There’s something very difficult about trying to sign players from Manchester United, as West Ham have found to their cost on three separate occasions over recent years.
The first was the saga of Jesse Lingard, which seemed to drag on for the best part of three years. Following a successful loan spell in East London, persuading Lingard to re-join West Ham on a permanent basis should have been an easy task.
Unfortunately, the transfer was anything but easy, as Lingard and his Manchester employers haggled over loyalty bonuses and final payoffs. The player’s transfer to West Ham never happened, and of course, the rest is history.
Only last summer, the Hammers agreed on a fee with the Manchester club for central defender Harry Maguire. What followed was a Groundhog Day scenario where the central defender refused to leave Old Trafford until he had been paid his loyalty bonus, believed to be £5 million. It was suggested at the time that West Ham could pay this fee to ‘oil the wheels’ of the transfer; however, the Hammers wisely decided against it.
So now we find ourselves in familiar territory once again, with an agreement in principle to sign right-back Aaron Wan-Bissaka, only to find that there is a problem with the player’s wages. It’s not beyond the realms of possibility that some sort of subsidy will be required to get the deal over the line. Unfortunately, as our recent experiences have taught us, this can often result in the collapse of the transfer deal with Manchester United.
West Ham should be wise and experienced enough in dealing with the Red Devils by now to understand how these things work. Hopefully, that experience can be utilized and a compromise found with the player’s wages.
If Wan-Bissaka is that good why do Manchester United (MU) wan’t to sell him ! I would stay away from Wan-Bissaka, McGuire and McTominay. MU expect to finish in the top 7 and if they are don’t think they are good enough then why would they be good enough for the Hammers. Stay far away from all of all of them.
What xxxxxxxx we would have known his wages when bidding . So we can afford the transfer but not wages . Or we can afford wages and not the player . Same old stuff . Why even bid if the wages are too high ! Personally I think he would improve us
I’d steer well clear of any dealings with them. They pay hideously high wages and bonuses to bang average players (for them) and they wonder why the players couldn’t give a crap.
Not like either of these players are anything special because they’re not and will have the stink of all the sh*t that goes on in the dressing room all over them.
There’s no ‘z’ in utilised.
Technically both utilised and utilized are valid and have been used in the English language for many years but we now tend to use utilised in the UK whereas other parts of the world who speak English tend to use utilized but utilized was the originally spelling here in the UK
We knew exactly what his wages were long before we bid for him. So it’s wrong claim that wages are an issue.
well it’s not necessarily his current wages
but his desired wages on a new contract
those two are rarely the same thing