The lad is Henderson without experience. Would be silly to get rid of him because he's perfect for what he's good at, bringing energy and setting tempo. 

Like evissy said above, he's not the most naturally gifted and probably doesn't start if/when we sort ourselves out. But if he's happy with it, theres a great squad player in there who can fill most roles in the midfield without huge concern.

12 hours ago, Niall1905 said:

The lad is Henderson without experience. Would be silly to get rid of him because he's perfect for what he's good at, bringing energy and setting tempo. 

Like evissy said above, he's not the most naturally gifted and probably doesn't start if/when we sort ourselves out. But if he's happy with it, theres a great squad player in there who can fill most roles in the midfield without huge concern.

Issue is he doesn’t see himself as a squad player, that is where the hold up regarding his contract comes from. 

So they are still interested in selling Conor, who are these people making this decision.

£70m+ he probably goes, a penny less and its embarrassing. 

No way should we be paying more for Lavia than we get for Conor in this market. 

They will sell him buy the next shiny player for £120 million who hides when it gets tough! You can’t buy his passion  and love for the club.

Edited January 18, 20242 yr by El regreso

On 15/01/2024 at 20:29, ducavis said:

Issue is he doesn’t see himself as a squad player, that is where the hold up regarding his contract comes from. 

I honestly think the club simply see him as another get out of jail free card. They've been wanting to get rid of him since last January. 

I think if an offer comes up like £40m (What Maddison was purchased for) the club will accept. 

 

 

23 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

I honestly think the club simply see him as another get out of jail free card. They've been wanting to get rid of him since last January. 

I think if an offer comes up like £40m (What Maddison was purchased for) the club will accept. 

 

 

Maddison was purchased from a Championship club though, clubs should be paying a premium to take a player from a PL rival. They'd do the exact same to us (and rightly so). 

Edited January 18, 20242 yr by RIP Mourinho

3 minutes ago, RIP Mourinho said:

Maddison was purchased from a Championship club though, clubs should be paying a premium to take a player from a PL rival. They'd do the exact same to us (and rightly so). 

Thanks to the inflated TV deals and parachute payments it doesn't make that much difference these days.

Gone are the days relegated clubs are under financial pressure to sell their stars.

4 minutes ago, Argo said:

Thanks to the inflated TV deals and parachute payments it doesn't make that much difference these days.

Gone are the days relegated clubs are under financial pressure to sell their stars.

Pressure from the player for a move back to the Prem won't have helped Leicester and him only having a year left on his deal. 

Should be getting more than they got imo. 

23 minutes ago, RIP Mourinho said:

Maddison was purchased from a Championship club though, clubs should be paying a premium to take a player from a PL rival. They'd do the exact same to us. 

Yeah but for £70m? I don't believe Gallagher is this sought after footballer. The only rival showing genuine interest were Spurs in August and they tabled a £40m total package but the club was holding out for £45m. This is the same market where Maddison and Palmer both went for £40m, and Kudus and Paqueta were purchased for less than £40m. Four highly productive players with the ball. 

Excess of £40m would also break the transfer records of the other "interested" clubs in Everton and West Ham.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Yeah but for £70m? I don't believe Gallagher is this sought after footballer. The only rival showing genuine interest were Spurs in August and they tabled a £40m total package but the club was holding out for £45m. This is the same market where Maddison and Palmer both went for £40m, and Kudus and Paqueta were purchased for less than £40m. Four highly productive players with the ball. 

Excess of £40m would also break the transfer records of the other "interested" clubs in Everton and West Ham.

 

 

Maddison the Championship player with a year left on his contract and Palmer with a grand total of 489 PL career minutes. Kudus and Paqueta both coming from abroad too, where premier league money is too tempting. How much do you imagine West Ham would want for either of those players now? 

Not even worth selling for £40m as we won't sign anyone better to replace him for that value. English tax, years of premier league experience, one of the higher performing CM's in the league this season and it strengthens a rival. 

Unless we're about to get a points deduction for FFP we shouldn't be considering it.

7 minutes ago, RIP Mourinho said:

Maddison the Championship player with a year left on his contract and Palmer with a grand total of 489 PL career minutes. Kudus and Paqueta both coming from abroad too, where premier league money is too tempting. How much do you imagine West Ham would want for either of those players now? 

Not even worth selling for £40m as we won't sign anyone better to replace him for that value. English tax, years of premier league experience, one of the higher performing CM's in the league this season and it strengthens a rival. 

Unless we're about to get a points deduction for FFP we shouldn't be considering it.

The market dictates the price though. £40m in this market gets you a footballer that is very productive with the ball and you are suggesting we should hold out for £70m for Gallagher who is quite underwhelming with the ball. There isn't a reality where clubs are lining up to pay that. What's to stop clubs from ignoring Gallagher given the price and purchasing abroad for cheaper and better, which is literally what West Ham did last summer with Kudus? 

All evidence suggests we are in the sh*tter for another year and much like Mount, Gallagher will be viewed as the highest potential value in book profit. Given that Mount went for £60m, is a European champion and has that 2021 season to back up, I feel that Gallagher for £40-45m is appropriate. 

If a suitable offer comes in I think we should sell.  Not a reflection on his passion or desire, but a view on his quality and output.  Not everyone can play an 8+/10 every week, and Conor has been a consistent performer, but his best games seem to be when we are pretty bad.  When we've played better has been much quieter.

Difficult decision, but thinking about our ambitions and where we need to be in 2-5 years, to me he is a squad player.

23 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

The market dictates the price though. £40m in this market gets you a footballer that is very productive with the ball and you are suggesting we should hold out for £70m for Gallagher who is quite underwhelming with the ball. There isn't a reality where clubs are lining up to pay that. What's to stop clubs from ignoring Gallagher given the price and purchasing abroad for cheaper and better, which is literally what West Ham did last summer with Kudus? 

All evidence suggests we are in the sh*tter for another year and much like Mount, Gallagher will be viewed as the highest potential value in book profit. Given that Mount went for £60m, is a European champion and has that 2021 season to back up, I feel that Gallagher for £40-45m is appropriate. 

We spent a lot more on Lavia so that he could prop up the sick bay. Yes there are decent deals to be had but we don't seem to be very good at finding them.

Just now, forbzy said:

We spent a lot more on Lavia so that he could prop up the sick bay. Yes there are decent deals to be had but we don't seem to be very good at finding them.

To this day, I stand by Lavia not making any sense. 

2 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

To this day, I stand by Lavia not making any sense. 

We may eventually get to see what all the fuss is about with the 250m+ we spent on our midfielders. But for now, they are a work in progress. Under the circumstances it doesn't make sense to sell Conor when he is one of our best performers. Even if he has limitations that are acknowledged by many, he is more reliable than most of our midfield options at present. If we sell him this window it is clear that we will be balancing the books because of mistakes like Lavia. I would at least see where we are at in the summer. For example by then we will know if Lavia is still made of glass, whether Carney has managed to return to his early season form etc.

5 minutes ago, forbzy said:

We may eventually get to see what all the fuss is about with the 250m+ we spent on our midfielders. But for now, they are a work in progress. Under the circumstances it doesn't make sense to sell Conor when he is one of our best performers. Even if he has limitations that are acknowledged by many, he is more reliable than most of our midfield options at present. If we sell him this window it is clear that we will be balancing the books because of mistakes like Lavia. I would at least see where we are at in the summer. For example by then we will know if Lavia is still made of glass, whether Carney has managed to return to his early season form etc.

Selling anyone this window is quite simply stupid. 

1 hour ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Yeah but for £70m? I don't believe Gallagher is this sought after footballer. The only rival showing genuine interest were Spurs in August and they tabled a £40m total package but the club was holding out for £45m. This is the same market where Maddison and Palmer both went for £40m, and Kudus and Paqueta were purchased for less than £40m. Four highly productive players with the ball. 

Excess of £40m would also break the transfer records of the other "interested" clubs in Everton and West Ham.

 

 

I agree Gallagher isn't near to a £70m player but he's an England international with seasons of Prem football under his belt. Can't compare to Palmer who had something like 16 Prem appearances to his name prior to signing for us. As for Paqueta - he was subject to a reported £85m transfer bid to Man City - so again not the best example.

 

1 hour ago, RIP Mourinho said:

Maddison the Championship player with a year left on his contract. Kudus and Paqueta both coming from abroad too, where premier league money is too tempting. How much do you imagine West Ham would want for either of those players now? 

You've completely missed the point.

It doesn't matter what those players cost because you've ignored the context that none of those clubs wanted to sell they had to be paid top dollar to be tempted into selling their best players.

If Gallagher is sold it's because we have made the decision he doesn’t have a future here and have made him avaliable which greatly reduces the fee or any leverage we have.

Edited January 18, 20242 yr by Whats_The_Mata?

Gallagher doesn't really have any highly sought after qualities which would interest a lot of clubs. Only really his workrate, which you could get from anyone really, that doesn't require talent. His passing, shooting, tackling, vision, etc... are all mediocre for this level. No-one is paying 70m for him. I'd be shocked if anyone paid more than 30m. That being said, we should probably keep him, since he's the only one who can stay fit.

5 minutes ago, Gonoir Beniashile said:

I agree Gallagher isn't near to a £70m player but he's an England international with seasons of Prem football under his belt. Can't compare to Palmer who had something like 16 Prem appearances to his name prior to signing for us. As for Paqueta - he was subject to a reported £85m transfer bid to Man City - so again not the best example.

Where would you value him at?

Is a bit like the Broja situation. If we receive a really good offer we accept, if we don't we won't this window.

Last January Everton offered 40mill for Conor plus 5 mill if they stayed up, so would have been 45mill for a then back up player.

English tax, him being a starter every game for us, and him being involved in the national side (Palmer was not and was a city back up) means our "we will sell for silly money" is well north of 50mill imo. 

I don't think 70 I'd needed. If any club puts down Mount money, 55mill plus 5, and he is given the option to leave imo.

Just my opinion, no source on it.

Just now, axman2526 said:

Is a bit like the Broja situation. If we receive a really good offer we accept, if we don't we won't this window.

Last January Everton offered 40mill for Conor plus 5 mill if they stayed up, so would have been 45mill for a then back up player.

English tax, him being a starter every game for us, and him being involved in the national side (Palmer was not and was a city back up) means our "we will sell for silly money" is well north of 50mill imo. 

I don't think 70 I'd needed. If any club puts down Mount money, 55mill plus 5, and he is given the option to leave imo.

Just my opinion, no source on it.

I don't think any club budges from £40-45m personally. I think that's a fair value if pushed to sell. 

I don't want to sell him as he's a useful squad player, but I wouldn't be against selling him either. 

Hopefully we can leverage it to at least 50 million. 

Just now, Sconnie Blue said:

I don't think any club budges from £40-45m personally. I think that's a fair value if pushed to sell. 

If we transfer list him and drop him aye, given he has left than 18 months left. If we get him to sign a new deal then Mount levels are fair imo.