- Jun 9, 2003
- 8,337
- 21,678
I'd love us to sign Brooks (and I was against Grealish and Maddison). He's a genuinely high quality prospect with excellent footballing vision and creativity.
The cheapest we'd get Brooks for is £40-45m. Personally, I think that he's worth it.
I live in Sheffield, he's rated as Walker and Naughton were. Very Highly.
First names we look at when? Why are we discussing a 6th option AM for 45mil?He looks a great player and Poch could do wonders with him.
I think he should be one of the first names we look at. He was at City's academy for 10 years, so hopefully that will rule out United if they try for him.
You can't replace Eriksen.First names we look at when? Why are we discussing a 6th option AM for 45mil?
If Eriksen goes would this be the replacement? Is that the thinking?
No moaning, just genuinely curious as to the line of thinking.You can't replace Eriksen.
Now I have said that, you can moan some more. Enjoy!
I'd love a name that we've been linked to that could 'replace' Eriksen. I don't see many names. Brooks wouldn't be a 'replacement' for Eriksen though, that's for sure.No moaning, just genuinely curious as to the line of thinking.
I thought we were buddies now?!
If we had signed him he would be ahead of Lamela for me in terms of team selection. One of the stand out players in the teams below the top 6. Way better than Maddison and much less hype because he is Welsh not English.First names we look at when? Why are we discussing a 6th option AM for 45mil?
If Eriksen goes would this be the replacement? Is that the thinking?
I’d pay it. For me he is clearly a better player than Davinson Sanchez and we happily (?) paid 40 million or so for him.If West Ham are being quoted 60-70 for Wilson , then brooks will probably be in the same bracket, I reckon.