Transfer: 2023 Summer Transfer Window - Open Window Edition

Live in the Now

Registered User
Dec 17, 2005
53,564
7,999
LA
Also, you replace him next summer if you can get Kvaradona otherwise forget it. You’d have to move Diaz to the right but that’s the kind of signing you’d have to make. You can’t just sign a bunch of players for cheaper.
 

Chimaera

same ol' Caps
Feb 4, 2004
31,327
1,918
La Plata, Maryland
That's who I would want. I think there are a few others who might fit the bill. Maybe you break the bank for a central defender and move Virgil. But if Salah goes, you have to at least get one ridiculous player in.
 

Savant

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 3, 2013
38,328
11,452
LFC just need to keep saying no to PIF, and let’s see how high they go.

The funny thing is I’d almost rather use the Salah money to rebuild the defense than to get another RW; RW is such a lousy position right now anyway. Honestly team could pretty easily go empty bucket (which ironically would waste Gravenberch) and go from there; but again you are kind of at this point with who is worth bringing in? Even if you got 150. Are you doing 3 x 50? 2 x 75? Etc. Based on the current market that isn’t getting you anything close to Mo Salah.

I’d be open to a deal even in January honestly if there was any faith in replacing correctly but this is the weakest front office they’ve had in years
 

S E P H

Cloud IX
Mar 5, 2010
32,512
17,902
Toruń, PL
It has been very quiet concerning players in for Arsenal, but Holding is close to joining Palace. Also, we got more details about the Tavares deal. It is a loan move with a loan fee and a purchase option for £12 million and £4 million of add ons. However, there is also an obligation to buy clause in there if he surpasses a certain number of games this season. Interesting.

This is a wild sight:

Definitely a replacement for losing Kudus. This tells me that from all the rumours, Arsenal wasn't really ever considering him because Arsenal absolutely could have done a loan move for him. He's definitely a Brighton type of player.
 
  • Like
Reactions: robertmac43

bleedblue1223

Registered User
Jan 21, 2011
52,910
16,348
Maatsen "loaned" to Burnley with an obligation of 31.5M Pounds.

Assuming we see some bid for a South American LB prospect.
 
Last edited:

Jussi

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
94,827
12,105
Mojo Dojo Casa House
He’s no Carrick, but he’s the Carrick replacement lmao. Should be a great fit stylistically next to Case. Just curious what level he hits in the PL. We’re still lacking heavily in midfield compared to all our direct rivals, but baby steps I guess.
And this really should've been done a week or two ago, so that he might have figures in the Arsenal game. Should've sent Matt "The Closer" Hargreaves sooner to Italy. :laugh:
 

Chimaera

same ol' Caps
Feb 4, 2004
31,327
1,918
La Plata, Maryland
LFC just need to keep saying no to PIF, and let’s see how high they go.

The funny thing is I’d almost rather use the Salah money to rebuild the defense than to get another RW; RW is such a lousy position right now anyway. Honestly team could pretty easily go empty bucket (which ironically would waste Gravenberch) and go from there; but again you are kind of at this point with who is worth bringing in? Even if you got 150. Are you doing 3 x 50? 2 x 75? Etc. Based on the current market that isn’t getting you anything close to Mo Salah.

I’d be open to a deal even in January honestly if there was any faith in replacing correctly but this is the weakest front office they’ve had in years
I spend 100-125 on his replacement. Probably another 70-80 on defenders.

Clearly they're good at getting value even at inflated prices.

1693578487461.png

Looks like he can't wait to leave town. :)
 

Jersey Fresh

Video Et Taceo
Feb 23, 2004
26,909
9,918
T.A.
Lol all that from earlier in the window rebuffing West Ham because Maatsen had a good preseason game and Pochettino had him “in the plans”.

That said, I wouldn’t have wanted to go to £31.5M anyway.
 

bleedblue1223

Registered User
Jan 21, 2011
52,910
16,348
Lol all that from earlier in the window rebuffing West Ham because Maatsen had a good preseason game and Pochettino had him “in the plans”.

That said, I wouldn’t have wanted to go to £31.5M anyway.
Cucurella staying changed the plans. When the United loan fell through, they shifted to being open to moving Maatsen. Maatsen was always the preferred backup.
 

Savant

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 3, 2013
38,328
11,452
Lol all that from earlier in the window rebuffing West Ham because Maatsen had a good preseason game and Pochettino had him “in the plans”.

That said, I wouldn’t have wanted to go to £31.5M anyway.
This is all because Chelsea cup tied Cucurella
 

bleedblue1223

Registered User
Jan 21, 2011
52,910
16,348
This is all because Chelsea cup tied Cucurella
It has nothing to do with being cup tied, United wanted to cancel the loan in January because that's all they need the loan for. That killed the deal.

Which makes no sense. If Maatsen was “in the plans”, he’d be the one cup-tied right now and Cucurella would be on his way. Nu-Chelsea, same as Old-Chelsea.
He is, they literally started the same game. Being cup tied for the Carabao Cup isn't a factor in any of this.
 

Savant

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 3, 2013
38,328
11,452
It has nothing to do with being cup tied, United wanted to cancel the loan in January because that's all they need the loan for. That killed the deal.


He is, they literally started the same game. Being cup tied for the Carabao Cup isn't a factor in any of this.
Yes it does. You have such blinders on for your team. United needed him for Carabao too. There are (hypothetically) plenty of Carabao games in between now and January. United walked because the loan fee they were offering doesn’t have ROI if he can’t play those games. It’s not a coincidence. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s common sense. This is just typical Chelsea stuff. At least the other Chelsea fans on here can admit when the team does wrong
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gecklund

bleedblue1223

Registered User
Jan 21, 2011
52,910
16,348
Yes it does. You have such blinders on for your team. United needed him for Carabao too. There are (hypothetically) plenty of Carabao games in between now and January. United walked because the loan fee they were offering doesn’t have ROI if he can’t play those games. It’s not a coincidence. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s common sense. This is just typical Chelsea stuff.
Money is a major issue for them, they do not want a full season worth of wages, when they only need injury cover for a small portion of the year. If Chelsea is going to loan him, they want him gone for the full season.

You think Chelsea are so stupid, that they would torpedo the deal for a game against Wimbledon? Come on...
 

Savant

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 3, 2013
38,328
11,452
Money is a major issue for them, they do not want a full season worth of wages, when they only need injury cover for a small portion of the year. If Chelsea is going to loan him, they want him gone for the full season.

You think Chelsea are so stupid, that they would torpedo the deal for a game against Wimbledon? Come on...
And none of that was an issue until he got cup tied!

Chelsea has the most hubris of any club on the planet. I doubt they were paying attention/gave a damn.
 

Jersey Fresh

Video Et Taceo
Feb 23, 2004
26,909
9,918
T.A.
It has nothing to do with being cup tied, United wanted to cancel the loan in January because that's all they need the loan for. That killed the deal.


He is, they literally started the same game. Being cup tied for the Carabao Cup isn't a factor in any of this.
Ooh, I looked quickly at the lineup and missed him in midfield.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wee Baby Seamus

Savant

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 3, 2013
38,328
11,452
Ooh, I looked quickly at the lineup and missed him in midfield.
Yeah but still, your point isn’t wrong. Burnley isn’t trying to win trophies and they aren’t making a loan offer. They played was great for them last year and it’s a very much a long term move for them. But it also seems the player may have turned them down. Got to be lousy when a player you previously loaned says no when you want them back
 

Ad

Ad

Ad