gph 11:47 Tue Mar 8
Rashford
|
|
BBC saying that reports that Rashford is considering his future at Old Trafford have alerted several clubs, including West Ham.
I can believe the first bit, as ManU are beginning to look a bit shaky, but the second bit is more dubious, as West Ham seem to have forgotten how to buy players.
|
|
|
Replies - Newest Posts First ( Show In Chronological Order)
Come On You Irons
2:11 Thu Mar 24
Re: Rashford
|
I wonder how much this virtue signalling cunt has personally donated to Ukraine. Probably FUCK ALL.
|
threesixty
2:16 Tue Mar 22
Re: Rashford
|
I just think that a lot of young players get way too high salaries and end up destroying their footballing careers.
They don’t factor in their actual footballing progression which requires them actually regularly playing games. Also, when they are out of form they actually need to play games to get back to form. This doesn’t happen at these big teams with tons of money because they always have an alternative on the bench. So its no wonder that so many young players at big clubs decline.
By taking big salaries they also price themselves out of moves that will suit them. Rashford could be regularly playing football for a team like ours and by the time he is 27/28 be the best he will be. And then make the move.
I think Rice has shown how to grow as a player. He will benefit immensely with all the playing time he gets at our club. He has been through relegation battles, highs and lows. I think he could go anywhere now and perform consistently.
|
,
11:39 Tue Mar 22
Re: Rashford
|
I’d welcome Rashford to the squad.
|
Billy Blagg
11:32 Tue Mar 22
Re: Rashford
|
Signing Rashford & Lingard would solve a load of issues but these are top players in a struggling (by their standards) team. Lingard might be tempted by London but wouldn't be surprised if they both ended up in Spain or Italy.
|
Matthew Holmes
11:25 Tue Mar 22
Re: Rashford
|
Vexed 6:20 Wed Mar 16
On the money Vexed.
Our market has to be players looking upwards not top 6 teams' cast offs. (Id consider Lingard if he coukd be bothered)
|
Razzle
5:13 Mon Mar 21
Re: Rashford
|
Its really simple.
Rashford needs to concentrate on what gives him a living rather than his happy meals and all the sycophantic hanger-on cunts blowing smoke up his media arse.
|
After8
2:52 Sat Mar 19
Re: Rashford
|
Rashford is as bad as lingard. It's all about hits,pr and social media presence. Avoid.
|
Crassus
1:21 Thu Mar 17
Re: Rashford
|
Swindon
Nah, not having that I’m afraid
True any signing carries risk BUT the risk decreases proportionate to the price paid - or should do
£20m for a striker carries a far higher failure risk per £ than a £50m, a £100m less still
Rashford is a classic case of defying that principle
|
gph
1:13 Thu Mar 17
Re: Rashford
|
"gave the middle finger back"
Not having anyone who eschews the V sign.
|
swindon hammer
12:55 Thu Mar 17
Re: Rashford
|
Man Utd fans were also giving Lingard pelters and were practically begging us to take him last January.
Look how that turned out for us.
There’s no guarantee that any signing we make will be risk free and successful but I know I would rather sign Rashford for around 50 million (you keep saying 70 million without any confirmation) than risk 25 million plus on someone from the Russian league like Vlasic.
|
Eerie Descent
12:36 Thu Mar 17
Re: Rashford
|
The situations of the 2 players is entirely different, you've practically said so yourself.
And you're not engaging your brain - I don't think he'd be worth the risk given what he'd cost in terms of fee and wages. There is absolutely no guarantee what will happen with him from here.
He was getting absolute pelters from Man Utd fans last night and he gave them the middle finger back. And you'd happily blow 70mil nuggets on him, which would be practically our whole transfer budget. Says a lot about your knowledge of football.
|
swindon hammer
12:31 Thu Mar 17
Re: Rashford
|
Will rephrase that bit.
“The fact that you think Rashford wouldn’t be a great signing”
|
swindon hammer
12:02 Thu Mar 17
Re: Rashford
|
No Earie, ewhen a player moves clubs it doesn’t mean they NEED a fresh start or a completely different environment.
Lingard most definitely did though and Rashford probably does.
The fact that you don’t think Rashford wouldn’t be a great signing for us says a lot about your knowledge of football.
Not sure why you care anyway because
ITS THE END OF THE WORLD!!
|
On The Ball
11:47 Wed Mar 16
Re: Rashford
|
He's FAR too good for us - he's just going sideways at the moment. But then name me the Man Utd player who isn't going sideways at the moment? He'd be brilliant for us but he'd cost too much money and earn too much money - not sure who'll pay what they both want though.
"BLM apologist" - brilliant
|
Eerie Descent
11:05 Wed Mar 16
Re: Rashford
|
swindon hammer 8:26 Wed Mar 16
Nah, you're all over the shop. Fresh start ffs, every player that moves has a fresh start. The situations for the 2 individuals is completely different, as explained. Different reasons for not playing, different stages of their careers, different life circumstances.
And you're right, thankfully it won't be happening.
|
Wils
10:44 Wed Mar 16
Re: Rashford
|
Yeah, he wouldn't want to come and we couldn't afford him.
But even if he did and we could I can't stand him. Would rather be the lesser team for it than suffer that race-baiting BLM apologist.
|
swindon hammer
8:26 Wed Mar 16
Re: Rashford
|
I’m comparing them as players that need fresh starts and the fact that I think Rashford like Lingard would make a big impact for us.
Yes the cost is different but it’s justified due to Rashford’s age and far more prolific goal scoring record.
It doesn’t matter anyway because it’s not going to happen.
|
Eerie Descent
7:59 Wed Mar 16
Re: Rashford
|
swindon hammer 6:06 Wed Mar 16
So you can compare them in one sentence, then in another sentence Rashford will cost a lot more.
Right.
I'm glad you're sure of it, but we are not a club that can gamble that sort of money, given how our big transfers have gone before. Rashford can't seemingly be bothered at 24, on £200 bags a week, playing for his boyhood club. That's a huge risk expecting him to suddenly bust a gut for us.
|
Crassus
7:06 Wed Mar 16
Re: Rashford
|
Swindon
The maths on Rashford just don’t work
A £50/70m transfer at his age demands 5 years on the contract to protect the investment
But at £200k a week that’s another £50m plus
Total deal sitting from £100/125m
The Arabs might take a plunge down the back of the sofa but no chance from the rest.
He will either run his contract down or go on a loan with an option with the Mancs swallowing a hefty chunk of the wage
|
Vexed
6:20 Wed Mar 16
Re: Rashford
|
We shouldn't be buying high profile players. Or even wasting our time sniffing around them. We need players to come to West Ham and become high profile players. That's where we are a as a club. This dull cunt would be a disaster for us.
|
swindon hammer
6:06 Wed Mar 16
Re: Rashford
|
You can compare the 2 players Eerie.
Both are very talented players that have lost their way and need a fresh start elsewhere.
Of course Rashford will cost a lot more because he is 5 years younger and has been more prolific than Lingard.
From what I gather he’s only got 1 year left on his deal as well so 70 million is unlikely. Maybe 50 million at a push but considering we spent over 25 million on Vlasic from the Russian League I would say it’s far less risky to pay double for Rashford.
He would go great for us I’m sure of it.
Lingard & Rashford together along with Bowen & Antonio would sort out our forward line for next season.
Not going to happen but would love it to.
|
| 
