What's new

General/Non-Spurs Transfers

JCRD

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2018
19,153
30,013
Everton I imagine.

Their fans want shot of a lot of players. If they can budge a few I think they'll go back in for him.

That is a good shout but doesnt he want CL - and none of the top four will bring him in so perhaps Everton youre right
 

King of Otters

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2012
10,751
36,094
Maybe I was harsh but cant see the top six wanting him... Arsenal? West Ham? I mean who would take him in England.

He may need to go abroad to get what he wants which is CL football.

I could see Utd bringing him instead of Sancho if that deal proves too expensive.

Both us and Arsenal would take him in a heartbeat, it’s just a case of whether either club could afford him.
 

Shadydan

Well-Known Member
Jul 7, 2012
38,247
104,143
The problem was the club let these players just train with poch instead of getting loans at the right times which led to them stagnating. Which means we let players go to cheap. The academy is about developing young players to their max and getting the max value from them. In an ideal world playing first team football but mainly by selling them st the highest price possible to reinvest in the first team.

When was the ideal time letting Onomah and Edwards go though? By all accounts we let them have their loans - Onomah had two stabs at it and didn't impress - Edwards just wasn't mature enough to play in the first team anywhere at the time.

Sometimes fans just need to accept that different players have different growth spurts and some players will be hit and miss depending on timing and circumstance, there's no winning formula to letting players fulfill their potential otherwise every young player in existence would be hitting their potential and become top class players, it doesn't work like that.

It doesn't surprise me though that Edwards or Onomah are starting to play well now, it was only a matter of time before it started to come together, that doesn't mean we failed on that part - sometime it's just not meant to be due to circumstance.
 

Spursmatty87

Well-Known Member
Jul 7, 2016
1,918
5,047
When was the ideal time letting Onomah and Edwards go though? By all accounts we let them have their loans - Onomah had two stabs at it and didn't impress - Edwards just wasn't mature enough to play in the first team anywhere at the time.

Sometimes fans just need to accept that different players have different growth spurts and some players will be hit and miss depending on timing and circumstance, there's no winning formula to letting players fulfill their potential otherwise every young player in existence would be hitting their potential and become top class players, it doesn't work like that.

It doesn't surprise me though that Edwards or Onomah are starting to play well now, it was only a matter of time before it started to come together, that doesn't mean we failed on that part - sometime it's just not meant to be due to circumstance.

Think all three needed loans earlier if we include kwp, like you say there is no one correct formula. Which is why they shouldn’t of been kept in the squad without game time. I agree they needed to move and maybe a move rather than a loan was best but I do think we need to have a better plan in the future because these three players should of been managed a lot better.
 

Shadydan

Well-Known Member
Jul 7, 2012
38,247
104,143
Think all three needed loans earlier if we include kwp, like you say there is no one correct formula. Which is why they shouldn’t of been kept in the squad without game time. I agree they needed to move and maybe a move rather than a loan was best but I do think we need to have a better plan in the future because these three players should of been managed a lot better.

I think this is just hindsight speaking though, as mentioned Josh has 2 loans to Championship teams and didn't really do that well so I don't see how an earlier loan would have made a difference, same for Edwards - Edwards in particular just wasn't mature or developed enough to handle a loan away from the club.
 

gavspur

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2004
5,314
8,846
Should have done a buy back clause on them both, then. Real Madrid do it all the time. Means the player has never truly left, unless we see it unwise to bring them back. I always liked Onomah, thought he was better suited to CM. Edwards, I saw his debut, and he was bloody lively. Seems silly to not give ourselves the option on two very promising youngsters, but rather cut all ties completely.
 

King of Otters

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2012
10,751
36,094
Should have done a buy back clause on them both, then. Real Madrid do it all the time. Means the player has never truly left, unless we see it unwise to bring them back. I always liked Onomah, thought he was better suited to CM. Edwards, I saw his debut, and he was bloody lively. Seems silly to not give ourselves the option on two very promising youngsters, but rather cut all ties completely.

Buy back clauses inevitably mean a lower fee, one of many reasons why it’s open to exploitation by the richest clubs.

As a self sustaining club I imagine it makes more financial sense for us to generate a high one off fee than to gamble on a player we’ve deemed not good enough being worth buying back later.

Also, we probably have sell on clauses for both, which gives us a pretty big advantage over other clubs should we ever decide to buy them back.
 

Marty

Audere est farce
Mar 10, 2005
40,213
64,048
Buy back clauses inevitably mean a lower fee, one of many reasons why it’s open to exploitation by the richest clubs.

As a self sustaining club I imagine it makes more financial sense for us to generate a high one off fee than to gamble on a player we’ve deemed not good enough being worth buying back later.

Also, we probably have sell on clauses for both, which gives us a pretty big advantage over other clubs should we ever decide to buy them back.
We have 50% on Edwards so if we were to buy him back we'd pay half of what other clubs would.
 

razzmaster

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2008
2,340
13,220
A 2 year loan with a €20-30m purchase option is a real juicy proposition for him. :whistle:

A 2 year loan would be a great option as it would allow us to see how he does, plus it would give Skipp a couple of years to gain experience elsewhere.
 

yankspurs

Enic Out
Aug 22, 2013
41,986
71,405
Ferran Torres to City for only £24.5m: www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jul/29/manchester-city-agree-terms-with-25m-ferran-torres-of-valencia. That sounds like a bit of a bargain for someone so highly prized.
There are bargains out there to be had as long as you are decisive in your action with acceptable bids. If you make your interest known then follow it up with a lowball offer, the selling club will throw it in the papers to drive interest and the price up. Then they go to deadline day as the haggling increases.
 

GutBucket

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2013
6,878
11,581
Very lucky for City, lose Sancho and then get next best youth prospect. Could be a bad move for Torres.
 
Top