Scotch

For me, this all depends on that last sentence of Percy's tweet and those two other attackers. Ofcourse it makes no financial sense, that goes without saying but we can't expect anything less under this regime, all we can hope for is it works on the pitch whilst being financially moronic. The plan was clearly Ayew on two of Zaha and Hlozek. I would have been fine with that. It would have given us a strong array of attackers for a relegation candidate whilst allowing us to loan out a few. So it really depends on getting two players around the same level as those two. If we don't get them in or they are below the level of quality we need then the Ayew deal will be far worse than it could be.

I'm not particuarly happy about this. I don't think he's great and we are ridiculously over-paying BUT if it's this on top of two more attacking players (a striker and a winger) with maybe Mcateer, Cannon going on loan... I suppose it's fine. Depending on who the two players are ofcourse... I mean, if it went to plan and it was Hlozek,Zaha and Ayew... I'd be content so hopefully it's players of that kind.

2 more AFTER this or including this?

...I'm not sure there is.

PL... "Okay Leicester, we're going to give you a points deduction but we need you to be more responsible with money, ok?" LEICESTER... *Maintains eye contact as we submit an £8m bid for a crap 32 year old striker*

I 100% agree. I just thought I'd be ridiculously conservative to remove any potential argument about how it was a better deal.

Just to put it into context... £6m plus 30k a week for 2 years (I think he'd be on more than that with probably a longer contract knowing us) is over £9m without taking into consideration signing on and agent fees. That's more than were going to spend on Zaha for a year...

He hasn't specifically said anything there though has he? The only direct quote is "really close" and having not seen the question, which someone had said on a previous post was pretty ambiguous and was 2 questions in one, we can't say exactly what he meant.

No in the presser that I saw.

I do to. Last day or two of the window, Arsenal will start panicking about keeping him.

Well... piecing together what Cooper has said, he said at the presser on Monday that he was very clear with the club what he wanted and that we'll get players for those positions. He then said we were extremely close to two attacking players last week and he was convinced they were joining. Assuming that those two players were Hlozek and Zaha, we can pretty much bank on a striker and a winger with at least one of them able to play #10 coming in at least. He also said he was hoping to get them in before Fulham so hopefully we will start hearing things soon

Cooper never said #10 specifically. That came from a poorly worded question. He said he hoped to have one or two attacking players in before Fulham...

I don't believe he will be a squad player. I think he'll play over Ndidi. Cooper said last night that the order we get players in means nothing. We very nearly got two attacking players last week (I believe he meant Hlozek and Zaha, so a winger and a striker) yet said we would have still got Skipp (or someone in that position) this week. We have identified positions we need and regardless of what order they arrive, will get them.

Exactly. He basically said he's hoping to get 1 or 2 attacking players before Fulham. That's it. No specific positions mentioned.

I really don't see this happening. Although I reckon we might play a 3 man CM occasionally, I don't see it being a regular thing. I suspect it will, more often than not be a double pivot and having Skipp/Ndidi at #6 with Winks/Hatate as the DLP is just too good to actually happen.

Cooper himself said we didn't do what we needed to be doing in the first half. Positionally, off the ball we weren't good which meant that when we got on the ball, we couldn't do anything with it. That first half performance WASN'T part of the game-plan and that isn't my opinion. That's our managers.

Are we gonna talk about him completely playing up Vardy's injury? I said at the time, it was weird. Every other injury, he told us what it was and how long that player would be out for but he never got specific about Vardy. I thought at the time it meant it was more serious than he was letting on but he was at it all a long.

The reason for BDCR over Mav is clearly because he wants that player to drift in beside the #10 when the LB pushes up. Which is stupid because we don't have a LB who offers any sort of attacking threat.

I KNEW something was up with the Vardy situation. I said on here I felt Cooper was being cagey about the injury, I assumed it was worse than he was letting on. Turns out, he's just a a wee sneek.

I think people are over-reacting. We paid too much, yes but everything else about this signing, I like. He's young, has experience at this level, knows the manager and who is likely to be his CM partner, is apparently a work horse and is a leader. There is potential for a sell on profit and he improves our starting 11. It's a good signing. I honestly think that, had we got Zaha on loan for £8m and Hlozek with an option to buy and then signed Skipp like we were obviously wanting, the optics of this would be much better.

Ange has actually played him at LB but I think he'll take Wilfs spot.

That's assuming that Cooper WANTS his CM to drive forward. I don't think he does. It looks to me, he wants two sitting CMs and the drive forward comes from the wingers, Striker and seemingly the LB.

Based on absolutely nothing, I'm CONVINCED that we'll go for Matt Targett.

From what I've seen of Cooper's tactics so far, he wants two players sitting in front of the back four. One more a traditional #6 (Skipp/Ndidi) and one deep lying playmaker (Winks and hopefully Braybrooke) but both solid defensively.

Could be.