Quote Originally Posted by Rjk View Post
the fee for Moore is way too low, it is going to cost a lot more to get in a decent replacement in the summer.
the loan move for surridge is also pointless, we have hughill, Collins, watters, Davies, and Harris and we typically play 2 up front.
I'm not sure he's going to play that much, wouldn't we be better off keeping the money until the summer?
Logic would indicate that transfer fees are not objective, they are a factor of the amount a buying team is willing to spend and the amount a selling club will be happy to get.

Bearing in mind we're talking about a player who has had a single good season at this level, is hitting 30, doesn't fit the style of play we're going to, has had covid several times this season along with "ankle issue", fired his agent to move to agency looking to move him on, will be in the last year of his contract next season and has been woeful this season when he has actually played - not to mention lack of interest in him from other clubs.

The question therefore is how on earth can you say, will all of that, £3.5m is "too low", what exact leverage do we have to demand more money? Should we turn the deal down, keep him on the books, costing us money whilst not playing / putting in minimal effort only to then leaving for nothing next summer?

If the situation was reversed and we were buying Moore bearing in mind everything stated above, people would be complaining £3.5m was too much!

Should he go to Bournemouth, it'll be for the money; his last "big" contract, content to sit on the bench backing up Solanke - and if they got promoted, I'd not be surprised if they then sold him, as imo he'd be exposed in the Prem.