CONFIRMED David Brooks to Bournemouth

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?


hazzasufc_ said:
Since when was Hirst even remotely an important player? He was in their U21’s until he left.
Click to expand...
Fair point, though Brookes was a long way from being a mainstay in our team either. He’s made a handful of first team appearances, and wasn’t guaranteed a start even when fit.

I read people comparing him with Maddison at Norwich, and it’s laughable.
 
hazzasufc_ said:
Since when was Hirst even remotely an important player? He was in their U21’s until he left.
Click to expand...
They froze him out, he wasn't playing for them at all but he was still their brightest prospect that's gone for nothing.
 
Josh Murphy at Norwich? Maddison?

Brooks wasn’t going to see out his career here, certainly he’d be better sitting on the bench earning £30,000 a week there rather than sitting on our bench for £7,000 a week.

That said, I’d hope for more than £10m. £15m sounds right for me. Given Wilder has signed this off, lets hope it triggers a few incomings!
 
nopigfansintown said:
A bang average Championship player, yes.If you think he has the potential to play for one of the top teams in the country, I'd have to disagree.
Click to expand...

Brooks isn't even a (guaranteed) first choice in our current starting line-up. Murphy has proved he can change a game and at 23 is still full of potential. He's also played about a lot more football than Brooks.

47 games, 11 goals and 3 assists 2017/8
36 games, 10 goals and 9 assists 2016/7
48 games, 8 goals and 11 assists 2015/6

Brooks has potential but has not proved he can do it at first team level. Has he even started more than 10 games in his life?

All I'm saying is that a team buying him is basing most of their valuation on his potential alone.

Jordan Rhodes was the best striker outside the Premier League a few seasons ago. Ability and potential doesn't necessarily mean success.

If we kept Brooks and had the budget I'd expect us to have from the things that have been said (£3-5 million for fees and wages), he may have become an important part of the team but it would likely be in a mid-table Championship side. And Brooks would be off then, even if we got an extra £5-10 million for him.

Next season is realistically our only chance (given our finances) of going up if we can bring in 4-5 quality players. 3 important players are likely in their last season with us. If we don't go up next season, I'd be surprised if we could hold on to all of O'Connell, Fleck, Coutts.

Shit or bust really.
 

Who was it who said that Wilder had been given a great budget of 20 million and if we sold Brooks, he'd get that too?

LMFAO.
 
Well I've checked his Twitter and he doesn't follow Bournemouth and Bournemouth don't follow him either. Usually happens pretty early that doesn't it?
 
Gutted about this but hardly surprised. The most promising attacking player we’ve had on the books in forever and we didn’t even get a full season out of him.

I’d rather the club didn’t have the reported (and probably exaggerated) £12m and enjoyed watching him for at least another season. His value will have increased in a years time too. Not that it makes a difference to United though, the only club in the country that undervalues its players.
 
10 million is not enough for a player of his ability and potential. Why do we always have to sell off our best players for silly low money? You don’t see Villa accepting silly low money for Grealish, and they were on the verge of breaking FFP.

When we’re still stuck in this league in 5 years time we’ll all wonder why nothing ever changes. This should give you a clue.
 
Didn't we borrow money in December to fund our purchases in the January Transfer Window from Shawbrook Bank, which was set against future player sales? Let's see if Brooks goes it gets settled? :)
 
Blade58 said:
twirlo again:

all im hearing is wilder has some good deals lined up,and a cherries player may be coming our way if he wants to. bids in for strikers. cherries initial offer was way below the final agreed price .wilder put a value on brookes,they met it after brookes agent turned brookes head,request went in for a transfer wilder agreed if his value was met. nothing been signed yet though.
Click to expand...

If that’s true then I reckon that initial offer was before Wilders radio interview and that Brooks wanted to leave then. They turned the offer down and said “x is the price” then Wilder did the “stupid money” interview and now we are here.
 
robbiez666 said:
Brooks isn't even a (guaranteed) first choice in our current starting line-up. Murphy has proved he can change a game and at 23 is still full of potential. He's also played about a lot more football than Brooks.

47 games, 11 goals and 3 assists 2017/8
36 games, 10 goals and 9 assists 2016/7
48 games, 8 goals and 11 assists 2015/6

Brooks has potential but has not proved he can do it at first team level. Has he even started more than 10 games in his life?

All I'm saying is that a team buying him is basing most of their valuation on his potential alone.

Jordan Rhodes was the best striker outside the Premier League a few seasons ago. Ability and potential doesn't necessarily mean success.

If we kept Brooks and had the budget I'd expect us to have from the things that have been said (£3-5 million for fees and wages), he may have become an important part of the team but it would likely be in a mid-table Championship side. And Brooks would be off then, even if we got an extra £5-10 million for him.

Next season is realistically our only chance (given our finances) of going up if we can bring in 4-5 quality players. 3 important players are likely in their last season with us. If we don't go up next season, I'd be surprised if we could hold on to all of O'Connell, Fleck, Coutts.

Shit or bust really.
Click to expand...

I'm saying the same as this: "All I'm saying is that a team buying him is basing most of their valuation on his potential alone". I just believe Brooks' potential is a lot higher, that's all. The fact it would have cost us 11 million to get Murphy illustrates what a bad price it is to be honest.Btw: have you got your Muphy's mixed up? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Murphy
We were already a mid table side with an increase budget.A couple of new players and Brooks and there's no reason why we couldn't kick on.
The important part now is reinvestment. If we can replace with four or five players who are likely to increase in transfer value, it will have been good business. If we invest in ageing players, loans and duds it will be spectacularly bad business (if we don't get promoted). Promotion justifies anything.

As for next season being our best chance, I don't necessarily agree unless we give our best assets away for relative peanuts.
 
And some people actually think the money will get reinvested back in the team :confused: history suggests otherwise!

Just like Maguire, walker etc we will always sell on the cheap and half our fan base just accept it.

Wake up
 

These things are generally half upfront rising to the full fee over time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
'Memries' 4 Years Ago, Just Look At Us
Replies
27
Views
3K
CarlMcBlade
CarlMcBlade
U
CONFIRMED Tyler Bindon
8 9 10
Replies
293
Views
29K
Gordon Freeman
Gordon Freeman
U
A lifetime of hurt
Replies
0
Views
409
Uganda Blade
U
Rodley
CONFIRMED Anis Slimane - Norwich City
2 3 4
Replies
110
Views
14K
Ndiayewillalwaysloveyou
Ndiayewillalwaysloveyou
Sothall_Blade
Blades V Portsmouth - Shared reality screenings in LA and Dallas
Replies
0
Views
205
Sothall_Blade
Sothall_Blade

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom