web analytics
11 Comments

Why Hammers didn’t sign star

West Ham didn’t sign Layvin Kurzawa from PSG in the January transfer window because Arthur Masuaku didn’t leave the club, according to a new report from L’Equipe.

The Hammers did not manage to sign a new player last month but efforts were made to make improvements to the squad.

Kurzawa was said to be a target for the Irons and the French newspaper backs that up on Wednesday, insisting that the Irons were the only English club interested in signing the defender.

However, for a deal to happen, they needed to find a willing buyer to take Masuaku and complete that deal, before making the effort to sign Kurzawa from the French giants.

Start supporting Claret and Hugh today Claret & Hugh’s team of creators work with passion and pride to bring you the quality of content that keeps you coming back for more. Support for our creators, however big or small, will help us keep your Hammers content fresh, frequent and loyal to the club. £5 per month £10 per month £20 per month £50 per year

Of course, that didn’t happen; Masuaku didn’t move on and the Hammers were not able to complete a transfer.

Kurzawa was also offered to clubs in France, namely Lille and Bordeaux, but neither club wanted him, so he has remained in Paris.

Click Here for Comments >
 

About Dave Langton

A journalist with 10 years' experience of working on National newspapers, now chief reporter covering the club that I've loved since I was a boy. Upton Park remains the greatest football stadium ever built.

11 comments on “Why Hammers didn’t sign star

  1. Call me a cynic but first we are told there was no one available that would improve the squad and there are reports that despite new investment and clearing a few wages from the bill in past windows we still have to sell before we can buy?
    Can that really be the case?

      • ⁷so why bother with the story?
        I like this site but there’s a lot of churnalism lately.

        • Because there’s more than one player name and the free agents are interesting – why ask? Little footbll being played and not sure what churnalism is supposed to be unless you mean CHURNING it out which which there is little wrong. Were we asking you pay for it you might have a reason for criticising

          • All I’m suggesting is that the narrative has a lot of holes in it. I honestly think you do a great job and I love the site but you can’t expect people to not question things when there are so many contradictory stories on here.
            Isn’t that what the comments section is meant for, healthy debate?

          • I was discussing the use of the word churnology . We felt the list of available free agents was a story worth doing. If u don’t – fine. You mentioned ONE player not the many holes as you now have moved onto

          • Sorry Bourne I was a bit busy and didn’t look but it’s a reported story from elsewhere. Never checked it personally with my sources as we can’t run everything by them and it wasn’t my story – written by Dave – so a bit in the dark

          • That’s fair enough Hugh but this story isn’t about free agents. It’s a piece about why we didn’t sign someone apparently.
            No mention of other names or free agents?

  2. Absolutely 100% spot on 68.

  3. Why did we need to move Masuaka on? We are short of players and squad places are available.

  4. It’s a report in 1 (one) foreign newspaper. Could it be that this one report is wrong?

Comments are closed.