Joe definitely mentioned it on the BM podcast yday. Sure EADT ref’d it too but can’t be sure (all the many excellent ITFC pods blend into one!).
Re accepting a bid then increasing wages - maybe he had a release clause so had to accept but then countered? Who knows but a real shame as I think he would have been a good fit.
Fingers and toes crossed Hirst re discovers his form in second half of season. | | | |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 17:58 - Feb 3 with 646 views | nrb1985 |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 17:06 - Feb 3 by Smoresy |
His "verified" salary was $53,365 p/w according to Capology, "typically meaning the data has been confirmed by at least two independent, reliable sources, or directly by the player or agent".
All our players' wages are unverified, so estimated, except for Cajuste, whose base salary is reportedly £35k p/w gross, which is roughly £5k below Surridge's earnings prior to this new contract. Doubtful they'd have needed to double up it to ward us off really. Too rich for me. |
I agree.
I guess we could have offered him a hefty bonus for promotion and a fairly big salary increase then too.
Maybe we did but certainly sounds like it was a difficult one to get done if he was on that kind of money and they even upped it. | | | |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 17:58 - Feb 3 with 628 views | Mullet |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 17:34 - Feb 3 by SuffolkPunchFC |
"... this Championship probably the lowest quality of recent times..."
Based on what assessment criteria. Yesterday I posted a plausible argument as to why it's the exact opposite. |
All of the parachute payment clubs are in a mess bar us.
There are no “big fish” à la Leeds.
Loads of clubs are struggling financially.
This is the weakest championship in ages. You only need eyes to see that. A “plausible argument” according to you is merely confirmation bias.
We have the financial clout and league position to attract players. Anyone pretending otherwise or that this league is suddenly harder now we have more money and depth than we’ve had for decades is a liar or delusional. |  |
| |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 18:07 - Feb 3 with 605 views | Mullet |
I think Heggbo was both gettable and another WBA product.
I’m surprised we didn’t revisit the lad at Millwall either. Surridge would have been ideal but obviously doesn’t represent value to us.
Zian Fleming at Burnley is another we might have tempted. While Leicester are taking punts on Chelsea youngsters etc you’d think we could have some way to another body from the Prem 2/ U21 squads merely to provide injury cover | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 18:10 - Feb 3 with 609 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 17:58 - Feb 3 by Mullet |
All of the parachute payment clubs are in a mess bar us.
There are no “big fish” à la Leeds.
Loads of clubs are struggling financially.
This is the weakest championship in ages. You only need eyes to see that. A “plausible argument” according to you is merely confirmation bias.
We have the financial clout and league position to attract players. Anyone pretending otherwise or that this league is suddenly harder now we have more money and depth than we’ve had for decades is a liar or delusional. |
The 'eye-test' again, rather than trying to put forward a plausible argument, or to counter.
Why am I not surprised. You do talk some b0ll0x. | | | |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 18:16 - Feb 3 with 585 views | Mullet |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 18:10 - Feb 3 by SuffolkPunchFC |
The 'eye-test' again, rather than trying to put forward a plausible argument, or to counter.
Why am I not surprised. You do talk some b0ll0x. |
I just did - all you’ve got is abuse and the ability to show you can’t read very well. Even of this wasn’t a weaker league in relative terms we are the strongest we’ve been in 20 years so once again it isn’t me who is talking testicles.
I get some people are over invested in McKenna and the like, but actually being able to see and understand fairly basic stuff is important. | |
| |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 18:25 - Feb 3 with 585 views | Swansea_Blue |
In hindsight McBurnie would have been good. I like Piroe too; a classy technical player who consistently has had an eye for goal at this level and links play very well (maybe not as good at the rough stuff though). Obviously Hull wouldn’t be accepting any offers for McBurnie and Piroe seems focussed on the PL if the transfer speculation was correct, so neither were realistic. McBurnie is more a should/could have in the summer. [Post edited 3 Feb 18:26]
|  |
| |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 18:27 - Feb 3 with 586 views | ashtonscoffeecup |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 18:25 - Feb 3 by Swansea_Blue |
In hindsight McBurnie would have been good. I like Piroe too; a classy technical player who consistently has had an eye for goal at this level and links play very well (maybe not as good at the rough stuff though). Obviously Hull wouldn’t be accepting any offers for McBurnie and Piroe seems focussed on the PL if the transfer speculation was correct, so neither were realistic. McBurnie is more a should/could have in the summer. [Post edited 3 Feb 18:26]
|
McBurnie - bit of a toerag with something about him. i'd have loved him, but unfortunately likely not seen as very ipswich is he | | | |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 18:31 - Feb 3 with 580 views | Kieran_Knows |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 18:07 - Feb 3 by Mullet |
I think Heggbo was both gettable and another WBA product.
I’m surprised we didn’t revisit the lad at Millwall either. Surridge would have been ideal but obviously doesn’t represent value to us.
Zian Fleming at Burnley is another we might have tempted. While Leicester are taking punts on Chelsea youngsters etc you’d think we could have some way to another body from the Prem 2/ U21 squads merely to provide injury cover |
We enquired about Heggebo but were quoted a silly number given their current predicament. |  |
| |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 18:32 - Feb 3 with 572 views | Kieran_Knows |
I’d have liked to have thought Ivanovic at Millwall was achievable. Not been as prolific this season, but fits our style and what we expect of a centre forward and one I think would be able to move up the league with us. | |
| |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 18:35 - Feb 3 with 546 views | Mullet |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 18:31 - Feb 3 by Kieran_Knows |
We enquired about Heggebo but were quoted a silly number given their current predicament. |
I know, and we obviously moved on too soon - likewise we turned down Wrexham for Szmodics then had Derby pull our pants down by only loaning him. | |
| |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 18:39 - Feb 3 with 544 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 18:27 - Feb 3 by ashtonscoffeecup |
McBurnie - bit of a toerag with something about him. i'd have loved him, but unfortunately likely not seen as very ipswich is he |
I think that was the main objection in the summer when he was linked. Agreed, he’s got a bit of a history for being an arse. He’s a good footballer but I don’t know whether he would have suited the group. | |
| |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 18:46 - Feb 3 with 530 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 18:16 - Feb 3 by Mullet |
I just did - all you’ve got is abuse and the ability to show you can’t read very well. Even of this wasn’t a weaker league in relative terms we are the strongest we’ve been in 20 years so once again it isn’t me who is talking testicles.
I get some people are over invested in McKenna and the like, but actually being able to see and understand fairly basic stuff is important. |
Yet again you resort to ad hominem responses. That’s not smart, and not the first time from you. The last time you admitted you’d not even read my comments.
I’m not even going to engage with your drivel again. After many years on this forum, your the first I’ve felt the need to put on my div list. Congratulations. | | | |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 19:19 - Feb 3 with 461 views | Mullet |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 18:46 - Feb 3 by SuffolkPunchFC |
Yet again you resort to ad hominem responses. That’s not smart, and not the first time from you. The last time you admitted you’d not even read my comments.
I’m not even going to engage with your drivel again. After many years on this forum, your the first I’ve felt the need to put on my div list. Congratulations. |
Pointing out you've failed to do something isn't ad hominem - you've literally been abusive, failed to engage with basic facts or establish why I'm wrong. Which is why you're talking absolute guff and being a coward. | |
| |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 19:29 - Feb 3 with 464 views | Herbivore |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 18:32 - Feb 3 by Kieran_Knows |
I’d have liked to have thought Ivanovic at Millwall was achievable. Not been as prolific this season, but fits our style and what we expect of a centre forward and one I think would be able to move up the league with us. |
I doubt Millwall would have been interested in selling him to us unless we'd offered absolutely insane money. |  |
| |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 00:03 - Feb 4 with 387 views | armchaircritic59 |
Wouldn't have mattered, as it seems it's far more important that a " striker " fits the so called system than scores goals. On that basis if any of Haaland, Kane, Mbappe were available and we could actually afford it (!), they would have been turned down, as they don't fit the system, and it's the system that matters, you see. | | | |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 08:28 - Feb 4 with 298 views | Herbivore |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 00:03 - Feb 4 by armchaircritic59 |
Wouldn't have mattered, as it seems it's far more important that a " striker " fits the so called system than scores goals. On that basis if any of Haaland, Kane, Mbappe were available and we could actually afford it (!), they would have been turned down, as they don't fit the system, and it's the system that matters, you see. |
I'm not sure you're okay, mate. | |
| |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 08:49 - Feb 4 with 268 views | Wright1 |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 18:32 - Feb 3 by Kieran_Knows |
I’d have liked to have thought Ivanovic at Millwall was achievable. Not been as prolific this season, but fits our style and what we expect of a centre forward and one I think would be able to move up the league with us. |
Given their league position (1 point behind us currently), i'd imagine it would take silly money to get him out of there right now?
Also, if people's gripe is that Hirst doesn't score enough - Ivanovic has 7 goals and 1 assist... Hirst has 6 goals and 1 assist in 2 less games. | | | |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 09:16 - Feb 4 with 250 views | Wright1 |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 00:03 - Feb 4 by armchaircritic59 |
Wouldn't have mattered, as it seems it's far more important that a " striker " fits the so called system than scores goals. On that basis if any of Haaland, Kane, Mbappe were available and we could actually afford it (!), they would have been turned down, as they don't fit the system, and it's the system that matters, you see. |
There obviously comes a threshold of talent in any team sport where if you can get someone so obviously talented for your level then you just take them and figure out the rest later. Do you honestly think there was someone obviously too brilliant for this level that we could have gone and got? | | | |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 11:03 - Feb 4 with 195 views | blueysbackside |
Michael Cheek | | | |
| Out of interest - who is the striker we *should* have signed on 11:40 - Feb 4 with 156 views | Cafe_Newman |
When we earn direct promotion in May and we start our preparations for assembling a squad for trying to survive in the PL next year, this topic will be largely moot.
There will still be people who say our promotion was in spite of our players.
There will still be people who bemoan our recruitment team.
There will still be people who think KMcK is the best manager we can expect to have (including me) at the Club.
There will still be others who think we'll never move on to greater heights with KMcK.
Football's great isn't it? |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
