Winter 25-26 Transfer Window - hopes, speculation, rumours etc.

[DB]

We have to sign a midfielder now - not going to be as good as Kamara, obviously, but that’s a massive gap. Onana can help, but he has to stay fit.

The rules won’t allow us to spend the kind of money we would need to spend to get close to replacing Kamara and SJM. 

How much did those 2 cost us? It's not impossible to pull something out the bag.

[PaulWinch again]

Yeah but Liverpool know we’re a hurdle for Champions League qualification. I wouldn’t help us, especially as our approach to the deal that was agreed is obviously questionable.

[Dave]

I mentioned Manioo a a couple weeks back. See he walked straight back into their side under Carrick. Would have been ideal.

Maybe, but even if he wasn't playing - we couldn't sign him on loan, and we couldn't afford to spend tens of millions buying him.

The Sancho and Elliot deals look terrible now. Elliot could actually be very useful at the moment.

The way we've treated him, Elliott would have to be very fair minded to be interested in playing for us.

He's made 5 appearances thus far so we can only play him 4 more times otherwise the purchase obligation is triggered.

Guess we could try and renegotiate with Liverpool and get the buy obligation removed? Then we could play him and  he would then go back to them in the summer as a more saleable asset - certainly more so than somebody who's only made 5 appearances in a whole season.

Given the league table, it's probably more in Liverpool's interest to make our transfer dealings more difficult by just leaving things as they are.

[Drummond]

Does anyone know if the obligation clause can be altered outside of the transfer window? IF it can, then you could imagine Liverpool agreeing it then, otherwise, not so much. The £30m or whatever it is, is chicken feed to them, fucking us over in the hunt for 3rd is worth more.

[Smithy]

Does anyone know if the obligation clause can be altered outside of the transfer window? IF it can, then you could imagine Liverpool agreeing it then, otherwise, not so much. The £30m or whatever it is, is chicken feed to them, fucking us over in the hunt for 3rd is worth more.

I've said this before, but even if we could remove the obligation to buy clause (maybe by paying a 'loan fee' instead), then we'd still be left with a player who already knows the manager doesn't want him - which is unlikely to bring out the best in him on the pitch.  I'm sure he's a good guy, and a good professional, but would you really expect him to be putting in 100% in those circumstances? I know I'd find it difficult.

Sadly, the best solution is for him to go back to Liverpool, even if we're paying a chunk of his wages for the rest of the season, to free up a loan space that is increasingly looking essential.

[aev]

Does anyone know if the obligation clause can be altered outside of the transfer window? IF it can, then you could imagine Liverpool agreeing it then, otherwise, not so much. The £30m or whatever it is, is chicken feed to them, fucking us over in the hunt for 3rd is worth more.

I'm more concerned about the hunt for 5th.

[PaulWinch again]

And let’s be clear, it’s “not fucking us over” really - it’s just maintaining terms to a deal we set up and agreed. If they help us we’ll be very fortunate, and I can’t see it. This again goes back to our transfer strategy issues - obviously the rules constrain us, but we are also making, or have made, poor decisions.

[Drummond]

Does anyone know if the obligation clause can be altered outside of the transfer window? IF it can, then you could imagine Liverpool agreeing it then, otherwise, not so much. The £30m or whatever it is, is chicken feed to them, fucking us over in the hunt for 3rd is worth more.

I've said this before, but even if we could remove the obligation to buy clause (maybe by paying a 'loan fee' instead), then we'd still be left with a player who already knows the manager doesn't want him - which is unlikely to bring out the best in him on the pitch.  I'm sure he's a good guy, and a good professional, but would you really expect him to be putting in 100% in those circumstances? I know I'd find it difficult.

Sadly, the best solution is for him to go back to Liverpool, even if we're paying a chunk of his wages for the rest of the season, to free up a loan space that is increasingly looking essential.

Perhaps, although him also knowing he's not wanted there, and unlikely to ghet game time, means staying with us puts him in the shop window.

[Sexual Ealing]

And let’s be clear, it’s “not fucking us over” really - it’s just maintaining terms to a deal we set up and agreed. If they help us we’ll be very fortunate, and I can’t see it. This again goes back to our transfer strategy issues - obviously the rules constrain us, but we are also making, or have made, poor decisions.

100%. It's all on us.

[ROBBO]

It makes the selling of Malen even more ridiculous. We have weakened the squad without any forseeable incomings, bargain basement deals again it seems.

[Ads]

If Onana and Barkely are close, it might impact the type of midfielder we look for.

[PeterWithesShin]

So having already helped us once in which we ending up fucking them over we now want Liverpool to help us again?

[aev]

It makes the selling of Malen even more ridiculous. We have weakened the squad without any forseeable incomings, bargain basement deals again it seems.

Well, he'd probably have gone anyway, especially in light of the injury news.

[Ads]

Abraham very close according to that bloke who was on about Gallagher. Italian journo fella. I am being very descriptive.

[Drummond]

We will have Abraham in by the weekend I'm sure of that.

Dani Ceballos anyone?