Summer Transfer Thread and Gustavo Cisneros Type Rumours.

[chrisw1]

Off subject, but apparently if Southampton did sell Ings, they would have to give Liverpool 20% of the fee. So if they sold him for 20M, they'd get 16M back.

So they might as well just keep him and let him go for free next season.

But by that rationale they'd effectively be paying £16m + wages to own Ings for a season.  That seems expensive to me.

* not expensive if he is the difference between relegation and staying up of course, but it's money they could use elsewhere and they have a decent track record in the transfer market.

[ADVILLAFAN]

True, but if they are relegated because they ship hik off, then it wasn't worth it

[chrisw1]

True, but if they are relegated because they ship hik off, then it wasn't worth it

Yes true.  Your post just beat my edit.

[DrGonzo]

I think selling Jack and replacing him with McNeil would represent a massive step backwards.

Not often is a statement made that everyone one on the site agrees with...
I'm still not allowing the Grealish paranoia to touch me.  I'm struggling enough with anti-vaxxers and lixard people theorists, it's way down the list for me.

[Monty]

I think selling Jack and replacing him with McNeil would represent a massive step backwards.

Selling Jack and replacing him with anyone other than one of about 1% of the players in the world would represent a massive step backwards.

Sure, but 50m on McNeil because 'Prem Leegg expeerianse!' would be as shit as it gets.

[chrisw1]

I think selling Jack and replacing him with McNeil would represent a massive step backwards.

100%  But would he be a good addition to the squad assuming we keep Jack?  I haven't made up my mind on him yet, but it's stange he has probbaly achieved more than ESR at this stage of his career, but because he's at an unfashionable club people are immediately more sceptical.

[Richard E]

He would be an improvement on the last McNeil we had at the club.

[ASHTONVILLA]

I think selling Jack and replacing him with McNeil would represent a massive step backwards.

100%  But would he be a good addition to the squad assuming we keep Jack?  I haven't made up my mind on him yet, but it's stange he has probbaly achieved more than ESR at this stage of his career, but because he's at an unfashionable club people are immediately more sceptical.

He has the workrate of Trez and the skill of El Ghazi, and would be an upgrade on either of them. I have seen anywhere between £20 and £50m touted, at the top end he would be too expensive, but if it were closer to £20m I'd be all for signing him. Obviously not as a Jack replacement though!

[caster troy]

For what it's worth 'Whispers' said we only enquired about McNeill when we had an enquiry for Jack so he may have been more of a contingency plan than plan A.

[Dave]

I think selling Jack and replacing him with McNeil would represent a massive step backwards.

100%  But would he be a good addition to the squad assuming we keep Jack?  I haven't made up my mind on him yet, but it's stange he has probbaly achieved more than ESR at this stage of his career, but because he's at an unfashionable club people are immediately more sceptical.

He has the workrate of Trez and the skill of El Ghazi, and would be an upgrade on either of them.

If this is true, why doesn't he actually seem to do very much with it?

I get that Burnley as a team don't score all that many and that he's still very young, and would almost certainly be better in a more creative team.

But given he is their main outlet, I'd expect more than the two goals he had scored in each of his three seasons.

El Ghazi scored five in sixteen days last season. McNeill has scored five goals in the last two and a half years.

[algy]

I'd assume if we were signing McNeil, it'd be to move Jack to a more central role.  Think he'd be a good purchase at the right price, but I'm not sure the right price for us is the same as the right price for Burnley.

For us, I think if we ended up paying £35m for him, we'd have still got a decent enough deal given he's a promising player who's had a couple of years playing regularly at this level.  Much more than that, though, and you'd start questioning whether or not we're getting good value for money.

From Burnley's perspective, does it make sense to sell their most promising player for £35m when they've still got 3 years left to run on their contract?  Probably not.  I think if I were them, I'd be asking for considerably more than that.  He'd only go for that sort of price if they were in a bad way financially, and I've generally had the impression in the past that they're pretty well run in that regard.

[sid1964]

Why would Ings swap playing every week (with the chance of getting back into the England squad if he scores a few goals) and swap that for sitting on our bench and getting 20 mins football every couple of weeks?

would it be all about the cash in his bank if he did join us?

[sickbeggar]

Being linked to Watford's Will hughes all over the place on that there Twitter. 

[Dave]

Why would Ings swap playing every week (with the chance of getting back into the England squad if he scores a few goals) and swap that for sitting on our bench and getting 20 mins football every couple of weeks?

would it be all about the cash in his bank if he did join us?

And by all accounts Southampton are happy to throw all the money at him.

On the other hand though, who does he join where is nailed on, first-choice?

West Ham? Spurs if they sell Kane? They're maybe slight upgrades on Southampton, but I can't imagine he's off to Man City to replace Aguero...

[ASHTONVILLA]

Being linked to Watford's Will hughes all over the place on that there Twitter. 

Would be one of the most underwhelming signings ever, up there with Kinsella and Leonhardsen.