JimJams

People tend to live to their means. So when they make more they generally spend more.

Being asked is not unreasonable. Being expected is. Let's say for example his Mrs was suffering from Postpartum depression. If that were your Mrs, would you stay over at Seagrave? No, you wouldn't. You'd be a total ***** to do that. It doesn't matter if you can afford care or whatever. If you're a husband (partner) and a father, you aren't going to think someone can easily just sub themself in for you when you're not there. And you aren't doing it because your manager thinks it might get more from you despite the fact you've not had a problem doing it for 18 months. How does that conversation go? Ruud says "I want you to stay over 1 night a week, I think it'll be good for you, and we can get another 5 to 10 % out of your performances" "I disagree, I put my all into every training session, I'm 100% for every game. It's not been an issue before and I've got priorities at home." "No, I really think it'd be better for you." "I don't". That's it. Now we don't know that that's the situation, but why would we know? Why would anyone outside the Winks household? But we don't need to know. The manager made a request for a player to do something he's obviously not contracted to do and he declined. The players reasons are his own and that should be respected. If you work a Mon-Fri and your boss says he needs you to start coming in every Saturday because they're struggling to make an order or something (apply it to whatever you do) you might say yes, but it's not even remotely unreasonable to say no is it? And you shouldn't be vilified for saying no. I mean we don't really know what Winks is like as a person. So let's say he does have good reasons to go back home. If it's insisted upon him that he's staying at Seagrave, not being where he wants to be, with his new family, how is that going to affect his mentality? Is that extra percent that Ruud anticipates getting not just instantly wiped out because he's stressing about the situation? Or maybe he's not, but he'd obviously not be happy about it, so does that not then knock on his motivation, or his respect for his manager? I'm not really arsed about the whole Ruud situation. I don't think it's anything to do with what we're seeing now. What I see now is a player that came to us when he was in a bit of limbo, coming to a club that itself was in a similar spot. He joined a manager who specifically wanted to use him the way he wants to be played. It went well. Then the gaffer that played to his strengths left, we're no longer playing in a way that gets the best out of him, we have a shit season, he has a shit season. He doesn't want to end up in that same limbo he was in, and it looks like us as a club are heading that way ourselves again. He doesn't want to be part of that again. He's expecting interest, you'd assume. He hasn't had it. Presumably he's been sidelined a bit either because Marti doesn't fancy a 6 to sit back and let two 8's share the defensive work, or because we've all been looking at avenues for him to leave, so he's not been relied upon and nothings come up ultimately. So he's started the season not getting the move he wants. But he's also now not first choice. You could even say Skipp has taken his spot, as he's been getting starts. That's history repeating itself as this happened at Spurs. So he didn't get his move, he's not (been) a starter, his head is probably just putting him back in that limbo spot he was at when he was at Spurs. Now in THIS case, he needs to man the fxxk up and be professional. There's no excuse for sulking at this. Worst case scenario if he gets his head on is we have a shit season but he moves on as a free agent at the end of the season. In January he can assess his future, and that's going to look a lot rosier if he's putting in good performances AS WELL as looking like he wants to play. If he scores, celebrate. If a teammate scores, celebrate. If we concede, or lose, look dejected. Even if it's all an act. It's in his best interests. And expecting THAT is not unreasonable.

He's just a money grabber for going to Saudi. What would he have been if he'd have come to us then?

But what a fxxking bowl cut!

Hopefully get him on the cheap next season...

We fielded a load of jizz for most of last season in fairness.

That was the joke mate.

See how Gueye goes..

I've heard through contacts at the club that Winks would have been well up for staying over had he been asked nicely. However it turns out that Ruud, after having had a skinful in the Keith Weller Lounge, apparently grabbed young Harry and proceeded to say "Oi, Wanks, you're sleeping over you cxnt". Initially taken aback Winky let out a nervous giggle and said "Sorry sir, what?" to which Van Nastyroy viciously cupped the midfield dynamo by the balls, squeezing them and looking directly into the now wincing lads tearful eyes "I've got you the penthouse sweet ya dirty bitch" before spinning him round and slapping his ass. Now call me a Winks apologist, but I'm not sure that's reasonable. Ruud? He was positively vulgar!

Well we have Soumare, Winks, Ricardo, Thomas, Daka, Ayew all out of contract at the end of the season. So assuming none get extensions (though I think Thomas will) we'll need replacements for those guys. Then it all depends on how this lot fare until January. If the loan players are dogshit then there's that to address as well.

We can. They don't own you.

Winks, Skipp, Alli. The dream....

Then why bring it up in this thread?

Failed his medical. But he was going to be loaned to Strasbourg anyway. Something fishy going on. And not just in my pants.

Although we don't know what Betis were offering I'm going to assume we've got wind of an imminent Saudi offer in order for us to rebuff them. These kinds of assumptions are better for your mental well-being. Until the Saudi window closes.

Hope he fxxking smashes it and makes us all look like twats. Especially you. Yeah you, reading this right now. And then we can have him back.

That's not news.

Josh Murphy, makeshift left back. You heard it made up here first,

Saving wages is irrelevant. We're comparing this loan to a sale. If we sell him we no longer pay his wages. So loaning him out and getting his wages off the books is no different to a straight sale. It's not a saving when compared to selling him. Only keeping him. Which again is irrelevant.

His value increasing is no good to us if Stuttgart decide to take up the option to buy, which they would in that case. So you can shove that upside

We already were.

If the loan fee makes up the difference to the £30mill we expected then it's not bad. I suppose it'd mean we pay out less in sell on fee as well with the purchase price being lower. I'm fxxking grasping here...

Nobody wants him.

Is this source any good though? Or is he another chancer like all those that reported the supposed release clause and he's working off some of those numbers?

Well so far we've had different sources claim it's £26mill, £30mill and now a loan with €25mill option. I can't believe the last one because it makes no sense to have taken that over the Palace deal. And even if the Palace deal was never really on the table, this figure makes it pointless.