80

Just a little bit

Have to say, I'm working on the assumption that story about the original contract being for 3.5 years - or something to that effect - is true. Which made the need to open discussions a lot more pressing.

Great news. Good to see him smiling like himself again. I'm unavoidably a bit paranoid about the details, but have to give credit to all for getting it done i.e. Mitchell included. Let's just get these results sorted out and have more good content like this.

It's all about the performances for me. The most critical thing is seeing the players heads don't drop.

It's not the injury it once was, so I'm crossing my fingers.

Tell you what, I think we'd benefit from having him at the moment... We could do with someone throwing some elbows and meowing to wind up defenders at the minute, we really are missing it.

I think Murphy needs to be psychologically refreshed on a regular basis, also. I don't think he deals well with being the main man.

Agree with all that. There was one other motivation I thought we might have had for signing him, which was basically that we wanted to have two first XIs to deal with the heavy European season. Basically treating them like tyres on an F1 car, switching them over game by game to retain full energy levels. But that never happened either...

The daft thing is I wouldn't rule out us picking up 6 points from those games. I'm not holding my breath, but still.

By the way, I agree with those that say a lot of our game game against Brighton was fantastic. We were superb in the first 3/4 of the pitch for probably 60 minutes, certainly the first 30. We were 85% of the way to an outstanding result. I don't want this to be a baby and bathwater situation. But all the same, like installing software, that last 15% is critical to making the entire effort worthwhile.

It isn't just the end product from forwards, although I agree with your gist. It's the lack of movement, variety and coordination among the front 6. Lots of desire, but not a lot of forethought. I really hate to say it but our attacking game has given me "let's play" vibes for much of the past year. We used to have CMs getting into great scoring positions, Willock used to be a menace, but that's a rarity now. Remember Tonali crashing the box for our first goal of last season? How often do we see players even vaguely getting into that position now, let alone receiving the ball or scoring? We've become fretful and spasmodic.

I'm inclined to agree with this, but the difference between us and you is present day revenue. You're not too far off being an unsinkable ship, but we have to keep the hamster wheel turning, and that may have to involve making some messy compromises while we build up our energy reserves.

Hopefully it all works out alright. Cards on the table, my prediction is we limit any signings to those Mitchell actively wants to bequeath to Howe's successor next summer, which may well mean none at all in January. That would give the new structure a big wodge to play with, probably heavily aided by income from outgoing purples. We restructure ourselves along the lines of more Pedros and Whartons and less Isaks and Brunos. I'm ok ultimately accepting Howe is/was at fault for much of our situation, but I take issue with assuming it's the case, given various bits of evidence to the contrary and the overall credit he has in the bank as a man and manager. If we do end up pursuing players other than Guehi and Elanga in January, I've got no reason to expect it's because Eddie's been talked down out of a tree. Conversely, I don't like the assumption that Mitchell (and co.) is somehow blameless and a hostage to fortune regarding things that have happened since he's arrived. I remain perplexed at the idea he sincerely spent weeks trying to sign a player he thought should not be signed for a damagingly high amount of money that would cost him the opportunity to shape the club's future. Either he believed in it, or he was trying to con us, or con Howe or he's a dummy (too, if need be). So one way or another he needs to be watched. We - as supporters - are just having navigate blind on what's currently going on at the club. We've only really got track records and historic personal conduct to go on, which is why I'm highly reluctant to turn on anyone who's done well by us based on conjecture. My hope remains that they do work well together, are in simpatico on targets (including Guehi, because it turns out they were both dead right to highly desire him) and Eddie cracks our offensive problems, giving us a good finish to the season, with a view to him partaking in revolutionising things next summer. That's the ideal.

Not sure if he's said more since the video I saw, but Downie never mentioned those two clubs, in fairness to him. Did mention something about 'specific clubs' though.

To be up front, I don't think we'll be back in for Elanga, and Guehi would only be on substantially lower terms if at all, by the way.

See, if we were, it would tell me either Mitchell backs the moves - at whatever eventual fee, and regardless of what he said or implied in earlier interviews - or he's a stunningly weak director and we've got bigger problems than just Eddie Howe.

It's a valid question, and if Eddie was seriously staking his career on those two, then you'd have to think about moving on from him instead. But I don't think it's most likely that that's his position, given who he's signed and attempted to sign in his time here and at Bournemouth e.g. he tried to sign a cheap, unproven foreigner from abroad like Fabian Schar before Rafa brought him here. On balance it seems more likely that Mitchell chose to back the Guehi and Elanga moves in August, given he had full executive authority, and then wash his hands of the situation once it was all messed up. If we were back in for them, do you think you'd hold Howe or Mitchell responsible?

I was under the impression it involved some trickery around them signing Almiron for a certain fee in return too, to oil the deal.

Definitely starting to feel more like an 'if' than a 'when'. Hope he gets over whatever it is because he can be huge for us. And I hate to say it, but we can do without another player's transfer value going up in smoke also. On or off the pitch, he's really important.

June, July, August - 3 months, and the hijack really occurred in mid-May as I recall. I'm not commenting on how good he is, but we definitely were on the verge of signing him and definitely wouldn't have spent a month or two trying to sign Guehi on top of Tosin and Kelly. It boils down to that, basically - any further attempts at meaningful signings would've been focused on a totally different part of the pitch.

There's been pretty substantial reporting that that was the case since it happened. We wanted a defender and RW/Forward, in that order of priority. If we couldn't get a free defender, it realistically meant using much of our limited budget on one and sacrificing attacking options. And, given how precarious our financial situation has been, I don't really find it surprising, or blameworthy to be honest. Freebies who we think can play a serious first team role for us are a massive fast forward button for the club given PSR and how little natural sales value we have in the team (outside of the Brunos etc.). Remove the fast forward button and everything downstream is badly impacted..

I agree about the fully knowing the stipulation part. I'm not going to hang my opinion about anyone at the club on this story, I just thought it was interesting Downie reckoned he'd wanted to report this snippet since before his paternity leave. And like I say, I can see the perspective on not wanting to give him a clause for something like £18m, even if I might've done it. But I disagree that the idea it heavily affected/wrecked our summer doesn't stack up. It would've given us three months with £60m in our pocket to try and jazz up the right wing, which I think would've changed the character of our season.

Well, you could make arguments about weakening our negotiating position with other squad members, signing a player who doesn't seem fully committed, rebuilding a sense that NUFC is a stepping stone rather than a destination. But even allowing for that I find it hard to disagree with your position. All reporting - contemporary and subsequent - suggests him switching away was a hammer blow to our plans. And the rest of the summer proves we weren't really in a strong bargaining position. All usual caveats about the truthfulness of the report apply...

(Have always wanted to do that)

When it's that widespread I can't think it's only down to individual failings.