Wolves after Kieffer Moore?

[Pedro de la Rosa]

I suppose it all comes down to how much we need the money to plug the hole left by parachute payments, taking into account the potential future income from keeping him.

take this season - say from this point we have an 8% chance of promotion if we keep Moore, and a 3% chance if we sell him.
if promotion is worth 200m then there's £10m value straight off the bat.
then you have to consider relegation - say a 2% chance with and 4% without (or add your own numbers) and the lost revenue estimating at £20m (no idea really) and you can probably add another million.

then factor in some additional value for next season, effect on ticket sales etc and ,£12-15 million seems reasonable

I'd say there's less than a 1% chance we'd go down, especially after our start. A hell of lot has to go wrong now.

Re Moore, Armstrong went for nearly 20. He's got a year left. Granted, he's 24 but he's out of contract in 12 months. Surridge just went to Stoke for 5.5m! We should be asking for an awful lot.

[Rjk]

I'd say there's less than a 1% chance we'd go down, especially after our start. A hell of lot has to go wrong now.

Re Moore, Armstrong went for nearly 20. He's got a year left. Granted, he's 24 but he's out of contract in 12 months. Surridge just went to Stoke for 5.5m! We should be asking for an awful lot.

I don't think we would get as much as they got for Armstrong, he has age on his side and has always had very good underlying stats (shot volume etc) it's a surprise that Newcastle let him go for so little when they did.

[BlueArmy 86]

We shouldn't accept less than £15m. Or a deal that involves Giles.

[surge]

I don't think we would get as much as they got for Armstrong, he has age on his side and has always had very good underlying stats (shot volume etc) it's a surprise that Newcastle let him go for so little when they did.

Why do you rate shot volume which was always going to be boosted by i) his pace and ii) playing with Harvey Elliot? Armstrong's shot accuracy last year was lower than you'd want from a central premier league striker which is probably why only club willing to spend money plays a front two.

Moore's shot accuracy also lower than desired and needs to be worked on. His shot accuracy when more likely to play as central striker combined with his age and it being first time in premier league is probably why he won't go for as much.

[Rjk]

Why do you rate shot volume? Armstrong's shot accuracy last year was lower than you'd want from a central premier league striker which is probably why only club willing to spend money plays a front two.

Moore's shot accuracy also lower than desired and needs to be worked on. His shot accuracy when more likely to play as central striker combined with his age and it being first time in premier league is probably why he won't go for as much.

Shot volume seems to be more favoured by the stats boffins.
I think that younger players who generate a lot of shots are more likely to have future good performance than players who have relatively few shots but are on a hot finishing streak

[surge]

Shot volume seems to be more favoured by the stats boffins.
I think that younger players who generate a lot of shots are more likely to have future good performance than players who have relatively few shots but are on a hot finishing streak

Of all the players to attempt 50 or more shots in the Premier League last season, only Son Heung-Min and Ilkay Gundogan had a better shot conversion rate than Danny Ings’ 21.1 per cent.

Watkins clearly had an incredibly successful first season in the Premier League, but the key to that success lay in the volume of shots he took rather than their quality. Only four Premier League players had more shots than Watkins last season. Ings, meanwhile, had 57, roughly half Watkins’ total. He did play in 29 matches compared to Watkins’ 37, but it still demonstrates a pattern: Watkins took lots of shots to get his 14 goals; Ings took more of his chances to get his 12.

https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/p...ntford-1162610

While we'll never know for sure it seems doubtful that Watkins would have scored as many last season if playing for Southampton, rather than in front of Grealish, but now we basically have a Watkins type playing for Southampton we might get some idea.

To an extent, surely number of shots will just reflect number of chances created by team they're playing in? Of course striker can create their own chances too and good movement increases number of chances created by team-mates. But if stats boffins aren't digging deeper then it's just bad information.

I agree Armstrong will probably be valued higher than Moore by the buying market (especially as more Premier League sides now play with two up front) and price will come down to how much we need to sell.

[Pedro de la Rosa]

I don't think we would get as much as they got for Armstrong, he has age on his side and has always had very good underlying stats (shot volume etc) it's a surprise that Newcastle let him go for so little when they did.

Armstrong is a right greedy bastard, that’s why he looks good on stats. Moore has absolutely bossed people like Skrinar for Wales, and is on an upward trajectory. We should be looking at 15m, minimum.