Search results

Makes sense. Judging from Robins' post match comments Palmer is probably still a way off from starting successive games in a short space of time.

As mentioned in the relevant thread, any fee received for Moore is likely to be in the lower end of six figures. Due to his age, Bournemouth, or any club for that matter, isn't paying a significant fee for him, especially when he'd be being brought in as a No.2.

Agreed. It's probably near the bottom on the list of priorities so unless a sizeable fee came in the decision to sell Moore seems almost finicky - unless it's being instigated by the player and their agent of course. The other issue is, and as I previously mentioned, if we replace Moore with...

I don't. But as he's still here it's a pretty fair assumption that currently there aren't clubs willing to meet the club's valuation for O'Hare or any of their current key assets. That may change later on in the window but for now the signs aren't looking brilliant. The issue certainly...

Funnily enough because if there was O'Hare would be gone by now?

True. But I doubt SBB is an average fan and would have access to such information. He's clearly very close to the club, rather than BD for instance who quite obviously formerly had connections to a particular player. Any notion that similar information would be shared with a fan is pretty...

What have you been told then? As I find it difficult to believe anyone from the club would openly disclose confidential and sensitive financial information to the average fan. Especially information that isn't particularly positive. They have nothing to gain in sharing that kind of information.

Well you can't flip the arguement because there aren't presently other buyers that would pay what the club is asking.

No, I'd imagine all of those fees combined would've come to around £600K give or take. Then you have to factor in the £1.6m extraction from SISU and what would've been used to cover operational costs. With all transfers paid in instalments I'd imagine the fees also played a part in bridging...

Not really. If push comes to shove they'll just look elsewhere or settle with what they currently have and see what options become available in the next window. The club seemingly doesn't have the luxury of that kind of flexibility.

McNulty was sold a year prior to Godden being brought in. I'd imagine his fee would've been used for Chaplin, Hiwula, Bakayoko and JCH.

I very much doubt it. You'd think any fee received for Moore would be relatively modest. Certainly on the lesser side of six figures.

Not sure how wise it would be selling Moore and replacing him with what I presume would be another loan. He's a pretty solid keeper at this level and it'll be yet another position the recruitment staff will have to fill next summer. I guess it depends on the fee received though.

Is it that precise? All that's really been repeated is that the club needs a sale this summer. I wouldn't read too much into the signings either. I'd imagine a proportion of Palmer's wages would've been covered by the exits of Shipley + fee, Drysdale + fee, Pask and Jones. Despite the rumours...

What's the club's strategy with the remaining key players going into the final year of their contracts next summer? Assuming they don't sign new deals I assume the club have to look to sell one in January to ensure both don't go for cut price deals? I noticed buying clubs are taking advantage...

Yeah I think the transfer fees received this year will probably only get them so far as well. Instalments are likely still due on Cornet, Collins and Weghorst and 20% of the profit on Nick Pope's fee is to be paid to Charlton as part of a sell-on clause. They also owe £12.5m in the form of a...

Yeah pretty much all of the players out of contract we probably wanted rid of anyway. Not particularly ideal the amount of loan players being brought on board this season though. With significantly less permanent players on the books it'll be a pretty extensive rebuilding job next summer.

The difference is though, would we able to attract/have the means to bring in those types of loans. I'd imagine Forest paid a reasonable loan fee for Davis and didn't United/Garner actually turn us down a couple of seasons ago? To bring him back I do wonder if again they needed to pay a loan...

I'd imagine it's: Adaramola, another CM as we're obviously now light, a replacement for O'Hare presuming a fee is agreed and perhaps a RWB if Kane moves on. It read to me that two were conditional on outgoings but could be wrong.

Yeah but in that case if he performs well, he'd likely attract a great deal of interest, meaning Forest could make a significant profit on what they paid for him. If any pre-agreed LTB was structured similar to the Sheaf deal for instance, with an obligation to buy at the conclusion of the loan...