The College Dropout

If we had a good window, we can over take them in 2 windows. Not 2.5 years ahead at all. We managed 1 shot on target and a poor Xg. Brighton had 7 shots on target and had an Xg well over 1. We were lucky to get the point.

McClaren is an awful AM for ETH. This Man Utd team lacks physicality in the way the SMC NUFC team really lacked physicality. This Mab U side does a lot of the useless passing and lack of intensity and physicality off the ball that the SMC team had with us. That Anita & Colback shit duo. ETH needs an AM who will tell him the hard truths about EPL football.

I'm not suprised. Our bids were way below market value. We seemingly have a spending cap short of the £50m+ it would take to get him.

This is it. I expect us to get this over the line.

We’ve become the FFP police. Let’s rename the thread.

When you focus on players 25 and under - resale value is an inherent factor. When FFP is a significant factor - resale value is also a significant factor. Because you know, every club sells players and selling players generates revenue. I don't think we'll have a window signing 2 players 29 and older for the first team again in this current phase of our evolution.

Yes exactly - so we are not looking for a Dan Burn short-term type. Again, the hesitation around the Targett transfer is proof. If Targett was 29, I don't think we sign him or at least we take longer to do it. And MT is better than we initially thought he was (fans and mgmt imo). OUTFIELD - READ. 30 as a GK is the equivalent of mid / late 20's for an outfield player. That's why we gave Pope a 4-year deal and CW/DB 2.5 year deals. The club expect Pope to be here in 3.5 years, they don't for the other 2. They are not the same type of transfer strategically. Pope was bought with the intention of being here post-midtable transition, the other 2 aint.

This summer we've not been seriously linked with any outfield player over 25 for a reason.

Never said it's a waste of money. We didn't get our top target in January but we needed a short-term improvement in that position and we got it. And stayed up. £50m on central defenders and only 1 is likely to start isn't great from FFP perspective though. 1 of them having low resale value and not having European level ability isn't great for FFP either. Clearly FFP is v. important to upper management. Going forward... blah blah.. Swap Burn out for Wood if it makes you feel better....

This is what i'm talking about. I'm talking strategy - a plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or overall aim. Wood was brought in to help get us safe (he did) and provide competition and solid back-up for the next 2 years (he won't and this is a problem). We don't anticipate to recoup all of the money (if any) on the transfer because of age, contract length and initial fee. Burn was brought in to help get us safe (he did) and provide competition and solid back-up for the next 2 years (he will). We don't anticipate to recoup all of the money (if any) on the transfer because of age, contract length and initial fee. That was the strategy for a lot of signings in January. That's not the strategy going forward. Anyways - need to finish some work. Cheers lads.

Don't rate Dennis really. Glad we've not gone in for him.

I just have my own opinions. Which I support with logic. Someone said I don't "think". If anything it can be argued that I overthink. I take the information that we know, the strong rumours and try to fit it into a coherant strategy. I don't get butthurt over small examples. I could have used Wood instead. Wood and Burn are the same type of signing. Shock horror I know.

I would take a DB type winger (let's say 8-11 G/A in the PL) over our lads on loan for a year. Those types don't tend to get loaned out unless they're coming from a big club like the Chelsea lot. I think Trossard and Harrison are in that bracket ability wise. Much better than what we have but not potential top 6 quality.

I think people just want to disagree with me. I think ON agreed and made the same point - nobody has quoted him to tell him he's wrong.

@Happinesstan @Optimistic Nut Agree a loan is preferred. No point in going the Dan Burn route on a permanent transfer. I think Harrison is potentially in a similar bucket. That's why we won't go higher than what we think we might be able to get for him in a couple years if things go well. I think he's a genuine upgrade on Almiron but we'll probably want to upgrade relatively soon so resale value is key. For similar money I think we could get Zaha and he could be a transformative player for us. But no resale value at all really. Maddison is transformative for me but seemingly too expensive. Ramos ticks everything in terms of what the Management want. I think we need someone who can play RW more though.

Which posters do this? If you have any criticism - lots of people cry. That's what really happens. I don't think anyone is genuinely unhappy about things with the club. Some are *underwhelmed* at the window, some think we might not improve attackers and are dissappointed. Some think some mistakes have been made along the way. Nobody thinks the Owners want us to remain midtable forever and won't try to make us better.

@Tomato Deuce "once Botman was brought in". If Botman was in from January as we intended.. do we need a temporary fix? I'm talking from a strategic perspective. You realise he and Wood are the same type of signing strategically? Brought in to keep us up. Proven lower midtable performer. It was fine then. But going forward - we won't be doing that as part of our transfer strategy.

This is not some big swipe at beloved Dan Burn. Just simply. As of summer 22 we aren't looking to sign players for the short-term in age and ability with low resale value. Because it chips away at FFP. Also, however you look at it. I am right, Dan Burn was a Plan B at best. We went back for Plan A and got him. We now have tremendous depth and ability at CB... and little depth and ability in attacking positions. With cost/FFP being part of the reason we don't have players in place already. We haven't signed any players so far who haven't gone straight into the XI (after some bedding in). We wouldn't have signed beloved Dan if Botman came earlier. @KaKa is another one who loves to comment and contradict my posts. He's being slow and i've work to do. THINK KAKA - THINK.

Yes, I never said it hasn't worked. I just said we need to stop doing that going forward. People took that as severe criticism of Dan Burn.

I think you're right. Which makes Dan Burn plan C. Carlos was another short-ish term solution because of his age. That's why we didn't go back in for him.

We needed a left footed CB according to Howe. He wanted one asap. He wanted Botman. That fell through, so he went to plan B. A short-term fix. Same question: Do you think we sign Burn if the Botman deal didn't fall through? https://theathletic.com/3295092/2022/05/07/newcastle-and-ffp-why-they-wont-become-the-new-manchester-city-overnight/

He's always got something to say about my posts and i'm pretty sure he's outright insulted me in the past. He's a big lad, it's only a little sass. If we signed Botman in January, do you think we would've signed Burn in January?

Plan B for Botman was Dan Burn. THINK HANS THINK. Signing a second attacker in January wasn't a priority. Otherwise we would've signed someone - even if it was on loan. So we waited. It's a priority now though. And we'll sign someone, even on loan.

This convo all came from me and LV talking about short-term signings (eg Dan Burn, Chris Wood) approach we had in January. We both agreed we wouldn't do that again this summer but I thought we would be willing to do it on loan rather than a permanent signing. People got butthurt that I used Burn as an example. Strategically, Burn and Wood (ability wise I think Targett was also in ths bracket) are the same type of signing - one worked, one hasn't.

A club might have 1-3 primary targets for a position. Once you go further - it is no longer primary. Hugo was plan A. Evidently we didn't have much of a plan B because we still don't have an attacker in - a month after that deal fell through. I think our other primary targets were that Winger from the German division (too expensive), Isak (too expensive), Harrison (bid rumoured - too expensive). We moved on to the likes of Maddison, who at this point was clearly not a primary target (bid - too expensive). Again suggesting we had not done that much research into what they might cost (Harrison and JM at least). Of course it applies. Every relevant league in Europe will have started by the weekend. It is late in the window. You either sign players who clubs were hoping to sell anyway or pay a premium.