• robert snodgrass

Posted: **Fri Jan 13, 2017 10:39 am**

snodgrass would be a great signing should he be up for sale. a better signing than the raved about robbie brady. i doubt if hull will sell but if we offer him a good contract and offer hull enough money, who knows? i rate this player very highly and his work rate is excellent.go on sd dig deep in those pockets

Posted: **Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:50 am**

Brady is a better signing I think. Brady is a lot younger with a lot of potential/ We must think about buying players for years to come, not just for the immediate future.

Posted: **Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:55 am**

Get them both in!!

Posted: **Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:56 am**

Hull will sell but it won't be to us

Posted: **Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:27 pm**

Don't think Hull will sell at all tbh. He virtually is that team - same with Sunderland and Defoe.

Posted: **Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:31 pm**

The thing is, if we're to stay up I think we certainly need 1 or 2 signings like this. Swansea are spending like it's going out of fashion, Palace IMO won't be near the drop zone come the end of the season and from looking at the table, the only team I see as near certainty to go down are Hull. That leaves 2 more spaces, which at the moment I still think we're one of. We need 1-2 more players which may cost 5-10 million each if we're to stay up, which of course will pay for itself several times over.

Posted: **Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:38 pm**

We're a couple of seasons staying at this level to be able to land players like Snodgrass, he'll end up at somewhere like WBA, Stoke etc for around 15m

Posted: **Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:11 pm**

If Snodgrass or Defoe leave their respective sides, that side is in a grave danger of seeing the trap door. Personally I hope they both move on, don't think we'll get Snoddy.
West Ham will get more desperate, and use the money they make on Payet to take Defoe to West Ham.
If Snodgrass is out of contract in the summer, and has refused a new contract then he will be moving on also.

Posted: **Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:18 pm**

claretrobo1 wrote:We must think about buying players for years to come, not just for the immediate future.

Generally I'd agree with that sentiment but this month with the position we're in both financially and in terms of league position we should be focusing entirely on players that can improve our team immediately. We are in the privileged position of being able to afford to write off £10m on signing a player with little resale value if he plays a significant part in keeping us up this season.

Posted: **Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:40 pm**

mybloodisclaret wrote:If Snodgrass or Defoe leave their respective sides, that side is in a grave danger of seeing the trap door. Personally I hope they both move on, don't think we'll get Snoddy.
West Ham will get more desperate, and use the money they make on Payet to take Defoe to West Ham.
If Snodgrass is out of contract in the summer, and has refused a new contract then he will be moving on also.

Dale Stephens is in the same boat and hasn't been sold

Posted: **Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:37 pm**

I believe Snodgrass and Defoe will remain with their respective clubs through the end of the season. Then, as free transfers, they can each negotiate a bigger wage.

Posted: **Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:58 pm**

maidenover wrote:I believe Snodgrass and Defoe will remain with their respective clubs through the end of the season. Then, as free transfers, they can each negotiate a bigger wage.

Snodgrass will not be available on a free transfer in the summer. Hull City took up the extension option on his contract.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38416018" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Sat Jan 14, 2017 10:47 pm**

few rumours knocking about that Boro (who else) are the favourites to get him with a 7 million bid (looks like they've tied up the Bojan deal)

Posted: **Sun Jan 15, 2017 11:23 am**

According to our good friend Alan Nixon, Vegas could very well be right.

Having a, "Good go," apparently.

Posted: **Sun Jan 15, 2017 11:26 am**

Surely Hull would rather sell Snodgrass to Burnley rather than to a relegation rival like Middlesbrough.

Posted: **Sun Jan 15, 2017 11:35 am**

I think Hull have a chance of staying up if they can keep Snodgrass.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:30 pm**

Hull reject £6 million bid from West Ham.

Wba also have bid rejected for Livermore.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:38 pm**

Sidney1st wrote:Hull reject £6 million bid from West Ham.

Have their recruitment team just got a picture of every player from all the teams that are tenth and below, and put them on a wall where a blindfolded Bilic throws darts at them?

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:55 pm**

Bin Ont Turf wrote:Have their recruitment team just got a picture of every player from all the teams that are tenth and below, and put them on a wall where a blindfolded Bilic throws darts at them?

Does feel like they're trying to unsettle key players at clubs in and around them in the league.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 1:59 pm**

FactualFrank wrote:The thing is, if we're to stay up I think we certainly need 1 or 2 signings like this. Swansea are spending like it's going out of fashion, Palace IMO won't be near the drop zone come the end of the season and from looking at the table, the only team I see as near certainty to go down are Hull. That leaves 2 more spaces, which at the moment I still think we're one of. We need 1-2 more players which may cost 5-10 million each if we're to stay up, which of course will pay for itself several times over.

Steady on! "if we're to stay up"... We have just thrashed Sunderland with almost our reserve first team. Our squad is fantastic. We don't need to sign anyone; and we are not going to get relegated. Stop worrying and enjoy the amazing experience of BFC halfway up the Premier League!

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:59 pm**

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... paign=1490

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:59 pm**

Mail reporting we've made a £7.5m bid after being unable to agree terms with Norwich for Brady.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... paign=1490" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

UTC!

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 3:11 pm**

Burnley bidding £7.5 million for a player who is out of contract in six months. Only in the Daily Fail.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 3:13 pm**

Darthlaw wrote:Burnley bidding £7.5 million for a player who is out of contract in six months. Only in the Daily Fail.

He isn't though.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 3:16 pm**

Silly me for trusting the article as it says he is out of contract in six months, however it does basically prove my point about their accuracy.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 3:17 pm**

He has 18 months left in his contract after Hull activated an extension clause in his contract.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 3:20 pm**

He'd be a great signing, but I'd be amazed if we get him.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 3:21 pm**

Yes please!

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 3:21 pm**

I would love it to be true but I never believe anything the awful Daily Mail says

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 3:52 pm**

Sounds as if the Brady deal has gone 'bosom up' and we've turned our attention to Snodgrass.
Can't see us getting Snodgrass to be honest.

Is it all beginning to sound familiar?

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 3:53 pm**

Norwich put a bid in for Sako from palace
Must show they need a left midfielder, replacing Brady
Sounds like crap

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 3:54 pm**

or we could have turned our attention to Snodgrass in an attempt to force the hand of the Norwich board, financially they need to sell according to various reports

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 3:54 pm**

Do we have to choose between Brady and Snodgrass, can we not have them both ?

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 3:55 pm**

Vegas Claret wrote:or we could have turned our attention to Snodgrass in an attempt to force the hand of the Norwich board, financially they need to sell according to various reports

that was my conclusion too

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 4:04 pm**

If Hull sell Snodgrass they have resigned themselves to relegation. I just can't see it. Of the current bottom three, I think they could escape if they keep their best players.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 4:06 pm**

Rick_Muller wrote:that was my conclusion too

Yep, that's what came to mind as well.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 4:11 pm**

Would be hard pressed to say which of the 2 I prefer.

For immediate impact and almost guaranteeing Hull got relegated it would be Snodgrass.

For next year and beyond it would have to be Brady.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 4:30 pm**

Culmclaret wrote:If Hull sell Snodgrass they have resigned themselves to relegation. I just can't see it. Of the current bottom three, I think they could escape if they keep their best players.

Their next four games are Chelsea, Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal, three away. With or without Snodgrass they are ******.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 4:40 pm**

7.5m bid been made

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 4:46 pm**

20m for the pair (Snodgrass and Brady) would be amazing business. We are short of left sided midfielders. (I'm not entirely joking!)

We would be Centre Forward (to be bought in the summer) away from a "proper" Premier League squad.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 4:59 pm**

andyh wrote:20m for the pair (Snodgrass and Brady) would be amazing business. We are short of left sided midfielders. (I'm not entirely joking!)

We would be Centre Forward (to be bought in the summer) away from a "proper" Premier League squad.

It'd be a gamble if the worst came to the worst but a great move and showing some real intent, effectively using a bit of next seasons money now. That'd be a calculated risk I'd be happy to take!!

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:05 pm**

andyh wrote:20m for the pair (Snodgrass and Brady) would be amazing business. We are short of left sided midfielders. (I'm not entirely joking!)

We would be Centre Forward (to be bought in the summer) away from a "proper" Premier League squad.

I don't see that happening however if the plan is too try and sign both then I will not criticise the board if we get no-one, I like too see intent and this would certainly show the board mean business.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:12 pm**

Boden has confirmed a bid for Snodgrass has been made by Burnley.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:16 pm**

jedi_master wrote:Boden has confirmed a bid for Snodgrass has been made by Burnley.

Interesting. Can't see them accepting, but if reports Norwich are holding out on selling Brady until they get a replacement are true it could well hurry things along there.

We'll see what happens.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:17 pm**

Not having this at all. He'll probably already be earning more than our highest paid players and he'll know a bigger pay-day awaits at the likes of West Ham.

Suspect it's more likely that BFC are using media to get stories out there that might pressurise Norwich into a decision on Brady.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:20 pm**

agreenwood wrote:Not having this at all. He'll probably already be earning more than our highest paid players and he'll know a bigger pay-day awaits at the likes of West Ham.

Suspect it's more likely that BFC are using media to get stories out there that might pressurise Norwich into a decision on Brady.

Well I hope Norwich call our bluff an we end up accidentally signing Snodgrass.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:21 pm**

It's certainly an aggressive approach from us whatever the situation. Good to see.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:21 pm**

Do you think we could afford him?

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:25 pm**

I can't see Burnley putting an offer in unless they've been encouraged. Still raise an eyebrow if it came to anything. That said, Snodgrass would certainly be my preference over Brady.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:48 pm**

He does seem a little injury prone but his free kicks and goals would definitely keep us up

robert snodgrass

robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass

Re: robert snodgrass