Will be naturally disappointed if we lose Winnall

Discussion in 'Bulletin Board' started by RedAllOver, Jan 11, 2017.

  1. And the fee issue is wrangling with me. It all seems very odd given what's been said from the club. I hope all is cleared up because I feel there must be another circumstance affecting this one. All very odd, but at the end of the day journalists may not prove to right and the fee may turn out to be more.

    Regardless of the fee from a playing perspective we'll obviously miss Winnall's goals, his superb heading ability and his hard work. Nonetheless there's no doubt it will a blow, but one we will be able to recover from. Let's not forget it's our policy to sell on players after buying cheap. Additionally we have lost George Williams, Alfie Mawson, Josh Brownhill, Lloyd Isgrove and Ashley Fletcher and we've evidently replaced them well, otherwise we wouldn't be 8th in the Championship. So I'm sure we'll be able to find another Winnall replacement in League One or Two.

    I have plenty of confidence in the management to sort this one out so I hope we can get the right outcome for all
  2. I too have no major issue with selling Winnall for an acceptable fee, even if it is to Sheffield Wednesday. That is essentially our business rationale. I also think we could replace him, but we'd need to get a good fee for him to enable us to re-invest. £500,000 would be a joke fee and we'd need more than that to get even an Omar Bogle.

    Btw, apparently it's on Sheff Wednesday forums that they're in for Hourihane as well. Now that would be a major PR disaster.
  3. What's making this situation worse is all the wannabe journalists, 'ITK' fans and the Wednesday mob mouthing off on twitter as well as people on here starting 12 different threads for the same issue, it would be better if we just left it alone until something concrete was announced.
  4. Same as. No prob us selling and getting some good cash now, but selling for 500k would be annoying. I'd like us to get enough to take a punt on bogle as his replacementp
  5. I've no problem with selling sam but 500k is a joke. And it makes the club look stupid after giving it the big we dont need to sell unless silly offers come in.
  6. At last ,
    A common sense post.
  7. Don't expect us to spend any of it. The money is insurance for a self financing future...
  8. Having good sell on clauses on quality players will help to finance our future. Its too big a risk to let them run down there contracts and not have any interest in any future transfers.
  9. Selling best players is a worry. We were 10th in the Championship part way through the season under Hilly.

    We then lost Butterfield, Vaz Te, Drinkwater from the midfield, and ended up just avoiding relegation.
  10. Whilst a lot of this is speculation, if the fee is to be around 500K, then I'd much prefer to let Winnall and Hourihane run their contracts down. I can't criticise either of them for moving on after the service they've given our club over the last 3 years and if they play their part in re-establishing us in the Championship and the financial benefit that brings, then I see that as better business and effectively a better transfer fee. I'd also think that replacing them would be easier in the summer, unless we already have a target identified.

    All that said, if we could somehow retain both of them it'd be fantastic. But how many of the elite players at clubs with a "normal" budget actually stay for the best part of three seasons nowadays?
  11. I share the concern a little, although I think our squad is far better in its depth than the Hill team.

    We'd have dropped under Hill if Portsmouth hadn't been deducted, rightly, 10 points for going into administration I think?

Share This Page