• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Geertruida

The Situation said:
You must be logged on to see media items

"Won't stand in his way due to the scale of the opportunity" and "no break clause in the deal".

I do appreciate our stance on that when we were in the Championship where we were very much of the view that not blocking PL moves would ultimately encourage more players to come here, but now that we're actually in the PL and losing him makes us lose depth at 3 positions (we obviously won't be signing a PL level RB, CB and CM in January), I'd be a bit more selfish if I were the club here like.
Click to expand...
Depends on how strong our contractual position is. Can we force him to be a safc player if we deny him now? Would we want to do that if he’s made it clear he really wants to go? I don’t think it’s a dynamic we’ll ever get away from tbh - and we probably wouldn’t want to. It’s just that the levels have changed. Is it worth forcing the lad to stay at safc till the summer and miss out on a move to an elite club just to maybe get a marginally more comfortable mid table finish? And in the process undo some of the reputation for looking after players that we’ve spent years trying to cultivate, just at the point that we’re trying to reemphasise it with a wider, more talented player pool?
 

Prior to Afcon he’d completed the 90 minutes 3 times. Since Brentford he’s not played a second of football. If we can make a profit on a player that isn’t even ours and sign a player to impact the first time it’s a good deal.
 
Wonder what Liverpool have offered RB?

Given they were willing to accept €20m from us and if Liverpool have offered, say, 30m then RB pay us 5m to break the loan and everybody wins
 
Sunderland06 said:
Yes, but there has to be a way of doing it where we are well compensated.

We can't just let clubs force our season long loans to be cut short without us getting something equal or better out of the deal (I'm not saying this isn't the case).
Click to expand...
Should take up our option to buy now, and immediately add an extra £10m on his asking price. It'd definitely make a statement, and if there's any club who deserves to be rinsed it's Liverpool.
 
bestguy said:
Makes no sense for us to let him leave just to go on loan to Liverpool when he could serve out his loan for us.
Click to expand...
Loan to Sunderland or Liverpool isn't a hard choice mind, especially when he can't even use the game time excuse with us as he doesn't play much anyway
 
Rocky77 said:
In a home game against Burnley there should be no need for us to be dropping into a back 5. If we play Hume with that in mind then it's very conservative.
Click to expand...
Well yeah, but we’re missing players so may not be able to do it. As I say, it worked fine against Palace. Don’t hamper our attacking play at all. So not ideal, but hardly an affront.
 
Smiler said:
This isn't just another Premier League move though is it. We laughed at the Mags trying to block a certain striker going there in the summer. We aren't going to be bellends about it throwing our toys out the pram and the statement is pretty clear that we want to make sure we get a replacement in before we let him go.
Click to expand...

It's hardly throwing our toys out of the pram mind. There was a loan deal signed back in September and there's no break clause.

He covers 3 positions for us and would be starting tomorrow night (and against West Ham in all probability) if this hadn't been ongoing. We all saw what happened at West Ham when he would have made a difference but was sitting on the bench because of this.

We obviously won't be signing a PL level RB, CB and CM by close of play tomorrow which is what we essentially lose if he goes.
 
Last edited:
League Wan said:
Loan to Sunderland or Liverpool isn't a hard choice mind, especially when he can't even use the game time excuse with us as he doesn't play much anyway
Click to expand...

He has had plenty of game time with us. If he goes to Pool on loan he’ll be rotting on the bench.
 
Sunderland06 said:
Yes, but there has to be a way of doing it where we are well compensated.

We can't just let clubs force our season long loans to be cut short without us getting something equal or better out of the deal (I'm not saying this isn't the case).
Click to expand...
Absolutely! It's a balancing act as having a good rapport with clubs like Leipzig and Liverpool can only benefit Sunderland and given that the player isn't a regular starter then it seems to me it would be better in this case not to play hard ball.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top