Filthy wrote:
From Tisdale's latest interview it suggests the club are only looking at potential loans in August now. If Chuks does leave, that will be very disappointing unless those loans are top notch (I'm thinking Tyler Walker calibre).
Excluding academy grads, and assuming Chuks isn't returning, that means starting the season with Agard (22 goals last season), Bowery (allegedly Simpson's replacement, and 9 goals last season), and Mason (who has started a grand total of 34 games in the past 3.5 seasons - 4 goals last season).
Compare that to last season with Agard (22 goals), Chuks (19 goals) and Healey (9 goals), all of which were whilst we were in a lower division against 'easier' opposition.
Fingers crossed Aneke stays or I think goals are going to be hard to come by next season, either that or we'll need a helluva loan signing to compliment Agard, Mason and/or Bowery. Will have to be someone established otherwise it's a gamble on a young striker who may turn out to be either the next Afobe or the next Seager.
Yeah, you make some good points there.
Although you include a loan signing in the three strikers you listed from last season, and we relied heavily on three good attacking loans - Healey, Hesketh and Wheeler - to provide support for Agard and Aneke.
I agree that we should probably be looking at a permanent replacement for Aneke - although it's going to be difficult and probably expensive to find and attract someone of that ability on a permanent deal.
We'll have three potential central strikers in Agard, Mason and Bowery, with Mason and Bowery having the ability to play out wide along with Dickenson. Financially, if we're looking to add quality, then we can only afford to pay a decent fee for
one incoming attacking player, so I've no problem with us using the loan market for any other attacking player we want to bring in.
But I'd have liked to see us going for someone like Christian Doidge for £250,000 - I guess the problem at the moment is we're still currently holding out in the hope Chuks stays and we only need to bring in loans, and can avoid paying substantial transfer fees for anyone.
Also - if Chuks doesn't stay, I assume that frees up a considerable wage that could be used on a generous contract offer to a new permanent striker, or paying the wages of an experienced loanee.
Either way, there's absolutely no excuses not to have either Chuks or a top replacement. Either Chuks stays and happy days, or Chuks leaves and frees up a big wage for someone new to be offered.
Wish Tis would give Chuks a deadline and say "look, if you're not staying, we're going to need to find a replacement so please give us enough warning to do so".