Watford Want Helgusson On The Cheap

[Nodge70]

It's well known that Watford are in a lot of financial strife and I'm not suprised to hear they don't want to part with too much cash for Helgusson.

Lets face it, he has been a poor signing for us. Injury prone, overweight and lacking confidence in front of goal.

Something worth bearing in mind is that Watford are looking to reduce their wage bill and need to sell players. Perhaps we should be looking at their squad and who may fit in at Loftus Road (John-Joe O'Toole anyone?!!!). Helgusson could be used as a makeweight or even a straight swap for any potential transfer deal!

I'd take Lloyd Doyley off their hands if pushed - maybe even Jon Harley

[Bernie's Barnet]

It's well known that Watford are in a lot of financial strife and I'm not suprised to hear they don't want to part with too much cash for Helgusson.

Lets face it, he has been a poor signing for us. Injury prone, overweight and lacking confidence in front of goal.

Something worth bearing in mind is that Watford are looking to reduce their wage bill and need to sell players. Perhaps we should be looking at their squad and who may fit in at Loftus Road (John-Joe O'Toole anyone?!!!). Helgusson could be used as a makeweight or even a straight swap for any potential transfer deal!

I've looked. There's no one that they own that is better than what we have. O'Toole is on loan at Colchester, so doesn't sound like he'd be ready to play a part immediately.

[Bernie's Barnet]

I'd take Lloyd Doyley off their hands if pushed - maybe even Jon Harley

Neither are better than CCC standard and neither play in areas where we are short at the moment. The whole point of this exercise is clearing unnecessary bodies off the wage bill, not adding more unnecessary bodies to it.

[Tarbie]

Neither are better than CCC standard and neither play in areas where we are short at the moment. The whole point of this exercise is clearing unnecessary bodies off the wage bill, not adding more unnecessary bodies to it.

Surely Lloyd Doyley would be addressing an area where we need to strengthen. He can play anywhere accross the back four can't he?

[Youvebeenrangered]

Like many have suggested, lets just get rid, 100k would be nice, but id go lower if we can offload him, he is useless and we dont need him imo...

[MYU]

Get rid for free if we have to and tell them everything they want to hear.

[BennyBoyRs]

Why do we need cash for him?
We're not struggling and it it would surely cost us neqrer £250k to keep him for 6 more months (assuming he's earning around £10k at least?!) which is more costly to us. Let him go for a minimul fee as we NEED to free us space for others. This is holding us up, not just finacially, but in the sense that we cannot strengthen whilst he's here.

[Bernie's Barnet]

Surely Lloyd Doyley would be addressing an area where we need to strengthen. He can play anywhere accross the back four can't he?

At the moment, we have 2 LBs, 4CBs and Ramage and Legs for RB. If you bring in Doyley to play RB, then it can only make sense if he is better than both Legs and Ramage. If Legs doesn't play RB, he doesn't get a start. And we are preparing to offer him a new contract, so logically, he should be first choice RB for some time.

Bringing in Doyley could only possibly make sense if Ramage is leaving. But why bring in players who won't cut at Prem level and will therefore need replacing if we go up?

From here on in, the plan should be to get rid of fringe players and replace them only with players who are better than what we have in the starting XI.

[Bernie's Barnet]

Why do we need cash for him?
We're not struggling and it it would surely cost us neqrer £250k to keep him for 6 more months (assuming he's earning around £10k at least?!) which is more costly to us. Let him go for a minimul fee as we NEED to free us space for others. This is holding us up, not just finacially, but in the sense that we cannot strengthen whilst he's here.

You're missing the point. Watford won't pay him anything near £10k a week. They'll be looking to take him on near a free AND for us to contribute to his wages.

[Bluehoop]

You're missing the point. Watford won't pay him anything near £10k a week. They'll be looking to take him on near a free AND for us to contribute to his wages.

Not a chance - on a free yes but contribute to his wages after we've sold him!! Sorry Bernie, don't agree with you on that one.

[BennyBoyRs]

You're missing the point. Watford won't pay him anything near £10k a week. They'll be looking to take him on near a free AND for us to contribute to his wages.

Can't see it mate.

He wants to leave and I'm sure he'll take a cut in pay.

[Ads1985]

We won't buy that a free and us subsidising his wages. If they want him and aren't paying a fee they can sure as hell pay for his wages otherwise what is in it for us?

[BennyBoyRs]

We won't buy that a free and us subsidising his wages. If they want him and aren't paying a fee they can sure as hell pay for his wages otherwise what is in it for us?

I'd imagine the wages are the reason they won't pay much.

[Tarbie]

We won't buy that a free and us subsidising his wages. If they want him and aren't paying a fee they can sure as hell pay for his wages otherwise what is in it for us?

Totally agree, there is no way we should be agreeing to subsidise his wages after he goes.

I suppose it comes down to the player and whether he wants to sit on the bench for a nice salary or whether he actually wants to play a bit of footy!

[Bernie's Barnet]

Can't see it mate.

He wants to leave and I'm sure he'll take a cut in pay.

Seem to remember when he limped up to our doorstep, it was only after Bolton agreed to contribute to his £16k a week salary. The deal was on and off on a number of occasions over that particular point.