Search results

I don't really see why they'd do that? Cooper rates him highly, proven by the fact that Forest paid a fee of up to £1.5m for him back in January. A loan to buy doesn't really work this season. As if he performs well I'd imagine they'd be looking to receive a significant profit on him beyond...

I think Panzo was at least featuring fairly regularly for Forest's U23s. Not sure whether Palmer was but given Robins' comments I'd imagine he probably wasn't.

Even then it's probably not overly promising. From memory Olise at Palace was bought for around £8m last summer (I believe he had one year remaining on his deal at the point of sale) and he'd had a fairly strong campaign for Reading and was 19 at the time.

The club apparently can't even afford his current one so I doubt it.

True but that's an exceptional circumstance. You're comparing a boyhood Villa fan who quite clearly adores the club to Hamer for instance who has already spoken about his ambitions of playing at a higher level.

I'd imagine that has more to do with the fact he barely played last season and therefore will be fairly behind in terms of match sharpness.

Aren't sell on clauses usually relatively low? If a player knows you want to retain them, but has his eye on moving on within a relatively short period, he's not going to act out of good faith and agree to insert a significant sell on clause into his own contract. Haaland's at Dortmund was...

Hot

As shown by O'Hare's rumoured contract offers, the offers Gyokeres and Hamer would receive probably would be double, if not triple, what they are on here. I think they'd be pretty set financially.

Do most players looking to further their career really think like that though? On that basis every sought after player with one year remaining on their current deal would sign a new contract.

Your post doesn't make sense? Given me an example of a player that has actually done that.

Why would either take a new contract when they'd probably prefer a move elsewhere?

I was potentially thinking this. If they're looking to get maximum value for both then the logical choice would be to sell in January. However, surely you would think it entirely depends on how we're doing in the league? Especially as it would be difficult to replace either if they were to...

It's not really a criticism. More of an objective fact. Both players will have one year remaining on their respective contracts next summer (or earlier) and I'd imagine, if their progress continues, neither will sign new deals and subsequently the club will be forced to move both on.

Two issues with this. Why would a club willingly send their player on loan to be a No.2 and subsequently get next to no game time? Secondly, if the RWB from Palace comes in we're at three loans already. With a maximum of five permitted in a match day squad why would Robins waste a loan spot...

Next summer the club will almost certainly have to sell Hamer and Gyokeres, yes. I can't see either signing new deals.

The narrative changes all the time. Initially it was that there was no chance the club needs a sale due to a record breaking number of ST sales sold and merchandise sales being successful - despite posters suggesting neither would really increase the club's turnover all that much. Then it...

Sift through this thread and you'll come across a fair few jibes in response to posters commenting on the club needing to sell or questioning how much Robins would receive from a sale this summer.

I don't think the club will necessarily stop reinvesting altogether. It clearly doesn't help this season that there are significant earners on the books such as Walker, Waghorn, Kelly as well as Kane, Dacosta and Hilssner, all of whom are swallowing a sizeable proportion of the budget available...

Ouch, I knew it wasn't a lot but thought it was a higher percentage than that. Do you know if EFL clubs get a payment essentially as a part of a partnership or is that only applicable for PL clubs? So basically pay us for the right to produce and sell merchandise with our brand.