The Daily ITK Discussion Thread - 7th September

[JKendall13]

The same reason Wolves would sell Jimenez for £35-40m is the same reason we won’t offer it. Age and resell value.

The only time we’ve really broke the mould in the last 7 years of spending our big money on players under 25 is Sissoko, which remains a confounding outlier transfer in retrospect even though it has largely worked out.

 

[coy-spurs1882]

Wolves transfer policy seems fairly obvious, which would indicate that for the 'right' fee Jimenez would be allowed to leave (and a young Portuguese player on the agents books no doubt recruited in his place). Of course whether the 'right' fee for Wolves is in line with what Levy thinks is another matter, but it's not massively far fetched to think it's possible. It might be that £40m for the very much proven and absolutely architype Mourinho striker Jimenez, even at 29 rs old, is seen as a better value deal than £30m+ on an unproven Championship player who isn't a typical Mourinho forward (even though i liked Watkins). Time will tell.

they have just bought a young striker fabio silva from porto a few days ago

 

[ardiles&villa]

I’m starting to feel like the itk about a striker is beginnings of every other recent windows typical itk. Not good.

 

[Ionman34]

How have we gone from possibly 2 strikers to none in less than 12 hours?

There’s still a month of the window left, and deals to be had. Let’s chill and save the tantrums for October

Indeed.

We all harp on about the pinch of salt when the news is good, apply just as much when it isn't.

 

[GiveMeMoura]

As always we should take the ITK with a pinch of salt, maybe even a barrel because I’m sure we’ll be working on deals until the last day.
Even Levy said in the documentary the busiest time of the window is the last week, so I’m expecting movement then.

But it’s negligent that we’re in this position regarding a striker, yes the world and his wife know Harry Kane will always be number one but it’s painfully obvious to anyone that a second striker would get plenty of game time with or without Harry.

It’s our own stubbornness that sees us fail here because strikers cost the most, even average ones, I have no doubt that we’ll sign a striker but I’m fairly certain it’ll be a last day Llorente type of deal, an opportunist deal.
And we’ll again be in this predicament in a year or twos time.

This window seems to be heading down the usual narrative, ‘we tried but couldn’t quite make it’

 

[GetSpurredOn]

The second name must be under the radar, as of all the strikers linked widely (or at least those I’ve seen) none are early twenties. I’m taking that as a good sign.
Going back to the comments about 2 strikers potentially coming in, that would depend on who I suppose, as if you said Leon Bailey was a striker, then him potentially replacing Lamela, who we are said to be open to bids for, would make sense.
I get the issue about not being rinsed on prices, so long as we do still do the right business, even if we have to wait.

 

[Ionman34]

Interesting...

Have you been on the sauce Rob?
Or are you and A&C running a sweep on members banned from the transfer forum?

 

[Trix]

People have been asked to take Dragon1's info with a pinch of salt not to start making sarcastic comments about him or his info.

FWIW it's clear to me he's getting some legit info. IMO he's just putting some of it out at the very early stages. I've stopped doing that because it changes super fast and often leads to nothing.

 

[anydange]

Would rather wait and get the best possible option, than be lumbered with some quick fix, premier league journeyman because it can be done in the next ten minutes.

We've been waiting years for the best possible option, no? At what point do we change the model? there's plenty of options out there that we could make work, surely? Just find it hard to believe it's THAT hard.

 

[BringBack_leGin]

seems fair except we are not looking at anything other than journeymen players these days

Yup. Doherty, Hart and Højbjerg have a whopping 6 clubs between them as senior players (I have reverted to my original interpretation of journeyman).

 

[spud]

I think that one angle people don't always consider is that we have an ethos and a reputation when it comes to buying and (particularly) selling players. If we say that a price is a price, then that is the price. In individual deals it can hurt ('why not just spend the extra couple of million?', 'We need him out, let's just accept less than he's worth to shift him') but in the long run it means clubs don't try to rip us off.

I understand and accept that, but there is nothing wrong with the occasional pragmatic approach when circumstances dictate; and just because clubs might try to rip us off it doesn't mean that they will succeed.

 

[mil1lion]

It's ok, we're just waiting for Villa, Newcastle and Everton to sort who they want first before we make our move

 

[lukadownthelane]

Depends, doesn't it? Different markets. Lower table teams can only attract a certain calibre of player - their market is arguably smaller, so when they are given their £100m at the end of the season, they're going to risk inflating the market for the Wilsons and Watkins players.

They can't necessarily go after your Haaland type players - even though they are/were much cheaper - because they don't want to join. Villa and Newcastle have no chance of your Costa/Cavani type players, regardless of how cheap they are, so hence they have to fight amongst themselves. That ends up in a different category of valuation.

I get your point and I don’t disagree with the basis of it but we seem to be unable to attract or afford the wages of those top players and unprepared to pay the price for the tier below. So we end up with what we have now: a squad without enough attacking options/ support for Kane

 

[nailsy]

Jiminez is definitely a Jose type of striker, but Wolves only signed him for £30m last summer so it would be odd to sell him this year unless they were going to make a huge profit.

 

[Trix]

I get your point and I don’t disagree with the basis of it but we seem to be unable to attract or afford the wages of those top players and unprepared to pay the price for the tier below. So we end up with what we have now: a squad without enough attacking options/ support for Kane

And yet last year we spent a fortune on NDom doing just that. It hasn't worked out, but it still happened.

 

[lukadownthelane]

And yet last year we spent a fortune on NDom doing just that. It hasn't worked out, but it still happened.

I meant specifically strikers though. There seems to be a premium on strikers that we don’t be prepared to entertain.

 

[Mr Pink]

Would rather wait and get the best possible option, than be lumbered with some quick fix, premier league journeyman because it can be done in the next ten minutes.

Absolutely I get that rationale.

Providing we actually get one of the targets Mourinho wants and we're not left empty handed again in terms of addressing this long standing problem.

Because I'd at least take a journeyman over that scenario.

 

[DiVaio]

So we end up with what we have now: a squad without enough attacking options/ support for Kane

We don't have striker that is good tactical fit for Mourinho but we have enough attacking options.

 

[hutchiniho]

I’m starting to feel like the itk about a striker is beginnings of every other recent windows typical itk. Not good.

agreed. And as per Trix’s last post. We will never offer above market value for a player.
So surely it stands to reason, why would any club let a good player leave their club for less than value.
To tempt anyone into selling you’d would have to make it worth their while.
Otherwise as Trix again says, we’re left scraping around the player merry go rounds, with the now surplus to requirements.
I’m definitely not saying splash the Liverpool/Chelsea/City cash. But to get the good players you want, at some point you’re going to have to pay and very likely, more than their market value to get that decent player.
mans in all honestly this is why we will be an also ran with the cash rich clubs around. They can pay £5,10,15m ott to get the best players, we wait till the window is nearly shut to scrape up some ‘bargains’ or in reality the players other clubs don’t want.
Again I appreciate we’re a well run business buts it is So frustrating when it comes to competing for quality signings.
I do hope Trix is right about the not willing to take any billy Bob now and that quality is done the line, I just can’t see it.

 

[daveduvet]

agreed. And as per Trix’s last post. We will never offer above market value for a player.
So surely it stands to reason, why would any club let a good player leave their club for less than value.
To tempt anyone into selling you’d would have to make it worth their while.
Otherwise as Trix again says, we’re left scraping around the player merry go rounds, with the now surplus to requirements.
I’m definitely not saying splash the Liverpool/Chelsea/City cash. But to get the good players you want, at some point you’re going to have to pay and very likely, more than their market value to get that decent player.
mans in all honestly this is why we will be an also ran with the cash rich clubs around. They can pay £5,10,15m ott to get the best players, we wait till the window is nearly shut to scrape up some ‘bargains’ or in reality the players other clubs don’t want.
Again I appreciate we’re a well run business buts it is So frustrating when it comes to competing for quality signings.
I do hope Trix is right about the not willing to take any billy Bob now and that quality is done the line, I just can’t see it.

@Trix & @Hercules are alway right ‘at the time of posting’. Things change rapidly; and that is why - though their info is given in good faith - we all need to take the info with a pinch of salt; what Trix posted earlier may change in an hour. And that is all part of the fun of ITK info.