Should Hammers Pay King's Ransom?

'Apparently' West Ham United's pursuit of striker Joshua King from relegated Bournemouth has hit the buffers as a result of the player's wage demands, on closer examination the Noregian International's demands seem little different to the 'going rate' for experienced Barclays Premier League strikers. The player who has entered the last year of his contract was nearly sold to Manchester United in the January window for a fee of around £20 Million, that figure has now reduced drastically as he will have the option to leave for free in less than nine months and is allowed to negotiate pre-contracts as soon as the 'winter window' opens in January.

So, top player available at a knock down price, what's the problem? King's contract with the Cherries is for £45,000 per week, a figure he wishes to double before countenancing a move to the London Stadium,that figure is too rich for the Irons hierarchy, the same 'people' who authorised £100,000 per week for Jack Wilshere and a whopping £115,000 per week for the near perpetually injured Andrily Yarmolenko. While £90,000 per week seems a bit strong, especially given the current fiscal plight being endured by all clubs great and small, it is considerably less than the other wages handed out by the board, and of course we keep banging on about the folly of paying 80% of Winston Reid's wages just to 'rehabilitate' him in warmer climes!

Weary sceptical Irons fans will see the news about the problems in finalising a deal for King as nothing unusual, in fact the general consensus is that this attempted acquisition is just one of a whole stack of 'failed' moves, and that any serious interest 'apparently' shown was just to appease fans and to ensure that the fan base left it's funding with the club instead of demanding season ticket rebates.

It that was the owners plan, it has fallen flat on it's face, as many other of their 'exotic' fantasies have done in the past, should Irons pay 'King's Ransom'? You betcha, will they? Very much doubt it! -Ed