macphisto

100% agree about going for real quality. I know it doesn't apply to all players and you can get quality free transfers, etc. but I do think the graph below shows you where Everton have gone wrong. Buying a lot of £20 million players is false economy as you end up buying as many bad players as good ones or players who are not an improvement on what you already have. I'm not saying it's the only reason for Everton's struggles but it does partially explain the trouble they are in. I'd much rather go for real quality over quantity.

Does teams putting two/three men on ASM reflect well on Targett? Surely he should be one of the first players looking to capitalise? Maybe that's why we might be looking at other players like Lodi.

You can't compare the two teams when West Ham are in Europe and we're not.

Cheers and I agree about getting the best players possible, no matter what league they play in. I suppose I care about Levy's reputation

And a SD Mug

What point are you making? My original point was that Levy has an over inflated reputation for being a tough negotiator which is not backed up by a lot of evidence. "having no reason to sell and us being owned by one of the worlds largest SWF"=Applies to most selling clubs, irrespective of the league. "EPL transfer involving the wealthy clubs usually lead to inflated fees."=Applies to all English clubs, irrespective of the league. Your example of Chris Wood backs up my point even more as they're not one of the wealthier clubs and still received a high transfer fee. Are you saying we should not buy from any English clubs?

Honestly, I would say Ashley was just as tough a negotiator, certainly when it came to buying players.

That basically applies to almost all selling clubs.

Is this a bit of a cliche based on Berbatov and Bale? I don't think he's this amazing negotiator that people give him credit for. Looking at their transfer history, since Bale went in 2013/14, the only player that stands out where they might have received an above average fee is Kyle Walker in 2017/18. Looking at arrivals, they have spent a lot of money on players who have had little impact which would indicate they have overpaid for a few players; poor scouting also plays a part too.

That would only be an issue if the owners weren't fully behind Howe or the players had backchannels to the owners, similar to PSG and Chelsea. In our case, I reckon Staveley will be right behind Howe and will not stand for any disruption from the players. I'm also sure new players won't just be Howe's players but ones agreed by a number pf parties within the club so if a signing goes wrong, Howe will not be held solely responsible.

Worth mentioning the the impact of the world cup next season. That could seriously distort the league. Will those teams with few players in Qatar/latter stages of the tournament have a big advantage? A real unknown.

Hall had planning permission for the training ground at Woolsington in the past. It might have lapsed but there was no problems securing it back then.

He hasn't got a great attitude on the pitch where he hasn't put in the hard work. The Man U fans on their forum would certainly disagree too.

We see football slightly differently as in my view most of the players above were either never originally tipped as being that great when they were young (Lingard, Huth), their drop in form wasn't anything like Rashford (Cole, Modric) or they didn't exactly hit the heights when they recovered their form (Shaw, Lingard again, Zaha).

I would say not being a regular in this Man U team is a catastrophic failure as they are terrible in relation to where they have been in the past. He's only scored 4 goals and has 2 assists. Regardless of the problems at Man U, at this stage of his career he should be doing more than enough to be starting for the team and contributing more than he has. Stats wise, apart from 2019/20 and how bad he has been this season, his goals and assists have not significantly improved since he came onto the scene. To widen the discussion, I had a look at the youngest players to play for England. A good few of them burst on the scene, went downhill and none of them went onto fulfil their potential (I am only talking about the ones who had a big drop in form); looking at the list, in most cases making an England debut as youngster is a bad omen! Not a flair player but the only one who stood out to me was Gareth Barry as someone who was highly regarded as a youngster, middle years were not great and then was well thought of again in the latter years of his career.

As I said above, not making excuses but changing countries can often account for changes in form, both up and down. Can you think of anyone who only played in one league who went on to fulfil their potential after a drop in form like Rashford?

I'm not making excuses but with Forlan and others, for example Jon Dahl Tomasson, some are just not suited to certain leagues so changing countries can sometimes account for a drop in form and it is not too surprising they recover when they move to a different league. Vary rare for a player to been as the "next best thing" like Rashford (he made his England debut in 2016), have a dramatic dip and then recover all in the same league. Andy Cole was mentioned, but he went from roughly one goal in every three games at Man U initially to one in every two games after a few seasons so stats wise he wasn't doing that bad when he went through a low. I really can't think of anyone.

I wouldn't think so for ASM or Shelvey as I can't see Ashley/Justin Barnes allowing those type of clauses. The only issue with ASM is that I would think when he signed that "informally" he expected to have moved on by now or been sold in the summer under Ashley where he would have received a signing-on bonus and increased wages from his new club. I'm sure players signed for us under Ashley with the understanding that we would offer them a platform to perform in the PL and would happily let them move on as long as we maid a profit on the transfer fee.

I hear what you're saying but he should still be putting in more of a shift in my opinion. I don't mind him being poor but it's more the lack of effort I find a concern. Look at Joelinton before Howe or further back Shearer, under Gullit, they still put in a shift even if they were out of form/out of position/problems with a manager. Genuine question, can you think of any players in the past, similar to Rashford, who were seen as a top young player, had a big dip, and then went on to be a top player? I'm not trying to be clever asking that question, I just can't think of anyone off the top of my head.

His work ethic this season is what I find most concerning. Players can be out of form but he's just not trying which is a real concern for a local lad who came through the ranks.

I would not want Rashford anywhere near the club but if he did come then I'd want his salary highly performance related.

The idea we're not going to go much above a wage structure set by Mike Ashley is baffling. With regards to Bruno, we've no idea what his salary is or what he received as a signing-on fee; there may also be other ways to pay someone, for example family members. But lets not kid ourselves, a Brazilian international isn't going to come to Newcastle when relegation was a real threat unless he's getting very well paid. He knows he would have had other clubs to choose from this summer.

I agree about a manager not having too much power but I would say that's where the importance of a Director of Football comes in as they set the philosophy for the club to follow and appoint appropriate managers to fulfil that philosophy. I guess the crucial question for the future is how rigid will the club's philosophy be in regards to appointing managers? With respect to signing players, I like the idea that Liverpool follow in having a transfer committee where in our case it would possibly be Howe, Ashworth, scouting team and the data team. Reading what you've said above, I don't think we're miles apart in our view but my emphasis is not on "Targett out" as he's not our player but rather "Targett in" at the expense of a player more suited to Howe's style of play. If he is suited to Howe's style of play then great, I have no issues at all. I would imagine Howe and Ashworth are not far apart in their views. We will undoubtedly make mistakes in the transfer market and but based on the club's pragmatism and business in January together with Ashworth's input I am sure we will avoid the mistakes that Everton made. A few months back, Staveley and Ghodoussi went to look around Man City and I am sure they must have discussed the mistakes City experienced in their first few years and also the importance of having a strong infrastructure in place.

And? This whole discussion was started earlier on by someone mentioning the Waugh article today in the Athletic which stated Targett might not be the automatic signing that everyone assumes as Howe likes attacking fullbacks. If that is what Howe is looking for then I'd fully back him in looking elsewhere as Targett is not an attacking fullback which his time at Villa and with us illustrates. I have no problem with Targett as a defender, all I have said is that Howe should buy the player best suited to his system. I'm pleased you mention Everton as that is exactly the model people are advocating we follow if you buy players who are not suited to the style of play a manager wants to implement. If Howe sees Targett as his type of player then great, I'd be all for that. If he is not his type of player then move on to someone else. It would be crazy to buy a player not suited to your style of play no matter how good they are, that is where Everton, Man U and PSG have gone wrong in the past.

You know I was on about developing players, you're just being pedantic brining European qualification into it. What I meant is his priority with regards to developing players should be those three as they are the ones where the jury is out but all have the potential to fit into Howe's future plans and style of play.