Official: Will Hughes joins Watford

[Kernow]

Would be disappointed if Hughes went for anything under £10m to be honest. I'd be disgusted if he went for £5m.

However the HITC article has a hugely misleading title designed to get more clicks (shock, I know). It says Watford are closing in, which suggests the deal is almost done, but in the main text, they are only lining up a bid.

I'm not going to worry until there are significant reports that we have actually accepted a figure like that, although I cannot see how that is ever going to be possible unless we are forced to through some kind of clause.

[Cam the Ram]

2 minutes ago, McLovin said:

So you think selling Hughes for only 5 million is right then?

I think a more plausible explanation is that when he signed his new contract back in January Rush/Mel were confident of promotion (we were on a good run and up to 7th) and agreed that if we didn't go up he could have that release clause or Hughes would only re-sign with that release clause included and Derby hoped that figure wouldn't get leaked to other clubs (sort of like Bristol Rovers and Matty Taylor).

[EnigmaRam]

3 minutes ago, McLovin said:

Dean Jones, said that Watford are close to 5 million deal for Will Hughes.

Must be true then!!! FFS ?

[rynny]

1 minute ago, Cam the Ram said:

I think a more plausible explanation is that when he signed his new contract back in January Rush/Mel were confident of promotion (we were on a good run and up to 7th) and agreed that if we didn't go up he could have that release clause or Hughes would only re-sign with that release clause included and Derby hoped that figure wouldn't get leaked to other clubs (sort of like Bristol Rovers and Matty Taylor).

I doubt we would put in a ridiculously low figure in after what happened with Bryson.

[Sexydadbod]

Just now, rynny said:

Where did I say that? The report is a load of rubbish, so in turn makes your theory rubbish. Hughes is away at an international tournament and will be focusing on that, he won't be interested in doing any deal at the moment. The club have been pumping quite a bit out about Hughes out, another tweet minutes ago. Just because it has been reported doesn't mean it is true. Look how many threads there are on this board about transfers, how many have happened?

 

How do you know the report is a load of rubbish? Is that more hope? The fact that Hughes is away with the under 21s means nothing, Pickford signed for Everton whilst over there, they can easily organise medicals. I'm not saying the report is true but *if we did sell him for only 5 million* then that suggests to me that we still owe Watford money so to compensate for that, they get one of our star assets on the cheap.

[therealhantsram]

4 minutes ago, Andicis said:

I don't understand. Why are we selling off our quality footballers, to replace them with workman like players? Who actually wants to become the 'next boro' where you go up for one season, play dreadful football. Once you make the premier league, you still play dreadful football and get relegated due to whimpering 1-0/2-0 defeats.

In an interview towards the end of the season Rowett talked about improved energy/workrate etc and cited Burnley and Boro as role models for the way to get out of this league.  The clues were there. This has been coming.   

[catram]

2 minutes ago, EnigmaRam said:

Must be true then!!! FFS ?

how can you trust a man like mother ****** jones

[BuckoBeast]

No way on earth Mel would sanction the sale of Will for 5 million. Not a chance. We might sell but at least double the figure, at least 

[Cam the Ram]

4 minutes ago, rynny said:

I doubt we would put in a ridiculously low figure in after what happened with Bryson.

So do I, but I was trying to offer a more plausible possibility than the whole owing Watford money idea if this deal were to somehow happen.

[Andicis]

3 minutes ago, therealhantsram said:

In an interview towards the end of the season Rowett talked about improved energy/workrate etc and cited Burnley and Boro as role models for the way to get out of this league.  The clues were there. This has been coming.   

Thing is, this is certainly not what I want to see. I can't speak for others, perhaps people do want this, however I don't subscribe to to the 'premier league is so important we can ruin our style of play to get there'. I'd prefer to see fluid, passing football.

[nottingram]

4 minutes ago, McLovin said:

How do you know the report is a load of rubbish? Is that more hope? The fact that Hughes is away with the under 21s means nothing, Pickford signed for Everton whilst over there, they can easily organise medicals. I'm not saying the report is true but *if we did sell him for only 5 million* then that suggests to me that we still owe Watford money so to compensate for that, they get one of our star assets on the cheap.

Well if you look at it like that then he hasn't really gone for £5m has he? Obviously that's what the books and records will say, but if we owed Watford another say £8m, and that's been written off, then he'll have actually cost Watford £13m. (as long as this £8m example was all tied up in clauses that looked achievable).

Obviously this also ignores the fact that we massively overpaid for Vydra and Anya. Unfortunately, nothing can be done about that now.

[DEL]

Hughesy is a MUST KEEP. 

 

 

P.S Can't Watford have Bryson instead?

[Topram]

Maybe this is why they are waiting to announce Wisdom 

[rynny]

1 minute ago, McLovin said:

How do you know the report is a load of rubbish? Is that more hope? The fact that Hughes is away with the under 21s means nothing, Pickford signed for Everton whilst over there, they can easily organise medicals. I'm not saying the report is true but *if we did sell him for only 5 million* then that suggests to me that we still owe Watford money so to compensate for that, they get one of our star assets on the cheap.

There is a difference between Sunderland selling for big money and us letting one of our biggest assets go for a low sum. We will likely "owe" Watford money for the deals as transfers are very rarely paid all up front. We will more than likely be due to pay Watford £2m-ish for Vydra and around £1.25m-ish for Anya. The same way we are still paying Norwich for Johnson and Huddersfield for Butterfield etc etc. It is something every club does.

What you are suggesting is that we have returned to the days of the 3 amigos where we are struggling to pay bills, and are having to do short term deals to get by (El Hamdaoui on loan for the due fees of Raisak and Huddlestone).

[Sexydadbod]

9 minutes ago, Cam the Ram said:

I think a more plausible explanation is that when he signed his new contract back in January Rush/Mel were confident of promotion (we were on a good run and up to 7th) and agreed that if we didn't go up he could have that release clause or Hughes would only re-sign with that release clause included and Derby hoped that figure wouldn't get leaked to other clubs (sort of like Bristol Rovers and Matty Taylor).

That's another interesting theory. People are quick to get defensive but forget it is only my opinion. Football clubs make strange decisions, Davies for 500k is another example. Not blaming it on Rowett or anything because it might have been a clause in a contract that was agreed previously and now taken out of his hands like the Bent extension. It's not as if we haven't made silly decisions before like loaning one of the top scorers out of deadline day.

[duncanjwitham]

4 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Thing is, this is certainly not what I want to see. I can't speak for others, perhaps people do want this, however I don't subscribe to to the 'premier league is so important we can ruin our style of play to get there'. I'd prefer to see fluid, passing football.

And looking at what happened when they got there, 'Boro went down disastrously and Burnley just scraped 40 points.   Hardly a ringing endorsement for going up playing that way.

[Wolfie20]

4 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Thing is, this is certainly not what I want to see. I can't speak for others, perhaps people do want this, however I don't subscribe to to the 'premier league is so important we can ruin our style of play to get there'. I'd prefer to see fluid, passing football.

Maybe we shouldn't have appointed Rowett then?    

[DEL]

3 minutes ago, Topram said:

Maybe this is why they are waiting to announce Wisdom 

Don't be silly.

[duncanjwitham]

Just now, Wolfie20 said:

Maybe we shouldn't have appointed Rowett then?    

I certainly wasn't keen on him, for this very reason.  And nothing I've seen since has changed my mind.

[Cam the Ram]

1 minute ago, McLovin said:

That's another interesting theory. People are quick to get defensive but forget it is only my opinion. Football clubs make strange decisions, Davies for 500k is another example. Not blaming it on Rowett or anything because it might have been a clause in a contract that was agreed previously and now taken out of his hands like the Bent extension. It's not as if we haven't made silly decisions before like loaning one of the top scorers out of deadline day.

Yep. I personally am leaning towards journalists trying to get clicks at the minute, but it is a bit worrying that he was linked with Brighton for £4 million by a journalist from The People and now for £5 million from two other journalists from different organisations.